| Revision as of 18:28, 11 November 2018 editSMcCandlish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors201,792 edits →Revenge ANI: New section, since this comes up a lot at dramaboards (probably more often than at AFD and PROD stuff)← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:46, 30 November 2018 edit undoRAF910 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,179 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| For similar page regarding Misplaced Pages behavioral guidelines please see: ]. | |||
| {{Essay|WP:GRAPES}} | {{Essay|WP:GRAPES}} | ||
| {{nutshell|Retaliating when things don't go your way is inconsistent with the goals of Misplaced Pages}} | {{nutshell|Retaliating when things don't go your way is inconsistent with the goals of Misplaced Pages}} | ||
Revision as of 21:46, 30 November 2018
For similar page regarding Misplaced Pages behavioral guidelines please see: Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point.
Essay on editing Misplaced Pages | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. | Shortcut |
 | This page in a nutshell: Retaliating when things don't go your way is inconsistent with the goals of Misplaced Pages |
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.
In comments
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.
Revenge ANI
Then there's the kind of case where someone doesn't get what they want out of a nomination process, RfC, BRD discussion, or other thread, and feels that someone in particular blockaded or thwarted them. So they dig around in that editor's history for enough dirt – none of which involved them – to try paint a picture of their "enemy" as a disruptive editor (or bad admin, or whatever) at WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:RFARB or some other drama-board. Even cursory review of editorial interaction is going to show the noticeboard's respondents that the real motivation is petty vengeance. The editor engaging in this will be lucky if it ends with just a snowball close against their pillory-my-opponent proposition; a boomerang is quite likely.