Jump to content

Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Background: Well for that matter, "reports" could be a disease, so "get reports" might mean the noticeboard contracts some illness. Also, noticeboards can't really comprehend anything, so it would be more appropriate to say that other editors get reports (not a disease, though) VIA various noticeboards
→‎Background: merge Testing the limits section from Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black
Line 13: Line 13:


This is called "shooting yourself in the foot". The behavior of a returning [[boomerang]] is similar: if thrown incautiously, it can come back to injure the thrower.
This is called "shooting yourself in the foot". The behavior of a returning [[boomerang]] is similar: if thrown incautiously, it can come back to injure the thrower.

==Testing the limits==

This phenomenon is quite common with the "test the limits" crowd. Often, users will go out of their way to [[WP:GAME|game the system]], making changes which are against the [[Wikipedia:Use common sense|spirit]], if not the [[WP:IAR|letter]] of the law. This user will, often purposely, goad other Wikipedians into response with an aggravating propensity to [[Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules|bend the rules]], and will of course immediately accuse the other Wikipedians of incivility. This type of user ranges from the more intentional to the more [[benign]].

Users are encouraged to [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|keep a cool head]] and discuss on talk pages first.


==There is no "immunity" for reporters==
==There is no "immunity" for reporters==

Revision as of 12:42, 27 February 2022

Petards were early gunpowder bombs. A careless engineer might find himself "hoist with his own petard".

On Wikipedia, it is possible, indeed common, to find people shooting themselves in the foot or being hit by a boomerang after complaining about someone else.

Background

Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit. Of course, if you've spent any time on the Internet, you'll know this means that people will disagree and argue about stuff. We like everyone to get along and reach a consensus, but sometimes life just doesn't run that smoothly, and people start edit warring, tearing each other's heads off, threatening to call their lawyer, or any number of escalating problems. If people can't work it out amongst themselves, sooner or later, somebody's going to complain.

Various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, often receive reports posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases, a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report.

This is called "shooting yourself in the foot". The behavior of a returning boomerang is similar: if thrown incautiously, it can come back to injure the thrower.

Testing the limits

This phenomenon is quite common with the "test the limits" crowd. Often, users will go out of their way to game the system, making changes which are against the spirit, if not the letter of the law. This user will, often purposely, goad other Wikipedians into response with an aggravating propensity to bend the rules, and will of course immediately accuse the other Wikipedians of incivility. This type of user ranges from the more intentional to the more benign.

Users are encouraged to keep a cool head and discuss on talk pages first.

There is no "immunity" for reporters

When you're at the end of your WP:ROPE then provoke a WP:BOOMERANG, you've scored a WP:BUNGEE!

A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me; this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny.

There is also no "immunity" for commenters

A special kind of boomerang, known scientifically as a vexbysterang ("vexatious bystander boomerang"), homes in on people who, though not initially involved in a situation, make pests of themselves in the course of the discussion.[1]

How to avoid shooting yourself in the foot

If you are involved in a dispute with someone, try to discuss matters with the other person via their talk page. If they won't cooperate, seek dispute resolution. Try to avoid reporting someone for administrator intervention when you are angry; wait until you are calm and then think about whether the report is appropriate. If you do report someone, be sure you are at the correct noticeboard and read the rules of the board before making your report. Be up front concerning any of your actions that might have contributed to the problem. Finally, consider whether your own actions in the matter have been entirely blameless.

Responders: Investigate fully

When you encounter a reporter who wasn't blameless in the incident, or who posts a report in the heat of the moment, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the reporter is the sole problem without looking at the context. Don't ignore Bob's bad behavior while rushing to be the first to tell Alice that her angry response to Bob's provocation is going to boomerang on her.

See also

  1. ^ [1]