 | 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. |
At the end of the day, you may think you are phenomenally clever, and/or that you are the world's greatest orator/debater. Some other users may not agree.
What you have to understand is we have seen it all before; every argument, appeal to logic or rhetorical tactic you can think of we have dealt with many times before you ever thought of trying it. If you can think of it, so can we.
Simply put, we are not stupid, and we will see through whatever tactic you resort to.
See also WP:CLUE.
Please do not try to bamboozle us with walls of text or double talk (we can read between the lines) in the hope we will not see what you are really saying. We are neither a court of law nor a debating society, so resorting to rhetorical tactics will never work; oratory (no matter how awesome) is not going to win us over.
Obscureish
The use of foreign languages or gibberish to conceal policy breaches will not work. If it is a foreign language, you are not going to be the only user here who is competent in it, thus, eventually, someone is going to be able to read what you have written. If it is gibberish, people will not bother to understand it, as they will see it as vandalism anyway. A subset of gibberish is "Engrish": either accidental (written by those who are under the misapprehension they can write English, or that translation software produces usable translations), or those who deliberately write "Engrish" to obscure what they are really saying or to make some point. It will be treated in the same light as Obscureish.
It does not matter which of these you choose, you will eventually get a block for being overall a net drain on people's time and patience. You will at first just get advice or warnings, but eventually, the community will have had enough and invoke WP:CIR.
Note that as we are not a court of law (not even a maritime court), courtroom rhetorical tactics or overly legalistic language will not work (especially if it's of the gibberish variety, since unless you are a lawyer you do not understand how legalistic language works). We have our rules, that work our way.
Google Translate
We will soon see if you are using translation software; they literally translate words and cannot get syntax or grammar accurate. We will soon figure out you cannot read or write the Queen's (or even the King's) English, and you will end up looking silly.
LOUD NOISES!
Shouting does not make your case stronger, or more convincing, in fact, if anything it will put people off. A GOOD argument will convince even if SOFTLY SPOKEN, a bad argument will be rejected even if it is as EMPHASISED as humanly possible.
Walls of Text
Another common tactic is to present huge walls of arguments. Not only will many users not bother to read past the first thing they disagree with, but huge walls of text do not in fact make up for a well-reasoned (concise) argument. In fact, many users will assume the opposite (especially true if you are also rambling) — you are making up for a lack of decent argument with verbosity in the hope that the sheer volume of words will drown out any dissent.
It will not work. Your teacher may be impressed if you use 100 words where 10 will do, but we will not be.
Repetition
If you think that you can just keep on repeating yourself until we are suddenly enlightened as to your great intellect, then you are going to be disappointed. Asking the same question for the tenth time will not get you a different answer from what you got on the first through to ninth times. Asking for the same edit 15 times on a single talk page does not make your case stronger, or somehow force us to make that edit. If anything, it weakens your arguments in the eyes of experienced editors and may even be bludgeoning.
Of course, you can just keep repeating yourself like a broken record, in which case, someone will be along soon to "fix" you.
Insinuation
Wikipedia has norms of decorum, politeness and good faith. Why not cleverly pay lip service to them while indirectly implying your opponents are terrible people, sockpuppets, and/or in the pay of a nefarious organisation? It won't work: if you intend some meaning to be taken to poison the well, Wikipedia editors will soon sniff out what you're up to.
Of course, it is possible that yes, the people you were talking to are up to no good, and engage in unaccepted behavior such as sockpuppetry or conflict of interest. But if that's the case, report so at the respective noticeboard, not in the discussion itself... and of course, show your proof.
Now will half-hearted apologies work? You may well think that "I am sorry if you think I broke the rules" will not work. You have to show you know what you did wrong and why you got a sanction (or at the least have been asked to stop), what it will not do is fool us. So no they will not work, sorry about that.
Appeals to logic (which is subjective anyway) will also not succeed, as we have policies and no matter how dumb they are it is how we do things.
Bias
Yes, we are biased toward verifiable facts (in reliable sources), telling us we are biased is not going to win us over.
Gotcha!
Arguments based upon what you think a user meant are not going to work, especially if the user tells you that is not what they meant. If a user tells you they do not support your argument and have said they never did, then they do not support your argument. They know their own mind better than you do.
It may have been a different account, but see WP:DUCK. If you add the same material to the same article in the same way, we are capable of using Holmesian deduction to work out it was all you. If you are going to use different accounts, it really is best to try and not draw attention to yourself.
We do actually bother to check edits and not just look at the edit summary and go, "well that looks OK". We do in fact check what you did, so saying "I have made one change" or "Fix typo" when in fact you have removed huge chunks of text will be seen through. Ticking something as a "minor edit" will not magically convince us it's minor, so thinking you can sneak through some petty vandalism or POV push hidden by an innocent-looking edit summary will not work.
We do check these (as well as other wiki links). So putting in false or made-up cites, or using the cite tag to hide comments or attacks, will not work.
You might think that threatening to take us to "the court of public opinion" might work for you and that the threat of being reported to the press will get you your way. This would be wrong; we are not intimidated by the press (ask the Daily Mail), and all you are going to do is make yourself look silly. And (in fact) that is a quick and easy way of us getting our 15 minutes of fame.
No, you are not protected by the First Amendment, as we are not a government body (and we are not necessarily American); we are a private one with our own rules. [1] No one has a right (legal or otherwise) to edit here, any more than I have a legal right to come round your house and stand in your living room shouting "this man ate my hamster" to any passer-by. This is a private body, not a national government, and so is not covered by any UN charter.
Wikipedia has a Foundation that reviews genuine and serious legal notices; however, posting threats on a talk page rarely (if ever) achieves more than making you look silly, and results in you getting blocked. A legal threat doesn't scare anyone. Ever. It is just yet another cheap rhetorical tactic.
Please do not make threats to report us to real or imagined watchdogs. Most have no say over how we act and may just make you look silly, and we are fully aware of this. We will not face any consequences, but you might end up with a block.
Note as well that as Wikipedia is based in California, USA. Legal findings in other nations do not affect us. Even if your courts say we have to do something, or allow you to do something, it has no impact on what we decide to do. Wikipedia is only governed by United States and Californian laws and courts.
There is no such thing as magic (and many of us know far more about such things than you do). The only thing a curse or other magical attack will get you is a block. Nor do you have some special avenue to god, so don't waste your time invoking divine retribution or special insight (see WP:V).
You are not the black alchemist or the sorceress Arundel (nor are we Danbury Collins, the physic quester and chronic masturbator from the novels of Robert Rankin, and having no similarity to any person living or dead (whatsoever)).
Donations are voluntary, so if you threaten to not give Wikipedia money (which is a wholly free service), it will not care. Wikipedia can survive without your contributions.
At first WP:AGF means efforts will be made to explain this to you. Should you continue in your belief you are considerably more clever than we are, you will get a block, and inevitably a full ban from even your talk page (after your umpteenth attempt to stun us with your eloquence and logic).
It is best when told "we are not as dumb as you think we are" (however worded) to take heed.
- ^ McAlister-Holland, Deb (February 6, 2012). "7 Things the First Amendment Doesn't Protect". Business 2 Community. Archived from the original on June 20, 2020. Retrieved July 26, 2020.
| 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. |
At the end of the day, you may think you are phenomenally clever, and/or that you are the world's greatest orator/debater. Some other users may not agree.
What you have to understand is we have seen it all before; every argument, appeal to logic or rhetorical tactic you can think of we have dealt with many times before you ever thought of trying it. If you can think of it, so can we.
Simply put, we are not stupid, and we will see through whatever tactic you resort to.
See also WP:CLUE.
Please do not try to bamboozle us with walls of text or double talk (we can read between the lines) in the hope we will not see what you are really saying. We are neither a court of law nor a debating society, so resorting to rhetorical tactics will never work; oratory (no matter how awesome) is not going to win us over.
Obscureish
The use of foreign languages or gibberish to conceal policy breaches will not work. If it is a foreign language, you are not going to be the only user here who is competent in it, thus, eventually, someone is going to be able to read what you have written. If it is gibberish, people will not bother to understand it, as they will see it as vandalism anyway. A subset of gibberish is "Engrish": either accidental (written by those who are under the misapprehension they can write English, or that translation software produces usable translations), or those who deliberately write "Engrish" to obscure what they are really saying or to make some point. It will be treated in the same light as Obscureish.
It does not matter which of these you choose, you will eventually get a block for being overall a net drain on people's time and patience. You will at first just get advice or warnings, but eventually, the community will have had enough and invoke WP:CIR.
Note that as we are not a court of law (not even a maritime court), courtroom rhetorical tactics or overly legalistic language will not work (especially if it's of the gibberish variety, since unless you are a lawyer you do not understand how legalistic language works). We have our rules, that work our way.
Google Translate
We will soon see if you are using translation software; they literally translate words and cannot get syntax or grammar accurate. We will soon figure out you cannot read or write the Queen's (or even the King's) English, and you will end up looking silly.
LOUD NOISES!
Shouting does not make your case stronger, or more convincing, in fact, if anything it will put people off. A GOOD argument will convince even if SOFTLY SPOKEN, a bad argument will be rejected even if it is as EMPHASISED as humanly possible.
Walls of Text
Another common tactic is to present huge walls of arguments. Not only will many users not bother to read past the first thing they disagree with, but huge walls of text do not in fact make up for a well-reasoned (concise) argument. In fact, many users will assume the opposite (especially true if you are also rambling) — you are making up for a lack of decent argument with verbosity in the hope that the sheer volume of words will drown out any dissent.
It will not work. Your teacher may be impressed if you use 100 words where 10 will do, but we will not be.
Repetition
If you think that you can just keep on repeating yourself until we are suddenly enlightened as to your great intellect, then you are going to be disappointed. Asking the same question for the tenth time will not get you a different answer from what you got on the first through to ninth times. Asking for the same edit 15 times on a single talk page does not make your case stronger, or somehow force us to make that edit. If anything, it weakens your arguments in the eyes of experienced editors and may even be bludgeoning.
Of course, you can just keep repeating yourself like a broken record, in which case, someone will be along soon to "fix" you.
Insinuation
Wikipedia has norms of decorum, politeness and good faith. Why not cleverly pay lip service to them while indirectly implying your opponents are terrible people, sockpuppets, and/or in the pay of a nefarious organisation? It won't work: if you intend some meaning to be taken to poison the well, Wikipedia editors will soon sniff out what you're up to.
Of course, it is possible that yes, the people you were talking to are up to no good, and engage in unaccepted behavior such as sockpuppetry or conflict of interest. But if that's the case, report so at the respective noticeboard, not in the discussion itself... and of course, show your proof.
Now will half-hearted apologies work? You may well think that "I am sorry if you think I broke the rules" will not work. You have to show you know what you did wrong and why you got a sanction (or at the least have been asked to stop), what it will not do is fool us. So no they will not work, sorry about that.
Appeals to logic (which is subjective anyway) will also not succeed, as we have policies and no matter how dumb they are it is how we do things.
Bias
Yes, we are biased toward verifiable facts (in reliable sources), telling us we are biased is not going to win us over.
Gotcha!
Arguments based upon what you think a user meant are not going to work, especially if the user tells you that is not what they meant. If a user tells you they do not support your argument and have said they never did, then they do not support your argument. They know their own mind better than you do.
It may have been a different account, but see WP:DUCK. If you add the same material to the same article in the same way, we are capable of using Holmesian deduction to work out it was all you. If you are going to use different accounts, it really is best to try and not draw attention to yourself.
We do actually bother to check edits and not just look at the edit summary and go, "well that looks OK". We do in fact check what you did, so saying "I have made one change" or "Fix typo" when in fact you have removed huge chunks of text will be seen through. Ticking something as a "minor edit" will not magically convince us it's minor, so thinking you can sneak through some petty vandalism or POV push hidden by an innocent-looking edit summary will not work.
We do check these (as well as other wiki links). So putting in false or made-up cites, or using the cite tag to hide comments or attacks, will not work.
You might think that threatening to take us to "the court of public opinion" might work for you and that the threat of being reported to the press will get you your way. This would be wrong; we are not intimidated by the press (ask the Daily Mail), and all you are going to do is make yourself look silly. And (in fact) that is a quick and easy way of us getting our 15 minutes of fame.
No, you are not protected by the First Amendment, as we are not a government body (and we are not necessarily American); we are a private one with our own rules. [1] No one has a right (legal or otherwise) to edit here, any more than I have a legal right to come round your house and stand in your living room shouting "this man ate my hamster" to any passer-by. This is a private body, not a national government, and so is not covered by any UN charter.
Wikipedia has a Foundation that reviews genuine and serious legal notices; however, posting threats on a talk page rarely (if ever) achieves more than making you look silly, and results in you getting blocked. A legal threat doesn't scare anyone. Ever. It is just yet another cheap rhetorical tactic.
Please do not make threats to report us to real or imagined watchdogs. Most have no say over how we act and may just make you look silly, and we are fully aware of this. We will not face any consequences, but you might end up with a block.
Note as well that as Wikipedia is based in California, USA. Legal findings in other nations do not affect us. Even if your courts say we have to do something, or allow you to do something, it has no impact on what we decide to do. Wikipedia is only governed by United States and Californian laws and courts.
There is no such thing as magic (and many of us know far more about such things than you do). The only thing a curse or other magical attack will get you is a block. Nor do you have some special avenue to god, so don't waste your time invoking divine retribution or special insight (see WP:V).
You are not the black alchemist or the sorceress Arundel (nor are we Danbury Collins, the physic quester and chronic masturbator from the novels of Robert Rankin, and having no similarity to any person living or dead (whatsoever)).
Donations are voluntary, so if you threaten to not give Wikipedia money (which is a wholly free service), it will not care. Wikipedia can survive without your contributions.
At first WP:AGF means efforts will be made to explain this to you. Should you continue in your belief you are considerably more clever than we are, you will get a block, and inevitably a full ban from even your talk page (after your umpteenth attempt to stun us with your eloquence and logic).
It is best when told "we are not as dumb as you think we are" (however worded) to take heed.
- ^ McAlister-Holland, Deb (February 6, 2012). "7 Things the First Amendment Doesn't Protect". Business 2 Community. Archived from the original on June 20, 2020. Retrieved July 26, 2020.