User talk:Prunesqualer
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 15 September 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Welcome to the fascinating world of Wikipedia Editing[edit]
- My beginners guide to surviving – Wiki Editing
At first, as an inexperienced editor, you may feel a little intimidated by the sheer mass of information involved in contributing to Wiki eg
- Policy statements, rules, regulations, and good conduct guides etc
- Editing technicalities (Wiki procedures for formatting text or adding citations etc)
- Abbreviations and jargon eg "WP:WORDS", "MoS" "NPOV" etc
That said, generally speaking, Wikipedia dose it's best to present a welcoming, helpful, and non threatening environment for the beginner. By reading a few help pages, and with a little perseverance, most new editors should be able to pick up the skills and understanding, necessary to make valid contributions, within only a short time. Most will find their Wiki experience to be enlightening and rewarding.
However Wikipedia does have a less cuddly side.
If you choose to edit articles which engage controversial, or contentious issues, you are likely to face a series of obstacles and bruising encounters. Most or my editing experiences have been in the field of "the Middle East conflict" (I happen to find that area fascinating). Articles concerning this issue, most certainly do come under the heading of "controversial, or contentious" (it is surly a contender for, the most fought over issue, on the whole of Wiki). My experience in contributing to these articles leads me to give the following advise about editing controversial articles - unless you are exceptionally thick skinned, have the mind of a lawyer, and the patience of a saint then - DON'T DO IT
Here are some of the reasons why you should steer clear of controversial articles;
The root of the problem is that; some editors working on these articles have strong opinions and agendas. In extreme cases these editors will have no regard for normal standards of fairness or balance in the article, and will feel no compunction about pushing an article, well to one side of what most informed neutrals would consider balanced. Their guiding principle is not "what is fair and balanced" but rather "what can I get away with". They use a verity of tactics in order to further their cause. Some may be used by determined editors working alone, but the most effective strategies require a significant number of editors working in concert. This, I suspect, has been achieved, in the case of the pro-Israel cause, by large scale recruitment and training programs (see the "Wikipedia subverted?" section on this page for more info on this). The basic objective of agenda driven editors is to maximise control over relevant article content.. This is achieved by;
- Persistent and maximal insertion of edits favourable to the cause (this may be seen as legitimate but in cases where cabals of enlisted and trained editors are involved this behaviour, is likely to, seriously unbalance an article).
- Persistent and maximal deletion/reversion of edits unfavourable to "the cause". Even when a contribution has been- scrupulously researched: properly cited: carefully worded: thoughtfully considered in terms of it's relevance, and overall effect on the balance of the article- there is still a very good chance that these people will revert it (an excuse can always be invented).
- Encouragement, facilitation and co-ordination with "on side" editors, whilst deterring "off message" contributors. Examples include: The insistence on consensus prior to contributing for "off message" editors, but not for "on side" ones. Where consensus is sought, on the relevant talk page then "off message" editors are often met with interminable, obtuse and irrelevant argument, or Wiki lawyering. Prominent complaints and threats of sanction are directed at "off message" editors for even minor infringements, but mild remonstrance and advice is given to "on message" transgressors.
- Where possible neutralising (eg getting blocked) editors who persist in making "off message" edits. Whether external pressure groups have succeeded in recruiting so-called 'stealth admins'" is a moot point, but even without help from "high up" it is certainly true that determined, experienced and potentially trained editors (see the "Wikipedia subverted?") will know how to play the system, far more effectively than inexperienced ones.
In short, if you edit on controversial articles for long enough you can expect to be reverted, run around the houses, bullied, sneered at and, if you aren’t extremely careful eventually sanctioned. No mercy will be shown. If you want to feel like the protagonist from a Franz Kafka novel then go ahead. Otherwise I repeat DON'T DO IT.
Please Note: these are personal observations and in no way representative of official Wikipedia policy.