User talk:W. Frank/Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia

What about user subpages?

If I need more pages, I can create subpages. More or less, I can have anything here that I might have on my my user or my user talk pages.
Examples:

• A work in progress, until it is ready to be released.
• Archives of user talk
• Tests; (for testing a template, I need to make it a separate subpage).
• Sections of my user page that are big enough to require their own page, e.g. a page of awards I have received or pictures I have taken.

(Reminder to myself). W. Frank talk ✉ 

Ownership and editing of pages in the user space

As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:

• Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are.
• Other users may edit pages in my user space, although by convention my user page will usually not be edited by others.
• Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to my user space just as they do elsewhere. Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not.
• In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.

In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. I'm fine with my discussion pages being being edited, but not my user pages. W. Frank talk ✉  15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial good faith edit to my userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on my talk page (or in the edit summary) explaining why this was done.

Removal of warnings

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by me. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

Use of page protection for user pages

As with article pages, user pages are occasionally the targets of vandalism, or, more rarely, edit wars. When edit wars or vandalism persist, the affected page should be protected from editing.

Most user page vandalism occurs in retaliation for a contributor's efforts to deal with vandalism. Administrators may protect their own user pages when appropriate, and are permitted to edit protected pages in user space. Sometimes a non-administrator's user page may be the target of vandalism. Such pages should be listed at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and may then be protected by an administrator.

Vandalism of talk pages is less common. Usually such vandalism should merely be reverted. Blocks should be used for repeated vandalism of talk pages, where policy permits. In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project.

Protected pages in user space should be unprotected as soon as practical. (Reminder to myself). W. Frank talk ✉  15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To assume good faith

is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, I must work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When I can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, I should correct it without criticizing. When I disagree with people, I must always remember that most probably believe that they are helping our project.

Even though I may be very busy or it may seem pointless at times, I should always consider using talk pages to clearly explain myself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. I must consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus if possible. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating.

Good faith is obviously not bad faith. Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing team games with policies, and vandalism. Even if good faith is in doubt, I should still assume good faith where I can, be careful to remain civil myself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors. Unlike Christianity, this is not an impossible counsel of perfection.

(Reminder to myself). W. Frank talk ✉  15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What is tendentious editing?

Axe to grind? Try the hardware store. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for this.

Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed — in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple individual editors as oppsed to me-too's and political activists. A single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behaviour is generally characterised as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions.

Editors who engage in this behaviour generally fall into two categories: those who come to realise the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopaedia — and, well, the team. The whole team rarely end up indefinitely blocked. I need to protect otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area from being completely banned. Instead, they should just be banned from certain articles and subject to probation.

It is important to recognise that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: I must always allow for the possibility that I am, indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is dickish.

Remember: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Articles, and particularly their titles, must conform to policy regarding verifiability and the neutral point of view.

(Reminder to myself). W. Frank talk ✉  15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this page (and its associated user page) "Offensive"?

It is perfectly all right to voice my personal opinion on politics, sport, wikipolicy, or whatever else in my userspace. However, a small number of people take that a step further and add personal attacks to their user pages, or grossly offensive remarks to other users or groups of users, which is something that would not be condoned in mainspace.

For example, a public statement that 'user:foo is a moron'.

Applicable policies:

1. WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not a battleground "Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement."
2. WP:No personal attacks "Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse."
3. WP:FAITH "When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe they are helping the project."
4. WP:Civility#The problem "By hurting the community, the quality of articles is affected as well."
5. Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes "(avoid) Arming for war. Wikipedia is a unique community of altruistic and consensus-oriented people. In other words, this isn't Usenet, and flaming is just not done."

(Reminder to myself). W. Frank talk ✉  15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to WP

How about we call it Frankipedia so he can have a platform for his paranoid rants about "teams" that just happen to disagree with him. Have a read of these seen as you are a man that is a stickler for the rules and if any "team" editors broke any rules report them. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]][[5]] BigDunc 14:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, Wikipedia doesn't need re-branding - especially now it's the ninth most visited site on the web.

WP may or may not need a few procedural tweaks now it's grown like topsy to gargantuan proportions.

That's what these sandbox essays will be for, to discuss any necessary tweaks.

Thanks for your contribution, big man. I'll expand your useful internal links that you provided above, since a lot of folks find it easier to deal with words rather than numbers: Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic, Ad hominem, Straw man, Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Tschuess! W. Frank talk ✉  14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair play good work. BigDunc 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

Can I put that on my awards page? (smug grin).

By the way, tell me if you don't like me calling you "big man". It's just that I'm pretty small and it's something Glasgow dwarves like me tend to employ when they don't want to get walloped and can't run very fast. W. Frank talk ✉  15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You can call me anything you like Frank as long as it's fair and true. BigDunc 12:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that comment was meant in friendly way, big man, so I'll just agree with you that it defuses the situation if we all concentrate on the edits rather than the editor. I just didn't want you to think I was trying to be rude or abrasive. Thanks for confirming that you weren't offended. It's appreciated! Frank84.13.10.123 12:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas for improvements?

Big man? (Since you seem to be the only one watching)84.13.10.123 12:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)