User:Yunshui/Adoption/Kevin12xd/Interaction

Politeness
The most fundamental policy governing user interaction is Civility, one of the Five Pillars you learned about earlier. Basically, you are expected to communicate with other editors in a respectful manner, assume that they are acting in good faith and avoid insulting or otherwise attacking them. Remember, behind every IP or ridiculous username is a real person, and it's that real person who is being hurt by insults, accusations and abuse hurled their way.

1. What would your response be if another user called you a "blithering imbecile"? A. "Please do not direct any personal attacks toward editors. This is grossly uncivil, and you may be blocked if you continue to do so."
 * Whilst pulling the editor up on their mistake is appropriate, you would be best advised to use a neutral template warning such as, especially if it's a first offence. Calling someone "grossly uncivil" and suggesting that they might be blocked is unlikely to defuse the situation - imagine how you'd feel if such a message appeared on your own talkpage. One of the main aims of polite discourse (in real life, as well as on Wikipedia!) is to de-escalate potentially flammable incidents; rather than telling the other user off, politely point them to the appropriate policy, and ask them not to repeat the behaviour.
 * Yunshui, please see Kolvir's post on my Talkpage and my response...I think that little scenario is related to this.
 * Absolutely. Yes, Kolvir's response to you was rude, and certainly merited a warning about personal attacks. However, you could have handled the situation far better yourself. Had your first response said something like, "I'm sorry for labelling your edit as vandalism, here's a link to Wikipedia's policy on article disclaimers, which I was trying to uphold; let me know if you need any help" instead of "I was indeed correct in labelling it as vandalism" (you weren't) then the personal attack would probably never have happened. When it did, your response ("Watch it, Kolvir", plus a top-level warning for a first offense) was not a good way of resolving the situation - an apology would have calmed things down, with perhaps a gentle warning to point out his inappropriate behaviour. As it is, Kolvir hasn't edited since your exchange, and I don't expect he'll be back after having had that as his first experience of the Wikipedia community. We've lost a potential editor - he had made a couple of useful edits prior to the Closet Land error, and could have been a useful contributor once he got to grips with Wikipedia's workings - because you bit the newbie rather than backing down and apologising. There's no shame in accepting that you've made a mistake and backing down (I find myself doing it all the time, see here, here, here and so on throughout the history of my talkpage), digging in your heels is rarely the best course of action on Wikipedia. Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  09:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see; thank you for telling me this. Perhaps I should leave an apology on his Talkpage; see if that will prompt a response. As I have noticed, I am not getting a firm grip of Wikipedia's finer points as easily as I thought I would. Thanks, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there was a error; instead of putting "I was indeed correct in labelling the edit as vandalism", I had put " Perhaps I was being overzealous in tagging it as vandalism, as Yunshui had explained. But your edit didn't help, and you need to realize that you can't apply IAR to your personal attack."; could you comment on that response? Cheers, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear above: "I was indeed correct..." was from original reply. You did indeed make the statement above afterwards, which is a concession to to Kolvir (although you opened that reply with "Kolvir, watch it," which ain't the best way to get someone to listen to your viewpoint - try it in a pub sometime if you don't believe me (protip: actually, don't)). "Perhaps I was overzealous" isn't quite the same as, "I'm sorry, I was wrong," though. I appreciate your ability to stand up for yourself, and since your understanding of Wikipedia's policies is improving you're more likely to be right than not these days, but there's nothing wrong in being prepared to politely say, "Yeah, I ballsed up, sorry."
 * You can leave an apology if you wish - Kolvir's taken long wikibreaks before, and so he might return at some point - but if you do, be sure to make it a 100% apology: it's all too easy to write something that can be read back by an overly-sensitive recipient as, "I'm sorry for what I did, but I WAS TOTALLY IN THE RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG," if you aren't careful how you phrase it. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

2. A source you added to an article is removed with the edit summary, "Removing crappy reference". Is this a personal attack? A.Not at all! The editor did not comment on "me", the editor - but the ref itself.
 * ✅ Absolutely correct, and a good explanation to boot.

3. In the heat of the moment, you refer to another editor as an "idiot". He posts this template on your talkpage and reports you to the administrators board. You respond to the report at the admin board - what do you say? A. I would state the following points:

1. don't template the regs

2. first warning

3. simple mistake.
 * All of the above is technically correct, but again, the main aim of communication in such circumstances should be to de-escalate the situation. I'd have given you a greener tick if you'd responded by simply apologising (which would also mitigate any potential sanctions against you that administrators might be considering). If you're in the wrong and another editor wrongs you as a result, the quickest and least dramatic solution is to say you're sorry and (if necessary) make reparations, rather than challenging their response. To put it another way, would you be more forgiving of the editor who recieved your warning in question 1, above, if he apologised or if he complained about your heavy-handed warning?

Assuming good faith
In learning about vandalism, you have come across the idea of a "good faith edit", i.e. an edit that doesn't actually improve the article, but was made with the intention of doing so. The same applies to other editors' posts in discussions. Whilst it may seem that User:X is belittling you at every turn and is clearly biased and/or incompetent, there's actually a strong likelihood that he believes the same thing of you, and is doing his best to protect Wikipedia from what he sees as your problematic editing. In the same vein, don't automatically assume that a comment you find upsetting was intended to cause an upset - other users don't know you, and they don't know what sort of thing will push your buttons.

1. You add a large amount of sourced text to an article, which another editor removes. When you discuss it on the talkpage, the editor argues that your source "was written by an incompetent sot" and implies (but doesn't directly state) that you must be equally incompetent to have used it. How do you respond? A.

2. You encounter a new editor who is removing sourced content from a biographical page, claiming that it is disrespectful to the subject to include it. How do you explain the situation to them? A.

Consensus
Decisions on Wikipedia are made based on community consensus. This means that we are largely unconcerned with issues of right or wrong, true or false, correct or incorrect - what matters on Wikipedia is what the community decides. Because not every user can be involved in every possible discussion, we have policies and guidelines that have developed widespread consensus for use, and these serve to provide the opinion of Wikipedia editors in general. For example, in an Articles for deletion discussion or a Request for comment, only a handful users will participate - but by quoting relevent policies (such as WP:What Wikipedia is not) they are able to convey the established view of the Wikipedia community as a whole.

For this reason, local consensus does not override policy - if you can get three people on a talkpage to agree to include a link to your fansite on your favourite actor's article, that doesn't mean you have the authority to override the policy on external links.

That said, it is important to get agreement from the community for any potentially controversial edit or action you wish to make, even if you believe it to be in line with policy. If you make such an edit and it gets reverted, the appropriate response is to discuss it with the user who reverted you, ideally on the article's talkpage so that other users can comment too. Only when there is clear agreement (not necessarily unanimous, but definitely obvious to an outside observer) to include your revision should you go ahead with it.

1. At Articles for deletion, a discussion has taken place in which User:X proposes deleting a page (because after much searching, no-one has been able to locate suitable sources for it) and User:Y proposes keeping it because they have found it useful for a research project. Four other editors chime in to support the Keep vote, all with the rationale, "per User:Y, page is useful" or something very similar. You are the admin closing the discussion; do you close it as Keep, Delete or No Consensus, and why? A.

2. On an article talkpage, three users disagree with your addition of an external link to the subject's official site, even though such a link is allowed under the External links policy. No other editors have supported your position. What do you do? A.

Resolving disputes
If two or more editors are unable to agree on some aspect of an article, and no consensus seems to be possible, then continuing to argue on the talkpage is somewhat futile. Recognising this, Wikipedia has developed a number of processes for resolving such disputes. In rough order of escalation, these are:
 * Third opinion. If only two editors are involved, they can request that another uninvolved editor examines the dispute and gives their opinion. This is not binding, but the fresh perspective can sometimes break the deadlock.
 * Request for comment. Starting a Request for comment (RFC) on the article's talkpage will attract other editors who are not involved with the dispute - basically, a whole load of third opinions. RFCs are usually constructed around a simple yes/no proposal, e.g. "Should content about the subject's hairstyle be included in the article", which editors either support or oppose. RFCs typically invite comment for a month before closing. The results of an RFC are not technically binding, but they are generally considered to be indicative of consensus and so are usually adhered to.
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard. Reports posted on the Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) are viewed by numerous editors who will try and mediate the disagreement. The DRN is often used for disputes which are more complex than the simple support/oppose mechanism of an RFC, such as disputes involving accusations of sockpuppetry, multiple pages or several interrelated content issues.
 * Mediation. The Mediation Committee is a small group of trusted editors who will formally oversee a structured debate on a disputed issue. All involved parties must agree to mediation, and are expected (though not obliged) to abide by any successful outcome.
 * Arbitration. If all other options in resolving a dispute have been exhausted, the case can be brought to the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). This is a panel of editors (almost always highly experienced administrators) who have been elected by the community to provide a final resolution to disputes. Decisions made by the Arbitration Committee are binding, meaning that users who edit in defiance of an ArbCom ruling may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned.

No questions on this section; the above is provided purely for your information. Hopefully, you'll never have to use any of it!