 | This is anessay on theOwnership of content andcivility policies. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Just because you are an established editor, you are not above the rules, nor are others below you. |
There is no Divine Right of Editors.Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy where the king can do what he likes. Wikipedia isn't, even if you've got the admin bit, CheckUserand Oversight. See the difference?
You have been editing Wikipedia for many years. You have 40,000 edits and have just become an administrator. But a new Wikipedian, with 40 edits and less than a month editing, notes on theadmistrators' noticeboard that some comments you have made recently are less thancivil. Do you:
A.Reply to him harshly with a barrage of inconsiderate comments saying he can't tell you off, you are superior to him? I mean, with only 40 edits, hemust be a sockpuppet of a banned editor, right?
B. Delete the conversation (ideally with an edit summary "rv trolling / harassment"), block the editor permanently without attempting to reply (after all, it's probably anotherVote (X) for Change sock anyway), and sit back confident you have done the right thing?
C.Ignore it, let anuninvolved administrator handle it (possibly incurring being sanctioned in the process), andimprove the encyclopedia somewhere else?
D. Comply withWP:ADMINABUSE. If you strongly disagree with the accusation, simplypleading not guilty will suffice. Let other editor explain why this is so.
The answer isC orD, and if you answered anything else, that is not a good way to handle it. You are relying on the Divine Right of Editors.
There is no Divine Right of Editors. (Hopefully the title made this obvious.) It does not matter who or what you are,you have to be a responsible, considerate editor.
A Divine Right is the belief that God made you to be superior. You can tell someone believes in a Divine Right if:
They openly claim that they are superior in their comments. It doesn't matter if the article they were working on citedMedieval History For Dummies, and you've cited a well-respected history book by a leading subject expert - it'stheir article and there is no consensus to add it! Of course, onanother article, whenyou citeMedieval History For Dummies, well that's not allowed because it's anunreliable source! Note, this is sometimes accompanied by thefaux polite edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by", which means they can't get away with blocking you forvandalism and are annoyed by that.
They expect the law to flow around what they do rather than hitting it. "Hah! I only did three reverts within 24 hours, andWP:3RR says you need four, so suck on that, dip weed!"
They block without good reason and refuse to unblock. Bad cases may even WikiStalk the blocked userpage to weed out any unblock requests. This also applies to closing conversations and deleting articles with no reason. "It's a sockpuppet! I saw somebody write an article similar to this 10 years ago! Itmust be block evasion! I'm going to annihilate it with myG5 flamethrower. Yeeeeah!"
A good way to point out the error of their ways would be to calmly explain protocol. If they go back to the old "above the law" claim, give them this page to read. If they still argue, an ANI may be in order. Note: This does not include editors who refuse to respond, seeWP:Communication is required.