Wikipedia:Don't dive thinking that the referee won't notice

Whatever the player in blue and red's do, and whether the referee noticed him, the player is not good.

If you badly tackled someone earlier in a soccer match, don't later try on the same match to dive, hopefully that the referee won't notice you dived and that the fouled player will get cautioned for something he didn't do. Please know that you can admit a problem you've done, and if you done a problem –even accidentily– , don't blame it all on an innocent person, just to run from the "it's your fault!" shouts.

It may be easier instead to apologize to any victims (if there is at least one).

If you face or see a problem and don't know who did it, don't throw it on someone,maybe it's you who done it, or maybe it's not you. in both cases, find the clues before voting (a.k.a. don't vote too fast), because without clues, you may vote wrongly.

Cases

There are many cases for what I said, anyways, we don't want the Wikimedia project to fall down after this very big effort, just because a small problem, just like how strong superheroes sometimes defeat their villains by the tip of their finger.

The list is below:

• If you remove an important link...
  • Do apologize and try to re-add the link.
  • Don't say that someone else removed it.

• If you removed an important image...
  • Do apologize and revert the bad edit or get another image like the previous one.
  • Don't blame it all on someone else or even a bot.

• If you started/saw an edit war...
  • Do Try to end it or ask a manager to do it for you (how it will end isn't important)
  • Don't make the war even bigger or say that someone else has started the edit war, hoping for them to get banned.

• If you unfairly nominated an article for deletion...
  • Do Un-nominate the article from deletion if you can do so.
  • Don't go delete it or pretend you "didn't" do it.

• If you see a bad edit...
  • Do revert the edit or fix the bad edit (if either way possible)
  • Don't just vote that someone did it with no clues.

For managers

There are some additional cases for managers, even if their are managers and cannot get banned, I don't want the user count to get smaller because of managing "unfairdom"

Anyways, read this if you're a manager:

• If you pass at a protected article that, in contrast, needs to get edited (not needed for the edit-needed part to be always big) ...
  • Do un-protect it until the edit-needed part is edited (what is after that step depends on the future itself)
  • Don't ban anyone you think protected it, just with no clues

• If you banned someone unfairly...
  • Do unban him and say sorry.
  • Don't ban someone else just for "banning him"

Consequences

You may break this rule under no circumstances just because it is somewhat tied to assuming good faith. The consequences are bad.

Let's think of it in a concise way, Let's imagine Users A, B and C (the names are just examples, you can choose any names):

• If A made a problem, then blames it on B :
  • B may start a conflict on the problem.

And,

• If A saw a problem which B made, then says C made it :
  • B may be happy because the fact that he did the problem is disguised.
  • C may feel blamed and leave Wikipedia.
    • The user count decreases, which is not good.

Notes

The difference between WP:GOODFAITH and this rule is that this rule is like "don't assume bad faith", but assuming good faith is not this.

Even if you know who made a problem certainly, it may be better to not blame them as a part of assuming good faith.

See also

• Assume good faith (essay)
• Wikipedia is not about winning (essay)
• Don't call a spade a spade (an essay talking bigger about not calling problem makers "problem makers")