- This is only partly complete. This essay contains User:Brendon111's advice or opinions on "how to avoid looking like a Dick (or worse) on wikipedia". This essay may not represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies.
- This is supposed to be funny, above all.
Dickery and its effect
00:15, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
This essay is heavily influenced by meta wiki essay "Don't be a dick" and the essay "What Makes A Fuckhead?" by David R. Kendrick. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't like using slang.[note 1]
“The use of a vulgar term here to convey the concept is intentional, and distinguishes this principle from issues of politeness and other protocols of interaction. Avoiding dickery is not simply a matter of observing the more obvious rules of etiquette, but is a broader and more important concern, generally involving the practice of maintaining a position of respect for the intrinsic qualities of another person during the course of interaction – or else gently cutting the interaction short. Truly being civil and polite means that you do show respect for others (such as in not pointing out needless grammar issues), even when right.”
Who can afford to be a dick in Wikipedia?
Firstly, common editors (i.e. Unregistered users, auto-confirmed users, new users)
can't afford to be domineering or abrasive, in anyway except for logically
Secondly, if an editor tries to domineer over anybody , (s)he could be
- taken to WP:WQA
- then after sufficient warnings, blocked. → , , ..
When an administrator behaves domineeringly or rather despotically, it's others who are blocked → , sometimes even without warnings .
Hence, an administrator's domineering nature should be dealt with more stringently[note 2] than dominance of an editor.
Because otherwise, how can editors defend themselves against an administrator who is inebriated with egotism and whose goal is to just block away the editors he disagrees with or doesn't like[note 3] ☻, as opposed to turning them into productive collaborators ? How do we preclude prejudicial treatment to editors who edit controversial/religious articles?
Bureaucrats and Stewards
If a Bureaucrat/Steward starts behaving domineeringly (which, in my experience, is unprecedented), then GOD help us commoners on Wikipedia.
Blocking is not necessarily a sign of dickery
We see, more often than not, a blocked editor complaining that the administrator(s) who just blocked him/her, was abrasive.
Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that all blocks are just signs of abrasiveness of administrators. Admittedly, most blocks take place only after adequate number of failed-attempts to turn a disruptive editor into a collaborator. Thus, most blocks are justifiable and do have the backing of sufficient reason.
In Kendrick's words,
A Fuckhead Must Have An Exaggerated Sense of His/Her Own Importance
The Internet fuckhead will come to the table insuperably convinced of his/her own correctness and of his/her immediacy in any debate or discussion. For example, the non-fuckhead will join a discussion cautiously, reading over the prior correspondance and offering an opinion thoughtfully. The fuckhead will come plowing in without regard to the established parameters of the debate and without regard to the existing participants.
The fuckhead, when challenged, will then state some fantastic-sounding credentials to justify and bolster the strong opinion. When challenged further, the fuckhead will usually display anger and refuse to further substantiate the presented credentials, some sort of "I already said so, and that should be good enough for you!"
At this point the Fuckhead has demonstrated an exaggerated sense of his/her own importance: He has presented an overriding opinion which, in the fuckhead's mind, should be definitive and cease all debate, and the fuckhead will be unable to understand why the other Netizens will not accept his/her opinion on sight.
How to spot such people?
A dickish person may evince some or all of the mentioned traits,
- An exaggerated sense of his/her own importance
- Refuse to abide by common social rules
- Never back down when caught in a lie
- Disregard for the opinions of others without explaining why they disagree.
- Abrupt change of his/her beliefs to suit the situation
“The Fuckhead may display all of these characteristics, or some of them, or only one. Some may love a Fuckhead like a brother, some may think their brother is a Fuckhead. What is incontrovertible is that for all of humanity, there are people that you would rather not have to deal with, and those people, throughout history, are the Fuckheads.” - David R. Kendrick
Am I a Dick?
Maybe, to some, I am
. But I'm relentlessly trying not to look like a dick
Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move itself — especially if true. So it's better to focus on behaviour, not on individuals. Say what you want and why you want it. Say why you think the other person's behaviour is counter-productive.
How to not be a dick
Avoid the common characteristics of a dick whenever possible. Try putting yourself in others' shoes. And if feasible, openly apologize to the person to whom you may have been a dick. It's okay; this won't make you seem weak. On the contrary, people will hopefully take notice of your willingness to cooperate and will almost always meet your efforts with increased respect .
- My other essays
- Policies and guidelines
- ^ The term "dick" in this essay is generally defined as "an abrasive and inconsiderate person" of any gender. Therefore this is an essay about obnoxious behaviour.
- ^ since they have got the right tools for exhibiting their dominance massively without outright breaching WP:POLICIES.
- ^ There are quite a few in this wikipedia, but that does not mean all administrators are dicks.
No comments yet. Yours could be the first!