User talk:CodyJoeBibby: Difference between revisions
→Beware talk-page traps: new topic |
CodyJoeBibby (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Beware talk-page traps=== |
===Beware talk-page traps=== |
||
Hi. Wikid77 here. I forgot to warn you about getting into talk-page traps. They can block you if you hint at any kind of bodily harm about other users, or any kind of legal talk. In this case, someone dropped the bait about shooting, and perhaps, hoped the discussion would turn to that, looking to find some phrase from you to qualify for the trap. Another trap is turn the word "insult" or "slur" into a legal term such as "libel" and then imply you are planning to file legal action against other editors. The concern there is that admins are trained to block anyone who sounds like wanting to file lawsuits, and so avoid using any of those types of legal words in talk-page dialogues. The more experienced users know many of the traps, and so, in those cases, they can go to any arbitration, or mediation-type discussion, and promise to cause less trouble in the future, always saying just the right words, and very often, they will be taken at their word, despite all the past trouble which they might have caused, and be allowed to continue (week after week), with almost the same antics simply because they promised the problems would be reduced in the future.<br />Instead, Wikipedia needs some kind of automatic revert-counter, so that a long-term editor who deletes text from an article, almost every day, gets an automatic time-out (for perhaps 2 weeks) where they cannot edit the article, in the theory that if new text ''really'' needs to be desperately reverted, then some other (newer) editors will come along to remove that text. There is no need to have the same group of 5 editors to be reverting or deleting text, all week long, for months or years. There could even be an annual time-period limit, such as editing the article 60 times per year (or quarter) and then disallow further editing until the time period is over. Many admins realize that fact: there is no need for a few editors to make all edits to an article for months (or years), because any truly important edits will be made by some other person, in due time (such as you or the next editor). Such edit-limits could be made very clever, and so attempts to disguise a revert as if being a "clever rewrite" could, instead, be counted as a hidden revert (and perhaps count double) and quickly lead to the edit-block of such users. Most of the cliques would shut down: take away their power to revert changes to the same article ("80 days in a row") and they will leave the article, for lack of endless power-plays. I just wanted you to see that there could be simple ways to change Wikipedia to stop the power games which have controlled some articles for years. -[[User talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 08:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. Wikid77 here. I forgot to warn you about getting into talk-page traps. They can block you if you hint at any kind of bodily harm about other users, or any kind of legal talk. In this case, someone dropped the bait about shooting, and perhaps, hoped the discussion would turn to that, looking to find some phrase from you to qualify for the trap. Another trap is turn the word "insult" or "slur" into a legal term such as "libel" and then imply you are planning to file legal action against other editors. The concern there is that admins are trained to block anyone who sounds like wanting to file lawsuits, and so avoid using any of those types of legal words in talk-page dialogues. The more experienced users know many of the traps, and so, in those cases, they can go to any arbitration, or mediation-type discussion, and promise to cause less trouble in the future, always saying just the right words, and very often, they will be taken at their word, despite all the past trouble which they might have caused, and be allowed to continue (week after week), with almost the same antics simply because they promised the problems would be reduced in the future.<br />Instead, Wikipedia needs some kind of automatic revert-counter, so that a long-term editor who deletes text from an article, almost every day, gets an automatic time-out (for perhaps 2 weeks) where they cannot edit the article, in the theory that if new text ''really'' needs to be desperately reverted, then some other (newer) editors will come along to remove that text. There is no need to have the same group of 5 editors to be reverting or deleting text, all week long, for months or years. There could even be an annual time-period limit, such as editing the article 60 times per year (or quarter) and then disallow further editing until the time period is over. Many admins realize that fact: there is no need for a few editors to make all edits to an article for months (or years), because any truly important edits will be made by some other person, in due time (such as you or the next editor). Such edit-limits could be made very clever, and so attempts to disguise a revert as if being a "clever rewrite" could, instead, be counted as a hidden revert (and perhaps count double) and quickly lead to the edit-block of such users. Most of the cliques would shut down: take away their power to revert changes to the same article ("80 days in a row") and they will leave the article, for lack of endless power-plays. I just wanted you to see that there could be simple ways to change Wikipedia to stop the power games which have controlled some articles for years. -[[User talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 08:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
They got me that time. I never brought up guns or advocated shooting anyone, but they managed to twist it around. They are geniuses at playing the victim while at the same time victimising others. What's heartening to see is that all their attempts to cause trouble at AN/I fail. [[User:CodyJoeBibby|CodyJoeBibby]] ([[User talk:CodyJoeBibby#top|talk]]) 16:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:26, 26 May 2011
Beware talk-page traps
Hi. Wikid77 here. I forgot to warn you about getting into talk-page traps. They can block you if you hint at any kind of bodily harm about other users, or any kind of legal talk. In this case, someone dropped the bait about shooting, and perhaps, hoped the discussion would turn to that, looking to find some phrase from you to qualify for the trap. Another trap is turn the word "insult" or "slur" into a legal term such as "libel" and then imply you are planning to file legal action against other editors. The concern there is that admins are trained to block anyone who sounds like wanting to file lawsuits, and so avoid using any of those types of legal words in talk-page dialogues. The more experienced users know many of the traps, and so, in those cases, they can go to any arbitration, or mediation-type discussion, and promise to cause less trouble in the future, always saying just the right words, and very often, they will be taken at their word, despite all the past trouble which they might have caused, and be allowed to continue (week after week), with almost the same antics simply because they promised the problems would be reduced in the future.
Instead, Wikipedia needs some kind of automatic revert-counter, so that a long-term editor who deletes text from an article, almost every day, gets an automatic time-out (for perhaps 2 weeks) where they cannot edit the article, in the theory that if new text really needs to be desperately reverted, then some other (newer) editors will come along to remove that text. There is no need to have the same group of 5 editors to be reverting or deleting text, all week long, for months or years. There could even be an annual time-period limit, such as editing the article 60 times per year (or quarter) and then disallow further editing until the time period is over. Many admins realize that fact: there is no need for a few editors to make all edits to an article for months (or years), because any truly important edits will be made by some other person, in due time (such as you or the next editor). Such edit-limits could be made very clever, and so attempts to disguise a revert as if being a "clever rewrite" could, instead, be counted as a hidden revert (and perhaps count double) and quickly lead to the edit-block of such users. Most of the cliques would shut down: take away their power to revert changes to the same article ("80 days in a row") and they will leave the article, for lack of endless power-plays. I just wanted you to see that there could be simple ways to change Wikipedia to stop the power games which have controlled some articles for years. -Wikid77 08:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
They got me that time. I never brought up guns or advocated shooting anyone, but they managed to twist it around. They are geniuses at playing the victim while at the same time victimising others. What's heartening to see is that all their attempts to cause trouble at AN/I fail. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)