This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline.
Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generally not accepted by the Wikipedia community.
This page in a nutshell: Assume that others do not intend to follow the policies and guidelines of WP participation, unless there is clear and present evidence that they do.
Can you direct me to the railway station? asks the stranger. Certainly, says the local, pointing in the opposite direction, towards the post office, and would you post this letter for me on your way?Certainly, says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing.
Here are a few things that, if you ever find yourself thinking them, are probably signs that you should take some time off away from edit wars, or at the very least, a nice cup of tea and a sit down. It may also help to remember the maxim "Just Because You’re Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Out to Get You".
"You apparently live in the same arm of the Milky Way galaxy as a notorious banned troll, so you're probably one of their meatpuppets."
"That editor who's supporting my opponent is either a puppet or a friend called in to help. After all, could more than one person oppose my natural good sense?"
"If I cite this to a book that doesn't have a web link, I can make up absolutely anything I like and cite it. Nobody ever checks book references, after all!"
"If two editors revert my edits they must be violating WP:OWN. Never mind that I refuse to counter their references or respond to them on the talk page."
"Lots of people think my article should be deleted. I'll post sockpuppet tags on all their talk pages and then go nominate articles they've created for deletion."
"I categorically reject your analysis of my advertising DVDs in Wikipedia articles as false and itself biased! Wait till my "organization" gets a hold of you...."
"They're a disruptive troll! I'll follow them around to warn others about their disruptive trolling!" (Please ignore the fact that I have no proof of them being a disruptive troll.)
"This experience [of having my POV edits reverted, and getting blocked for a 3RR violation] has severely tainted the image of Wikipedia and unless justice is served I doubt I will ever use Wikipedia again."
"If a featured article has 70 footnotes to 26 different sources and I disagree with one footnote (but don't have any citation of my own to refute it with), then the integrity of the article is compromised by too much reliance on a single source."
"Wikipedia should accept my claims without reliable sources because my local library is too small to cover the subject. If someone suggests I try interlibrary loan or concede the point, then they're violating WP:CIVIL by calling me lazy."
"This editor made a few dozen edits to one article in one day right before they submitted the page for a good article nomination, but I'm in a dispute with them. I'll cite that number of edits as evidence of trollish behavior."
"If someone asks me to assume good faith twice, then the appropriate response is to insist that I obviously can't communicate with them because they keep throwing policy at me. It is also appropriate to call the request a defense mechanism."
"Yes, I'm an irrational troll. And yes, any third-grader chosen at random could see that my edits are made with a desperate need to control my surroundings and browbeat all opponents into submission. BUT YOU CAN'T DRAW THAT CONCLUSION! YOU HAVE TO ASSUME GOOD FAITH, OR YOU'RE AN EVIL MONSTER!"
"Wikipedia should accept my claims without reliable sources because the universe is too small to cover the subject. If someone suggests sticking to topics where there is some trace of existent reference materials, then they're violating WP:CIVIL by calling my work original research."
"This [having links I inserted to my own Web site removed and getting blocked after re-inserting them] is just another case of an abuse of privilege. You feel that since you have power over someone who disagrees with your policy that you are entitled to discard rationale and impose your will. By chance, are you a communist or related to Fidel Castro?"
"I see what you're doing there. By changing one letter in my article, you have hereby performed something tantamount to slander of my good name, and therefore, you should be distrusted, nullified, and, from here on out, sacrificed to the Total Perspective Vortex. I might recommend a cup of tea, mate."
"If I don't like a well-referenced article I'll nominate it for deletion and call it fundamentally unencyclopedic. If the consensus decides to keep I'll slap the article with a POV flag. If an editor requests an explanation for the POV flag I'll explain nothing for two weeks, but revert instantly if they remove the flag."
"If all of Wikipedia doesn't shape up and remove everything that doesn't reflect the truth as I know it, and change all of its policies and structures to ensure that none of the stuff I don't like ever makes it back again, it's certain to get sued and/or prosecuted for libel, slander, defamation, product tampering, DUI, global warming, treason, blasphemy, buggery, defenestration, and/or genocide. And, no, this is not a legal threat."
"Obviously all those editors who disagree with me must be sockpuppets. I am so completely, obviously, gigantically, and undeniably right that even one dissenting opinion is shocking; two or more are totally unthinkable. On the other hand, anyone perverse enough to disagree with me and my magnificent rightness is exactly the kind of sneaky snivelling wretch who'd stoop to running a sock farm."