 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This
essay is in development. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion, especially since this page is still under construction. |
 | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
 | This page in a nutshell: This essay is humorous guideline which instructs editors how to cheat in discussions. |
There are many tricks you can use against your opponents in discussions. There are some general rules you should always follow:
- One-two combo - Try not to use one trick at the time. Using more than one trick simultaneously is more effective and more safe for you (it is more difficult to catch you red-handed).
- Sidetrack the discussion. Carefully sidetrack discussion to discuss the conduct of your opponents rather than the content of the articles or your conduct.
- It's you! - In every single comment you write never forget to carefully attribute inherent disruptive nature to your opponent. Occasionally imply that you are, unlike your opponents, particularly constructive. If you repeat this over and over again the consequence would be:
- false narrative - you will manage to create false narrative about particularly:
- disruptive nature of your opponents and
- constructive nature of yourself
- travelling circus - building a travelling circus consisting of other editors who share your position or the common "enemy".
- false narrative - you will manage to create false narrative about particularly:
- It's you! - In every single comment you write never forget to carefully attribute inherent disruptive nature to your opponent. Occasionally imply that you are, unlike your opponents, particularly constructive. If you repeat this over and over again the consequence would be:
Slow
Force your opponents to loose time and energy every time they contradict you.
Source your assertion!
- Insist that your opponent should present source for his assertion with full quote.
This sourcing request becomes trick when you use it even if the assertion of your opponent is something that is easy to be checked (kind of sky is blue assertion) or already extensively elaborated by the same sources you already used in the article. That is why this trick has an additional element — humiliation. Both you and your opponents know that you know very well what is the source for their statement, yet you forced them to lose time and energy to present all details of the source, including full quote and its context. Yes, the context. If your opponents present short sentence that prove their position, ask for more text. If the text they presented is based on Google Books snippet, accuse them for trawling Google search results.
To add insult to injury and additionally annoy your opponent, use every opportunity to propose substantial change of the article, such as article's name, without presenting a single source to support your proposal.
Translate please!
- If your opponent used non-English source insist on providing original quote with translation.
It is very important to insist on quotes and translation even for assertions which are already well known. This will add pun to injury.
Cheese
Use dialogues which are similar to WP:CHEESE as often as possible. This kind of dialogues are perfect to tire your opponents. It takes you ten times less energy and time to assert that The moon is made of green cheese then to your opponent to refute this assertion. With sources + quotes + translations.
Avoid replying
- Never give straightforward answers to the questions your opponent ask.
To add insult to injury and additionally annoy your opponent, use every single opportunity to complain that your opponents have not responded to certain aspect of your comment, even if you did not present that aspects as question at all.
Attack, attack, attack
Attack your opponents every time you wrote comment in discussions with them.
Harsh!
- Every single comment you write to your opponents should be harsh.
The trick is to write harsh comments to your opponents although even if it is completely unnecessary. Or to be more precise: precisely because it is unnecessary to be harsh. This will additionally humiliate your opponent.
You...
- Imply that something is wrong with your opponents.
You should insist that there is something wrong not only with their position, but to imply that there is something wrong with themselves (their motives, beliefs, attitude, knowledge...). If your opponent was sanctioned in the past, don't forget to bring this information to the talkpage, especially if you ran out of arguments.
POV accusations
- Imply that your opponents are POV-pushers.
Insist that everything your opponents do, say, propose.... is connected with some particular POV they continually push on wikipedia. The more you repeat such accusations the more likely is that uninitiated editors will take them for granted.
Never ever AGF
- Never ever AGF with your opponents.
Flag waving
- Use every opportunity to assign undue connection to nationalism or patriotism to your opponent.
This trick is based on the presumption that the recipients (other editors) already have certain beliefs, biases, and prejudices about particular issues (i.e. nationalism or patriotism).
Delete/rename proposal
- Follow edits of editor who opposed you in more than one article and occasionally propose for deletion/renaming article they recently created.
This is a way to harass your opponents and to send them a warning not to mess with you. It is relatively safe because you followed wikipedia procedure for deletion/renaming proposals so nobody can blame you for doing that.
Article ownership accusations
- Imply that your opponents show article ownership behavior.
To add insult to injury, demonstrate article ownership behavior yourself, i.e. by presenting your position at article's talkpage as some kind of consensus, particularly if it has never been discussed before.
Create narrative about disruptive character of your opponents
Discredit your opponents by creating narrative about their disruptive character.
Past blocks or bans of your opponent
- Point to the past blocks or bans of your opponent.
One of methods to do that is to point to their past blocks or bans, regardless if they are unrelated to the dispute. The more unrelated your opponents ban/block is, the better. Don't refrain from this even in case of your opponent's bans outside of en.wikipedia.
Lie
- Lie.
If the discussion with your opponents lasted for some time, you probably managed to create huge wall of text which will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. That simply means that your opponents are completely at your mercy because you are able to lie. Even blatantly. Nobody is willing to dig trough megabites of past discussions. Even if there is somebody willing to do it, nobody would be willing to dig trough dirty megabites to check the facts. That is why you are completely able to lie in order to discredit your opponent.
Even if your opponents were very constructive and significantly contributed to the quality of article, don't hesitate to present them as particularly disruptive and non-constructive. The more they contributed to the quality of the article the more you should repeat that they are disruptive and damaging for the quality of the article.
Language skills
- Question your opponents' language skills instead of the point they made.
If your opponents are not native speakers of English language and if they language skills are not perfect, that gives you perfect advantage. Whenever your position in discussion is weak, just question your opponents' language skills instead to address the points they raised. This will additionally personalize the issue and frustrate your opponents to loose their tamper and violate wikipedia rules.
Defend yourself
The best tactics to defend yourself is to simultaneously attack your opponents who caught you red-handed.
Wikilawyering accusations
No wikipedia policy based arguments? or Wikilawyering? - If your opponents present argument grounded in wikipedia policies, accuse them for WP:Wikilawyering. If your opponents don't mention wikipedia policies, accuse them for bringing arguments not based on wikipedia policies.
Other stuff accusations
If you are caught red-handed because you contradict the position you yourself supported in another discussion, you just accuse your opponents for WP:OTHERSTUFF behavior.
(Not) reporting your opponents
Your aim is to get your opponent reported and out of your way. You would be victorious if your opponents are indeff banned. Their topic ban or their block is only a battle in your war. Not victory. Therefore never stop with using if you manage to get your opponents blocked or topic banned. To achieve that you should:
- Avoid directly reporting your opponents - By creating a false narrative about particularly disruptive character of your opponents you created a perfect opportunity to use it as proof by assertion. Anybody can use this false narrative as argument to report your opponents. If nobody else is willing to do it instead of you and if your opponents have already been banned/blocked earlier, then go report them to the administrator who already blocked/banned them. Find some way to connect your current dispute with the issue for which your opponents have been banned/blocked before, and complain because of it, sincerely worried for the sake of wikipedia and your opponents.
- Canvass - Subtly canvass members of your travelling circus by "mentioning" (pinging) them either at your comment at AN or at some administrators' talkpage.
- Never propose indeff ban or block because that way you would reveal your motives. Although that is the ultimate victory for you. Propose only a topic ban from the subject you are interested to push your POV at. That way you would present yourself as actually constructive. Working in the best interest of wikipedia, without having your POV pushing in mind. Pretend that you actually have the best interest of your opponents in mind. If you manage to present your opponents as inherently unable to constructively edit in the topic area in question, your proposal to topic ban them will actually look as good deed.
- AN - Use every opportunity to mention your opponents in bad light at administrators' noticeboards, even at completely unrelated discussions. That way you will subtly canvass friendly administrators to support you and prepare ground for eventual real report.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This
essay is in development. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion, especially since this page is still under construction. |
| This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
| This page in a nutshell: This essay is humorous guideline which instructs editors how to cheat in discussions. |
There are many tricks you can use against your opponents in discussions. There are some general rules you should always follow:
- One-two combo - Try not to use one trick at the time. Using more than one trick simultaneously is more effective and more safe for you (it is more difficult to catch you red-handed).
- Sidetrack the discussion. Carefully sidetrack discussion to discuss the conduct of your opponents rather than the content of the articles or your conduct.
- It's you! - In every single comment you write never forget to carefully attribute inherent disruptive nature to your opponent. Occasionally imply that you are, unlike your opponents, particularly constructive. If you repeat this over and over again the consequence would be:
- false narrative - you will manage to create false narrative about particularly:
- disruptive nature of your opponents and
- constructive nature of yourself
- travelling circus - building a travelling circus consisting of other editors who share your position or the common "enemy".
- false narrative - you will manage to create false narrative about particularly:
- It's you! - In every single comment you write never forget to carefully attribute inherent disruptive nature to your opponent. Occasionally imply that you are, unlike your opponents, particularly constructive. If you repeat this over and over again the consequence would be:
Slow
Force your opponents to loose time and energy every time they contradict you.
Source your assertion!
- Insist that your opponent should present source for his assertion with full quote.
This sourcing request becomes trick when you use it even if the assertion of your opponent is something that is easy to be checked (kind of sky is blue assertion) or already extensively elaborated by the same sources you already used in the article. That is why this trick has an additional element — humiliation. Both you and your opponents know that you know very well what is the source for their statement, yet you forced them to lose time and energy to present all details of the source, including full quote and its context. Yes, the context. If your opponents present short sentence that prove their position, ask for more text. If the text they presented is based on Google Books snippet, accuse them for trawling Google search results.
To add insult to injury and additionally annoy your opponent, use every opportunity to propose substantial change of the article, such as article's name, without presenting a single source to support your proposal.
Translate please!
- If your opponent used non-English source insist on providing original quote with translation.
It is very important to insist on quotes and translation even for assertions which are already well known. This will add pun to injury.
Cheese
Use dialogues which are similar to WP:CHEESE as often as possible. This kind of dialogues are perfect to tire your opponents. It takes you ten times less energy and time to assert that The moon is made of green cheese then to your opponent to refute this assertion. With sources + quotes + translations.
Avoid replying
- Never give straightforward answers to the questions your opponent ask.
To add insult to injury and additionally annoy your opponent, use every single opportunity to complain that your opponents have not responded to certain aspect of your comment, even if you did not present that aspects as question at all.
Attack, attack, attack
Attack your opponents every time you wrote comment in discussions with them.
Harsh!
- Every single comment you write to your opponents should be harsh.
The trick is to write harsh comments to your opponents although even if it is completely unnecessary. Or to be more precise: precisely because it is unnecessary to be harsh. This will additionally humiliate your opponent.
You...
- Imply that something is wrong with your opponents.
You should insist that there is something wrong not only with their position, but to imply that there is something wrong with themselves (their motives, beliefs, attitude, knowledge...). If your opponent was sanctioned in the past, don't forget to bring this information to the talkpage, especially if you ran out of arguments.
POV accusations
- Imply that your opponents are POV-pushers.
Insist that everything your opponents do, say, propose.... is connected with some particular POV they continually push on wikipedia. The more you repeat such accusations the more likely is that uninitiated editors will take them for granted.
Never ever AGF
- Never ever AGF with your opponents.
Flag waving
- Use every opportunity to assign undue connection to nationalism or patriotism to your opponent.
This trick is based on the presumption that the recipients (other editors) already have certain beliefs, biases, and prejudices about particular issues (i.e. nationalism or patriotism).
Delete/rename proposal
- Follow edits of editor who opposed you in more than one article and occasionally propose for deletion/renaming article they recently created.
This is a way to harass your opponents and to send them a warning not to mess with you. It is relatively safe because you followed wikipedia procedure for deletion/renaming proposals so nobody can blame you for doing that.
Article ownership accusations
- Imply that your opponents show article ownership behavior.
To add insult to injury, demonstrate article ownership behavior yourself, i.e. by presenting your position at article's talkpage as some kind of consensus, particularly if it has never been discussed before.
Create narrative about disruptive character of your opponents
Discredit your opponents by creating narrative about their disruptive character.
Past blocks or bans of your opponent
- Point to the past blocks or bans of your opponent.
One of methods to do that is to point to their past blocks or bans, regardless if they are unrelated to the dispute. The more unrelated your opponents ban/block is, the better. Don't refrain from this even in case of your opponent's bans outside of en.wikipedia.
Lie
- Lie.
If the discussion with your opponents lasted for some time, you probably managed to create huge wall of text which will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. That simply means that your opponents are completely at your mercy because you are able to lie. Even blatantly. Nobody is willing to dig trough megabites of past discussions. Even if there is somebody willing to do it, nobody would be willing to dig trough dirty megabites to check the facts. That is why you are completely able to lie in order to discredit your opponent.
Even if your opponents were very constructive and significantly contributed to the quality of article, don't hesitate to present them as particularly disruptive and non-constructive. The more they contributed to the quality of the article the more you should repeat that they are disruptive and damaging for the quality of the article.
Language skills
- Question your opponents' language skills instead of the point they made.
If your opponents are not native speakers of English language and if they language skills are not perfect, that gives you perfect advantage. Whenever your position in discussion is weak, just question your opponents' language skills instead to address the points they raised. This will additionally personalize the issue and frustrate your opponents to loose their tamper and violate wikipedia rules.
Defend yourself
The best tactics to defend yourself is to simultaneously attack your opponents who caught you red-handed.
Wikilawyering accusations
No wikipedia policy based arguments? or Wikilawyering? - If your opponents present argument grounded in wikipedia policies, accuse them for WP:Wikilawyering. If your opponents don't mention wikipedia policies, accuse them for bringing arguments not based on wikipedia policies.
Other stuff accusations
If you are caught red-handed because you contradict the position you yourself supported in another discussion, you just accuse your opponents for WP:OTHERSTUFF behavior.
(Not) reporting your opponents
Your aim is to get your opponent reported and out of your way. You would be victorious if your opponents are indeff banned. Their topic ban or their block is only a battle in your war. Not victory. Therefore never stop with using if you manage to get your opponents blocked or topic banned. To achieve that you should:
- Avoid directly reporting your opponents - By creating a false narrative about particularly disruptive character of your opponents you created a perfect opportunity to use it as proof by assertion. Anybody can use this false narrative as argument to report your opponents. If nobody else is willing to do it instead of you and if your opponents have already been banned/blocked earlier, then go report them to the administrator who already blocked/banned them. Find some way to connect your current dispute with the issue for which your opponents have been banned/blocked before, and complain because of it, sincerely worried for the sake of wikipedia and your opponents.
- Canvass - Subtly canvass members of your travelling circus by "mentioning" (pinging) them either at your comment at AN or at some administrators' talkpage.
- Never propose indeff ban or block because that way you would reveal your motives. Although that is the ultimate victory for you. Propose only a topic ban from the subject you are interested to push your POV at. That way you would present yourself as actually constructive. Working in the best interest of wikipedia, without having your POV pushing in mind. Pretend that you actually have the best interest of your opponents in mind. If you manage to present your opponents as inherently unable to constructively edit in the topic area in question, your proposal to topic ban them will actually look as good deed.
- AN - Use every opportunity to mention your opponents in bad light at administrators' noticeboards, even at completely unrelated discussions. That way you will subtly canvass friendly administrators to support you and prepare ground for eventual real report.