Wikipedia:Righting Small Wrongs
Righting Small Wrongs[edit]
 | This page in a nutshell: Do not engage in large campaigns to right what you perceive as small wrongs that have been done to you in Wikipedia |
 | This is an essay on the conduct policy. 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. |
Wikipedia has a guideline that states that Wikipedia should not be used to Right Great Wrongs,[citation needed] because Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and because Wikipedia only records what has already been reported by reliable sources. Editors who use Wikipedia primarily to try to Right Great Wrongs are often restricted or sanctioned. But editors also should not focus unduly on Righting Small Wrongs that they perceive have been done to them by Wikipedia. The most serious sanction that has been imposed for campaigning to Right Small Wrongs is the same as the most serious sanction that has been imposed for using Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs, which is a community-imposed site ban. That is the most serious sanction that can be imposed in Wikipedia. Persistently trying either to Right Great Wrongs or Right Small Wrongs is not a good idea.
Among the types of small wrongs that have been perceived have been:
- A short block for restoring posts by IP editors that were thought to be inappropriate;
- The removal of talk page material that the originator asked to have restored;
- The speedy deletion of pages in user space that contained copyrighted material that the originator was intending to rework;
- Comments that the editor thought were personal attacks by another editor.
Wikipedia has procedures for the righting of small wrongs. If you think that you were inappropriately blocked, you may request that the block be reviewed at Administrative Action Review. You may ask to have the talk page material restored. You may report the insults at WP:ANI. However, you should recognize that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and that if you are in the minority in thinking that you were wronged, you should accept that you can't always get what you want. If your request to have a small wrong righted is not granted, because there isn't a consensus that you were wronged, continuing to raise the issue may not be any more useful than beating a dead horse. It may be about as useful as beating an injured horse, which might cause the horse to become dead.
If you request that the administrator be desysopped by filing a Request for Arbitration, after the block review was already unsuccessful, or if you use Deletion Review to request that copyrighted material be restored (which DRV never does), or if you repeatedly raise the same issue, you may be viewed as a vexatious litigant. Vexatious litigants are sometimes topic-banned from continuing to raise the same issue, or partially blocked. In some cases, vexatious litigants, or other editors who are seeking to Right Small Wrongs, may be indefinitely blocked, or even banned by the community.
Some editors who are trying to Right Small Wrongs think of themselves as trying to Right Great Wrongs. If so, they may be doubly mistaken. No wrong that has been done in Wikipedia is a Great Wrong. Even if you are trying to improve the encyclopedia and are unjustly blocked, that is a Small Wrong. The encyclopedia will continue to be improved in its haphazard fashion, with or without your assistance. If you think that Wikipedia has done you a Great Wrong, the two mistakes are thinking that it is a Great Wrong, and seeking to use the encyclopedia as a soapbox.
So, if you think that you have been done a Small Wrong, and the community does not agree, it is a good idea to recognize that you can't always get what you want.