|This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.|
|This page in a nutshell: Retaliating when things don't go your way is inconsistent with the goals of Wikipedia|
The sweet wine of fairness cannot be squeezed from sour grapes. When an editor seeks to use a community discussion as a platform for retaliation, their opinion should be ignored.
This fictitious example starts with an article that was PRODed by Editor1 and deprodded without explanation by Editor2. Editor1 retaliates in his statement at AFD with a comment such as:
- Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining.
All other arguments aside, the phrase "Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining" does not belong in the nomination. It may very well be that sending the article to AFD was a reasonable decision, but injecting the bitter commentary along with the rationale isn't helpful and is in fact a behavioral concern.
Retaliatory CSD / PROD / AFD
This is where an editor has content they added to the article and it was deleted for whatever reason, and they decide that if their changes can't be included, then the article shouldn't exist. They either send the article to one of the deletion processes: WP:CSD, WP:PROD or more often WP:AFD. In these cases, it is acceptable to close the process without action for being a bad faith action. It is an "all or nothing" approach to having one's way and is inconsistent with working in a collaborative environment.
Often, the editor who feels slighted is the original creator and feels they own that article. More rarely, there may be a conflict of interest involved, such as someone editing an article about themselves, their organization or just a major interest. Whatever the cause, their reason for sending the article to deletion isn't objective reasoning, and is instead obvious retaliation.
The act of nominating in bad faith in this way may be used as a basis for sanctions.