User:Winkelvi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:09, 22 April 2015

This editor is a
**Veteran Editor II**
and is entitled to display this
**Bronze Editor Star**.

This user has
Asperger's.

If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Wikipedia editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help.

If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page. If you're here and see typos on my page, please refrain from believing you have a right to "fix" them. My userspace, my typos, my biz-ness (typo intentional). If the typos bother you so much, let me know. I'll git to fixin' 'em some day. (typos intentional)

Because being on the Autism Spectrum uffects everything I do (typo intentional), think, and say, whether it be in real life or on the internet, and since the reason why most people come to an editor's user space is to find out more about 'em, (typo intentional) I ask that you read the "The Autie Pact". Written beautifully by long-time editor User:ThatPeskyCommoner, the pact should be read by all neuro-typical Wikipedia editors in order to better understand how to work well and peacefully with non-neurotypical editors (such as myself). The pact is very complete, however, there are a couple of things I would add to them thar words frum Pesky (typos and grammatical errors intentional):

Because those of us on the Spectrum are unfailingly "rule-followers", we are also honest to a fault. When we are accused of lying or intentionally being disruptive or not acting in good faith, it's quite hurtful.
Because many of us on the spectrum have considerably higher-than-normal IQs and our brains often times run at break-neck speed, we can become "over-loaded" with data-input and information.
- When that happens, we can either "snap" due to the stress and say or do something our normally logical brains wouldn't allow us to do;
- or, we may implement coping strategies, one of which could be disengaging for a time from what is overloading and stressing us. This gives us time to analyze and work out what to do/say/think next.

When both the latter and former are employed, we appreciate it when those "around" us demonstrate patience while we may regroup. If we have only employed the former and have forgotten to be socially gracious, a gentle reminder to apologize to those we may have lashed out at is not a bad idea - if that apology is warranted. In the meantime, please don't pressure us while we are taking that time out. It only adds to our data overload.

Those of us on the spectrum who enjoy editing Wikipedia want pretty much the same thing the neurotypical editors want: to add to Wikipedia and have fun doing it. And to edit in peace. Because unwanted drama and the stress that goes with it sucks.

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓

Bullies and sharks

I subscribe very strongly to the premise and points stated in the Wikipedia essay WikiBullying. Those who bully others as a way to assert their feelings of article (and Wikipedia) ownership are behaving in a despicable manner, period. Another detestable behavior in Wikipedia is that which is akin to circling sharks, looking for weakness. Such shark-like behavior occurs at noticeboards where some editors go to wait for the kill and then tear editors to shreds. The behavior of each type (bullies and sharks) is at the heart of what is wrong with Wikipedia. Then again, some editors are just assholes and enjoy exhibiting their assholery because: it's easy to do when you're anonymous via a screen name and because this is the internet, where such behavior has become all too commonplace.

A disturbing trend

I'm noticing more and more a very disturbing and encroaching trend among editors -- mostly newer editors and young editors: no one seems to understand what an encyclopedia is, what encyclopedic tone is, what makes for encyclopedic content and what doesn't. It seems to me that with most reading outside of school being done on the internet these days, people under 30-or-so have no concept of the difference between tabloid content and true encyclopedic content is. More and more, new and/or younger editors think because it's sourced, it should be included in Wikipedia. They think anything in the news belongs in Wikipedia. Anything that is quoted from an online source or a celebrity is reliable. They think anything found in a reliable source is automatically inclusive. This is what will continue more and more to be a real problem with Wikipedia and keep its reliability factor in the toilet. And all because kids don't know the difference between encyclopedic tone and People Magazine.

Funny stuff
Found this at the userspace of an editor who had just accused me of something I wasn't doing (no good faith there), called me a jerk (civility and maturity?) and threatened me after repeated repostings of content I deleted off my own talk page. Funny stuff. :-)

Great advice and quotes

The following is taken from a talk page message left by a wise administrator following an editor block for continued and escalating personal attacks as well as incivility and battleground behavior. I find what he has to say to be the best explanation yet of why remaining civil and cooperative in Wikipedia is the imperative gold standard:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created not by any one individual, but by a cooperative community. It is mandatory that you cooperate with the community in editing Wikipedia. Attacking people and insulting them incessantly, as you have done, serves no good purpose. It disrupts the community, it drives people away from the discussions, and in the long term degrades the value of your own contributions."

Another administrator quote that contains more truism and sage advice:

"...administrators don't care about your content dispute. Administrative tools are intended to prevent disruption."

Not an administrator who wrote this, but it's some of the best and most completely accurate analysis of how difficult Wikipedia can be and what one can do to survive it:

"It's time to start building bridges and coalitions composed of editors who will no longer stand idle while others are being attacked and denigrated. Just be mindful of...how the opposition will stalk and target your articles, try to get you involved in an edit war, and make up a rationale for blocking you. Don't be fooled by this game. To avoid falling for this trap, don't make any reverts and use the talk page to engage in calm talk. If you must revert, do so only once a day, if at all. Don't respond to incivility with incivility, respond with kindness and a polite reminder about the civility policy. Understand that some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems that we can't address. Above all, remain true to yourself and stay above the fray. If you can't avoid conflict, reach out to likeminded editors and admins for support. Find allies and make friends, and stay positive."

And finally, more great advice that I will refer back to from time to time, no doubt:

"...do not respond here or elsewhere to accusations about behavior; keep playing the ball, not the man. It's all about the bass--the rest is just so much treble."

(Yeah - damn that signal-to-noise ratio, anyway!)

Regarding edit warring: Not always so cut-and-dried. For example, if you are repeatedly reverting someone you point a finger at and accuse of being an edit warrior - guess what? You're being an edit warrior, too. Duh.

How things should work here (but don't, always)

Wikipedia is all about teamwork. It's not about winning or delivering a "Checkmate!". Editors must work together to build a reliable encyclopedia, not try to prove themselves to be "better" than others, not to show off grammar and writing skills and knowledge of language. Just to improve the encyclopedia with others who are here to do the same.

In the spirit of teamwork and Wikipedia working as much like a well-maintained engine as possible, I believe administrators should be a good example and here to help -- sadly, this isn't always what happens. I've seen some administrators who are kind, patient, and bend over backward to retain good editors. I've also seen some administrators who behave disruptively and treat Wikipedia's volunteer editors with unbridled disrespect and animosity, even when undeserved. That's not how cooperation is modeled or encouraged.

Prevention, not punishment. Working together, not winning. Respect, not revilement. Resolution taken into your own hands rather than running to noticeboards and talk pages whining and posting a laundry list of reversion diffs or record of past infractions, errors, and perceived wrongs. Keep the long-term goal in mind. Do your part to make things better and the rest will fall into place. Divas and chronic victims need not apply.

Userboxes

This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.

This user is one of the 47,409,229 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 12 years, 1 month and 9 days.

This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user is a recent changes patroller.

This user is a member of the
Counter-Vandalism Unit.

This user reverts vandalism in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!

This user has
Asperger's.

This user has signed the Neurotypical / Autism spectrum interaction pact.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Autism.

This user is a member of
WikiProject Editor Retention

@

This user can be reached by email.

Barnstars

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For keeping up with and reporting countless Monterrosa socks, I award you The Barnstar of Dilegence! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I know that tracking sockpuppets and filing the appropriate reports is time consuming so your efforts with the socks of Monterossa are much appreciated. Cheers MarnetteD \| Talk 17:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Z147

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For the good work you're doing on Jack Dempsey right now. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Good job fixing peacock language and other minor fixes on Helen Hooven Santmyer. Choor monster (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia free of tabloid junk and remaining civil through it all! Keep it up EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

	California Star
	For having the gumption to create a solution talked about at an AfD, by creating a sub-article for the Golden Gate Bridge about suicides which occur there. Doing so is bold and creates a new consensus which retains verified content that would have otherwise been deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being the first to stand up for the values of Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Maintained\what was ultimately a losing battle, and sticking with them in the face of great opposition. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Z147

Articles I've created/made significant contributions

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 Wikipedia is all about teamwork. It's not about [[WP:WIN|winning]] or delivering a "Checkmate!".  Editors must work together to build a reliable encyclopedia, not try to prove themselves to be "better" than others, not to show off grammar and writing skills and knowledge of language.  Just to improve the encyclopedia with others who are here to do the same.
+In the spirit of teamwork and Wikipedia working as much like a well-maintained engine as possible, I believe administrators should be a good example and here to help -- sadly, this isn't always what happens.  I've seen some administrators who are kind, patient, and bend over backward to retain good editors.  I've also seen some administrators who behave disruptively and treat Wikipedia's volunteer editors with unbridled disrespect and animosity, even when undeserved.  That's not how cooperation is modeled or encouraged.
-Prevention, not punishment.  Working together, not winning.  Resolution taken into your own hands rather than running to noticeboards and talk pages whining and posting a laundry list of reversion diffs or record of past infractions, errors, and perceived wrongs.  Keep the long-term goal in mind.  Do your part to make things better and the rest will fall into place.  Divas and chronic victims need not apply.
+Prevention, not punishment.  Working together, not winning.  Respect, not revilement.  Resolution taken into your own hands rather than running to noticeboards and talk pages whining and posting a laundry list of reversion diffs or record of past infractions, errors, and perceived wrongs.  Keep the long-term goal in mind.  Do your part to make things better and the rest will fall into place.  Divas and chronic victims need not apply.
 {{collapse bottom}}
 ----