User:Brendon111/Experience/Learnt a lesson
 | This essay is incomplete and it contains my advice or opinions on my recent experience and lessons to be learnt from them. This essay may not represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. |
- These are all from my POV. Nobody is absolutely neutral, I'm just honest about it. Neutrality is inherently a POV.
What happened?
[edit]
I recently got dragged into multiple tiffs without knowing that they were — or at least some of them were — traps to get me punished for my stridency and dissidence. In the current setting, some editors with special privileges can easily provoke or harass an editor without outright violating WP:Civility. Some of them manipulated the civility policy as a weapon to denigrate me[note 1]. I don't think that I'll ever be left alone, nor I want it that way. But it's also true that baiting and blocking isn't the ideal way to resolve disputes. Admittedly, I am no saint 
. That is all the more reason why I want to avoid any sort of critical conversation with someone I have just been involved in a “rough experience” with.
I'm just a human with adequate amount of proclivity towards bad-faith assumptions, especially when I'm scared 
(the case here) — or angry 
. Although, I'm bettering myself and overcoming this fear by frequently reminding myself of WP:AGF, some of my recent experiences were too hard for me to not be frustrated about 
. Trust me it felt bad. But I'm recovering.
How to explain it?
[edit]I recently came across an essay named WP:BAIT, that gave me a different perspective on this whole thing. It explained a lot too 
.
Some people just suffer from megalomaniacal point of view.
The thing is that there are also some people who just don't know how to mind their own business and to refrain from weighing in with their opinions when not asked. There are also some just couldn't resist the temptation to assume bad faith. That's how it is. WP:BAIT also says "Avoid the temptation to get in the last word. Don't tell the provocateur that they aren't welcome, as this can be used against you." Which I, being as foolish as I am, just couldn't follow always.
Why didn't I just stop?
[edit]But apart from my inanity, there is another reason why I didn't stop,
In Wikipedia, even more than in real life, getting the Last Word in a debate is crucial, as it is the only proof of your argumentative success over competing editors.
Am I deaf?
[edit]Now, don't get me wrong, it's not like I didn't hear them or anything. It was just that some opinions sounded much like spiteful, fallacy-ridden (e.g. non sequitur, Reification, Strawman, Red herring, etc), biased ramblings with the sole purpose of ridiculing me and showing how filthy I am, as opposed to politely dispelling my doubts and helping me be a better Wikipedian.
I sense there is a tacit agreement among many (not all) administrators here that no matter how despicably or censoriously or immorally one abuses the privileges that he has been entrusted with, others will just acquiesce.
Having said that, I'm open 
to the possibility that I may indeed be wrong. And even this one line can be used to legitimize claims of me being an uncivil person, although I'm just trying to be forthright here 
. That's how the world is and naturally wikipedia is also a part of the world.
Where to from here?
[edit]
- Few changes
- I will avoid unnecessary disputes.
- I will start being extra-civil.
- I will try not to feed the troll without rudely calling anybody a troll.
- I will start being cautious.
- I will try not to take the bait.
- I will try and be succinct.
- I will be more passionate but not redundantly persistent.
- I will try to learn how to let go easily.
See also
[edit]- My other essays
- Policies and guidelines
Notes
[edit]- ^ I'm deliberately avoiding specificity lest that info gets used to make it seem as though I'm stretching the dispute further
- If someone throws a punch at you and you punch back, your aggressor will no doubt forget that he instigated the attack and feel even more justified in hitting you back. He won’t have time to reflect on his own actions, as he will be too busy attacking you back. If on the other hand, some one hits you and you turn the other cheek, your passive response forces the other person to look at their actions rather than on focusing on your reactions. This can lead the person to actually see what they themselves did to you and might even be a catalyst for them to feel shame or regret which would not be the case if you had responded in kind. They look at their bloodied hand and see the damage they’ve caused.
- Gandhi used this philosophy effectively to lead India to freedom from British tyranny. The people of India were released from their colonial bonds through pacifism, which put the focus on the horrendous acts of those British who were involved. I believe that the guilt and shame that was brought about by this non-violent reaction was crucial to India’s independence. It didn’t happen by the people of India themselves hurling accusations back at the British, but rather by the latter being forced to look at their own actions; the violence was one way.
- Finally, how do you end a tennis match? Simply, don’t hit the ball back and the game stops dead; the cycle breaks. Best regards in all sincerity. Veritycheck (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Duly noted. Thanks 
. Brendon is here 07:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
