Wikipedia:Assume bad faith: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
a new one |
David Levy (talk | contribs) 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
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. |
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."
- "sockpuppet"
- "This is the work of the Cabal!"
- "TINC."
- "Only a member of the Cabal would deny existence of the Cabal!"
- "Which one?"
- "TINC."
- "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."