Difference between revisions of "User:AK"

Revision as of 21:24, October 19, 2017

Mongoose.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{useful links}}
+Mongoose.
-[[User:AK/Militant_atheism| Militant Atheism\Czechoslovakia]]
-[[User:AK/Wilhelm Busch]]
-[[User:AK/Objections to evolution]]
-[[User:AK/Exploded Planet hypothesis]]
-[[User:AK/Created order]]
-[[User:AK/Sexual disorientation]]
-[[User:AK/Personal identity]]
-[[User:AK/Gender sensitization]]
-== MAY 2012 NB! Wikipedia launches inquisition tribunal against creator of later erased Militant Atheism article ==
-FYI:
-[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anupam#Arbcom_case]
-[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Anupam_.26_Bobrayner]
-[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Viriditas_and_User:Anupam "any administrator may block (him) immediately for a period at their discretion"]
-The same group of people managed to get blocked my account by using very manipulative methods. This group at Wikipedia was described in following way:
-"I wanted to continue this discussion off of Wikipedia for the reasons that you brought up below. There are [[Disturbed character|long termed problem users]], who know how [[Wikipedia]] works, and they know how to "stay on the line" and just barely avoid getting into trouble on the policy side.  [[Psychological_manipulation#Conclusions|We can't do anything]] about the problem users, because they don't cross the policy line. In recent months, there has been a growing number of editors realizing the issue. Some of them have left, others have stayed to try and resolve it. There is going to come a time where this issue will be resolved, just like the [[Soviet Union]].
-I'd rather not name names, but several of the users you are dealing with are fairly problematic. You have probably noticed they try jumping over to ANI as soon as a disputes starts. They know that, for the last few years, ANI has run on "[[mob rule]]". Many of the commenting users on ANI are problematic themselves and they just go off the statement by the original filer. They don't look at the facts. It takes another user stepping in and setting things straight for the conversation to be productive. This is especially true for ban/block discussions. Some problem users just enjoy imposing restrictions on others. I was able to convince the ANI crowd to just topic ban you for six months rather than fully blocking you. I am not sure I will be able if another incident is brought there [he was not - comment by AK].  Until you have gained experience dealing with problem users, I would really prefer you avoid the areas they work.
-There are ways to work around the problem users. The first thing to remember about them is they often try to make you break policy. One of the major ways they will do this is they will try and anger you and make you break the civility policy. You can't call them on this either, because they will just accuse you of making personal attacks. It is important to just let their borderline attack comments just roll off your back. The other thing they will try to do is cite some obscure "policy". There are three types of "policies" on Wikipedia. There are official policies, guidelines, and essays. There are 50 official policies. These policies should be followed to the best of your ability. This is quite a few policies, but unless you are an administrator, you don't have to memorize (or even worry about) all of them. Over three fourths of the official policies are policies regarding tasks carried out by administrators. There are 10 or so that you should learn and understand though. Wikipedia:List of policies has a summary list and Category:Wikipedia policy contains a complete list of official policies. If you would like, I can create a list of policies that would be beneficial to learn. Then there are Wikipedia guidelines. Guidelines explain how a certain thing should generally be done (For example, the process in changing an article's title). They are widely accepted by the community and should usually be followed. Exceptions may take place from time to time. There are about 200 guidelines, but there is only 1 guideline you should really get to know, and that is the notability guidelines (currently, the notability guidelines are broken into 11 specific sections dealing with specific topics). Lastly, there are essays. Essays are written by one or more editors with their advice on how something should be done. Some users cite essays in discussions as if they are policy. If there is an essay banner across the page, it means that you don't have to follow it. It is advice from one or more other editors, but it is not something that needs to be followed. You might wish to consider the information in the essay though. Essays often cite policies. If the information in the essay is part of a policy, then the policy should be followed.
-. ...."
-Not nice environment to be in...
-cf. "[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2010/december-10/anyone-can-edit-wikipedia-have-you.html#comment-1272 Comment by john brews on August 5, 2011 @ 2:39 pm]
-As a professor of electrical engineering who contributed a great deal to WP, I would like to suggest that the members of the APS have a rather unique function to play there. My experience with WP has been fine on very technical matters, but on subjects with popular appeal there are very active and peculiar Talk page discussions that in my case led to eventual expulsion from WP. My take is that '''there are some rather disturbed individuals that run WP via ArbCom and the cadre of Administrators.''' I wonder if possibly APS members will be able to devise a useful method to deal with this major defect of WP, which I suspect indeed will raise its head."
-cf. "Many times I have come across a question whether it is possible somehow to get out from reaches of manipulation. I heard many good and forethought answers, but they rarely were of any avail for victims in their situations. Today I’m convinced that although it is possible to resist the manipulative practices of individuals, it is not the same case if the given system as such is set up in a way that enables this manipulation or if it is even built up upon it. Breaking ties of manipulation is especially impossible if the manipulator holds a very high position. If in such case a person wants to act in a righteous way, avoiding lying and the usage of the same unethical and dishonest means, then his/her efforts are a priori condemned to failure.
-The bottom line question is however this: Why we should keep staying in the system that allows for manipulative practices or even connives and supports them? An individual that is routinely using manipulation as a basis for his carrier advancement seeks for letting himself to be surrounded solely by absolutely loyal people which are in return rewarded for this uncritical loyalty by special favor. These supporters enjoying back-ally support then feel no hindrances to use lie, fraud or false testimonies.  On the other side, a person who feels his/her own conscience is preventing him/her to apply similar dishonest measures, is in such system condemned to be eliminated beforehand. The rule of righteousness and fair practices can never be achieved in the systems that openly despise them." Source: [http://zod.reformace.cz/co-je-manipulace-cislo-98 What is manipulation? (In Czech)]
-Users leaving WP: "There's just no point in spending time on the Wikipedia project anymore"
-[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SimpsonDG Resignation from Wikipedia]
-"When Wikipedia first started, it was a very nice project. You could contribute to existing articles or start new ones, and it was fun to watch other users improve on what you had written -- expanding it, making it clearer, adding more information, etc. It really worked well for a number of years.
-But those days are over. I've found lately that if you try to contribute anything at all, somebody immediately deletes your contribution, citing some obscure violation of the minutiae of thousands of Wikipedia rules and policies. I've sometimes spent hours and hours arguing with someone over making even the tiniest change to an article; then after having soundly won the argument, had my contribution deleted anyway. Start a new article on some topic, and it gets almost immediately deleted. Try correcting or adding to an existing article, and your edits are immediately reverted. Try to look up an article you wrote a few years ago, and it's gone. There's just no point in spending time on the Wikipedia project anymore, when anything you do is immediately deleted. After many years of contributing to Wikipedia, I've finally had enough of fighting with these self-appointed deletionist Wikipedia topic police. I won't be contributing to it anymore, and will be joining the increasing number of people who are abandoning the Wikipedia project. SimpsonDG (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"--[[User:AK|AK]] 19:24, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

Difference between revisions of "User:AK"

Revision as of 21:24, October 19, 2017

Navigation menu

Search