User:SunDragon34/Sandbox

This is the user sandbox of SunDragon34. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

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 page in a nutshell: Do not assume another editor is "out to get you" if they make an objection to something you did. Be nice to them, consider their viewpoints, and work it out like adults, even if you think they may be "wrong". Never lose your temper in a discussion. Your Wikipedia experience will be happier as a result.

On Niceness, or "User So-and-So is not out to destroy you"

Most nasty conflicts on Wikipedia could have been avoided with a little "niceness". Losing your temper is a sure-fire way to make a trivial event into a firestorm.

If another editor makes an objection to something you did, do not reply as if you are "dueling" with them (e.g., "You're wrong, I'm right, here's why. In fact, YOU'RE violating policy.") Other editors are not your enemies; they are simply trying to be helpful and make good content better.

If another editor tags your talk page for a policy violation, look at that policy, examine your recent behavior, and consider the possibility that you ARE violating policy. If you conclude that you are not, kindly tell the other editor why you believe you are not violating policy. Listen thoughtfully to their response.

Don't edit war. Just don't. Please. All it does is make people angry.

If another editor loses their temper with you, be twice as nice to them, and see the next item.

Do not make personal attacks no matter what the other editor says.
Avoid counter-accusations.
Remember that you are not the only two editors on Wikipedia; if you don't know what to do, ask for a third opinion. An experienced editor who frequently deals with such situations will come to assist you in working out your disagreement.

Example

To illustrate my point, let's look at a dispute between User A and User B.

The not-so-pleasant way

I find that a lot of conflicts begin thus:

1. User A voices a friendly content concern on an article's talk page.
-OR-
User A posts a user warning on User B's talk page.

2. User B reacts defensively, defending his/her actions (not necessarily a problem) and says in some way that User A is wrong for tagging or objecting to them (now, this can be a problem.)

3. User A argues that the tag or objection is valid and that User B's behavior violates some aspect of Wikipedia policy. At this point, User A might revert the contribution in question (made by User B), if they haven't already.

4. User B (now getting angrier) restores his/her material, further defends it, and accuses User A of making personal attacks.

5. Personal attacks are exchanged, and edit warring commences. Either party might file a request for a third opinion or a request for comment.

6. And now it's all a big, unpleasant mess.

The right way

Here's how it should have happened:

1. User A voices a friendly content concern on an article's talk page.
-OR-
User A posts a user warning on User B's talk page.

If User B was violating policy: User B corrects the mistake and thanks User A for helping him/her out. Everyone is happy.

Otherwise:

2. User B reads User A's comments, and thinks, "Oh, User A has a point," or "Oh, User A might not be aware of (insert special circumstances here). I'd better let them know." So User B lets them know.

If User A realizes his/her objection/warning tag was mistaken: User A apologizes to User B. Optionally, User A does something extra-nice or helpful to User B in return. Everyone is happy.

Otherwise:

3. User A thoughtfully considers User B's response, and respects User B's point of view. User A kindly presents his/her point of view to User B, citing facts and consensus, and acknowledging User B's point of view. User A thanks User B for his/her respect and willingness to work together.

4. A respectful, productive discussion ensues, in which Users A and B both come away with more respect for each other than they had before.

5. The two users come to an agreement, and the result is content both editors feel is better than it was before. Both editors feel they have learned something valuable from this discussion.

6. Everyone wins.

The moral of this story? Be nice. Nobody is out to destroy you, disparage you, or pwn you. If somebody raises a question concerning an edit you made, simply say why you thought the edit was appropriate and listen as they tell you what they think could be improved. Consider their comments; they may know something you don't know. Nobody is perfect, and so no contribution to Wikipedia is perfect, either. Their input will probably help you improve what you have written.

Thank the person for offering to help, because, almost always, they're just trying to help.

Combativeness leads to unpleasantness; kindness and respect lead to a productive and enlightening discussion.

On Niceness, or "User So-and-So is not out to destroy you"

Example

The not-so-pleasant way

The right way

See also