Jump to content

Wikipedia:Assume bad faith: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
a new one
Reverted. Valid or not, that's a defense -- not an assumption of bad faith. And for the record, I have this page on my watchlist, and that's how I discovered your edit.
Line 41: Line 41:
*"An article formerly here was deleted, so this new article must be a re-creation of deleted content!"
*"An article formerly here was deleted, so this new article must be a re-creation of deleted content!"
*"That editor knows NOTHING about what he's writing about, what business does he have with this article?"
*"That editor knows NOTHING about what he's writing about, what business does he have with this article?"
*"I am not [[Wikipedia:Harassment|wikistalking]] anyone. I am going through his prior work and trying to undo the damage he's done."
*"That so-called 'fact' presented is just the author's POV. After all, truth is a whole, and on the whole, only I have the truth."
*"That so-called 'fact' presented is just the author's POV. After all, truth is a whole, and on the whole, only I have the truth."
*"That guy 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?"
*"That guy 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?"

Revision as of 07:45, 4 February 2006

Everybody is acting in bad faith except for me and my monkey.


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.

  • "That editor is a..."
    • "sockpuppet"
      • "...just like me."
    • "zealot"
      • "...just like me."
    • "cliquish POV pusher"
      • "...just like me."
    • "troll"
      • "...just like me."
    • "power-drunk admin"
      • "...just like me."
    • "stalker"
      • "...just like me."
  • "This is the work of the Cabal!"
    • "TINC."
      • "Only a member of the Cabal would deny existence of the Cabal!"
    • "Which one?"
  • "That editor is gay!"
  • "That editor is tag-teaming to revert me."
  • "This is all to promote the ________ agenda!"
  • "The other guy is only doing this because he hates me."
  • "If I compromise, they'll know it's a sign of weakness."
  • "I can do whatever I want, even if policy goes against me."
  • "I have my own prime directive, Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules"
  • "Everybody is wrong, crazy, retarded or all of the above. Except me."
  • "If all else fails, I'll complain to Jimbo. That'll shut them up."
  • "Policy was misused against me, and even if it wasn't, the policy sucks."
  • "Don't you people have anything better to do than to keep asking for sources?"
  • "That policy page is wrong, because it doesn't describe what I do. I'll fix it."
  • "These are only guidelines! Unless they support my position, in which case, they are policy."
  • "I know! I'll do the most trollish, evil, and/or assholish thing I can, because it'll be funny!"
  • "Filling a user's talk page with the word 'fuck' 800 times will persuade him to my point of view."
  • "An article formerly here was deleted, so this new article must be a re-creation of deleted content!"
  • "That editor knows NOTHING about what he's writing about, what business does he have with this article?"
  • "That so-called 'fact' presented is just the author's POV. After all, truth is a whole, and on the whole, only I have the truth."
  • "That guy 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?"
  • "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!"
  • "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."

See also