User:Tstormcandy/Wikipedia:Due Process
 | This user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by Enterprisey (talk | contribs) 7 years ago. (Update timer) |
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: In actuality, you are not a harbinger of Justice. Nothing on Wikipedia is restrained to a sole editor. Nothing. A justification of "because I can" or "because I want to" for an edit means you shouldn't make the edit. |
Wikipedia Philosophy[edit]
Contradictions within Wikipedia[edit]
There are times when specific actions are necessary for all editors and justification is sought ex post facto or is assumed via lack of concerns addressed to you. To pounce on major cases of disruption is encouraged, such as with vandalism, unreferenced personal information, matters of legal threats or violence and other things that are introduced to all editors as important matters of civility and community strength in readings upon becoming a new user. Administrators have significantly more cases where immediate action is taken, such as speedy deletion or page protections and have been given the trust of the community to hold that position when applying. Despite adminship presently being position "for life", admins can and (in the opinion of the essay author) should be held accountable for their actions just as any other editor for day-to-day behaviour and edits.
Therapy and Long-term Treatment[edit]
Article ownership is all too frequent. It's not entirely unreasonable for someone who have put hours upon hours into particular articles they care about to become a bit upset after they were seemingly defaced at random.The key here is to calm down and deescalate. What got changed? Why? Is there an edit summary? The power of apparent ownership can be addicting.
The road along the contradiction of moderation and boldness or ignore all rules is a challenging one. I've decided to boil it down into one principle.
- Use Common Sense
Always ask yourself "why am I doing this?" before completing an edit. Is it "because I can"? No good. "Because I want to"? No. "Does this better the encyclopedia"? Yes. "Am I being reasonable toward and not interfering with other users"? Yes.
In the face of a situation you feel you may need to ignore all rules, allow common sense can win. Moreover, as part of common sense, please remember that we always assume such actions are in good faith regardless of context without evidence to the contrary.
Applications Of Self-Gifted Justice[edit]
- 1604's The Tragedy of Valentinian by John Fletcher uses the phrase "I am justice" in reference to divine right and political theory under Monarchy, the prevailing government structure and practice at the time.
- In the anime series Death Note, the anti-hero Light Yagami frequently justifies murder with rationale "I am justice", claiming the act it reasonable if the goal is to better society.
- Wikipedia's sole "rule" of ignoring all rules. The process of asking yourself if your action is bettering The Project.
Footnotes[edit]
See also[edit]
- Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules
- Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose
- Wikipedia:Gaming the system
- Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
- Wikipedia:Misuse of administrative tools
- Wikipedia:Use common sense/There is no common sense
- Wikipedia:Edit Ninjas