User:AlbinoFerret/The rules apply to everyone
 | 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: Policies and guidelines should apply to everyone on Wikipedia. No one is above them and everyone should be subject to them. |
The rules apply to everyone
[edit]The rules of Wikipedia apply to everyone. This includes Admins, editors, and IP editors who occasionally edit. They need to be applied to everyone and should not be ignored. No one is above them because of how they are created, edited, and enforced. Because of this they apply to everyone on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a community of rules
[edit]One thing almost every editor can agree with is that Wikpedia is a community. We share a common goal of creating an online encyclopedia, and making information truly free to anyone with an internet connection. To accomplish this there has to be order and we have that in the form of policies, guidelines, and even essay's to some extent. These are the "rules" of wikipedia. The truly great thing is that these rules are created, changed, and enforced through community consensus.
Every community member is allowed input into the rules during all phases of their life, creation, editing, and enforcement. Even the highest judges of the rules, the Arbcom committee allow input from everyone, involved, uninvolved, and the accused. This is no less evident on the lower noticeboards that deal with problems like WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and WP:AN/3.
Why we need rules
[edit]As the quote above says, "Freedom without rules doesn't work." We would have no freedom to create Wikipedia, we would have no freedom to share the knowledge we gather in this encyclopedia if we didn't have rules. Without rules we would have anarchy or disorder. A community that is focussed on a task can't function in disorder. Even small amounts of disorder can lead to disaster as, in this world, few things tend to get better. The common state of everything is entropy, or to fall apart.
No one is above the rules
[edit]Because the rules we follow are created by the community, no one is really above them. Some might argue that the creator of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, is above the rules. But from every indication he places himself under the rules and guidelines he expects everyone else to follow. This is important because he leads by example. So also we should not try to place ourselves or others above or outside of the rules that were created by the community.
There is a policy that some may try and cite that say the rules should be ignored. Ignore All Rules says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". Use of this policy is not an excuse to break rules or as a get out of jail free card. It does not place anyone above the rules, the rules are still in force, and good reason for breaking them must be presented if an editor is brought to a noticeboard for breaking a rule. It simply means that building an encyclopedia is an important goal and sometimes, in rare circumstances, it's justified to break a rule to accomplish that goal.
This essay does not deal with rules and policy in questions where it is necessary to improve and protect Wikipedia. This essay deals with rules and guidelines that discuss editor conduct. That is why the second line of the quote is used above. Etiquette and Civility are required.
Two wrongs don't make a right
[edit]While some behaviour can be excused, especially if the reason for breaking the rule is to improve or protect Wikipedia as shown in the section on Ignore All Rules. Breaking policies and guidelines and then pointing to the end result is not appropriate in all circumstances. Two wrongs don't make a right, a saying most of us have learned in early childhood. When dealing with an editor who you think is causing problems civility is still required. The original problem is compounded when civility is cast away when dealing with an issue because now there are two problems.
The rules apply even if you are helpful
[edit]There are, at the writing of this on August 25, 2015, 26,028,020 named editor accounts. There are 119,728 editors who have been active in the last 30 days. Editors come and editors go, about 250,000 accounts are created each month. There are also a lot of IP editors who contribute. No one is irreplaceable except perhaps the founder Jimmy Wales.
No matter who you are, except perhaps the founder, or what you have done in the past, the rules apply. Accomplishments and improvements that help the project are all to be respected. But these things do not make editors immune from the rules. Policies and guidelines still need to be followed.
When an editor breaks the rules a common call for leniency is that they contribute and should not have sanctions applied to them because they are good for the project. It is a fallacy to think that just because an editor has done some good, we should ignore the bad. There is no editor that can't be replaced. The fact that so many new accounts are made monthly shows that an editor can be replaced: there is no shortage of editors. This should not be interpreted to mean that a lone problem or two in an otherwise long and good history of editing should be an editors downfall. But egregious or multiple issues over time should not be ignored regardless of the good someone has done.