Wikipedia:Assume good wraith

As we are all aware, Wikipedians must always assume good faith. It's similarly common knowledge that one should also assume the assumption of good faith, and perhaps in some circumstances assume bad faith. And yet, despite the multitude of policy articles covering the nuances of this expansive topic, there is a crucial message that appears to have been forgotten by the good (living) people of Wikipedia.

Assume good wraith

Artist depiction of a good wraith. Note the arms are at the side in a friendly gesture as if saying, "How may I help you?"

Assuming good wraith (AGW) means assuming that ghosts, phantoms, and otherwise spooky spirits are not necessarily malicious, even when their actions are harmful. Most wraiths are well-meaning, and pose no threat to Wikipedia or its contributors. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

There is a common phantasmophobic stereotype perpetuated by popular culture that apparitions are inherently "forces of evil" and "bringers of death". This mentality has no place on Wikipedia, and insulting an incorporeal editor purely on these grounds is unacceptable.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good wraith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (eg. possession). Nor does it imply that benevolent spirits may haunt articles without facing criticism, as friendly ghosts may often require assistance to avoid horrific consequences. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to Malice unless there is specific evidence of such.

No, not even if it's fun

Yes, I know what you're thinking. Mortal beings often find happiness in the suffering of others, and as such attempt to justify this instinctive response to themselves by assuming that this suffering must be "deserved" in some way.

However, you must resist this urge! Consider how you would feel if you were in their position. Who among us hasn't accidentally scared a navigational template so badly that it made the whole page close due to being haunted? Even if it makes you feel better... it makes them feel worse. Souls have souls too, after all.

Dealing with bad wraith

First, consider the possibility that the entity you've encountered may not be a wraith at all. Ghoulish behavior is statistically more likely to have been the result of a demon, gnome, or some sort of Dracula.

Nonetheless, even in the rare event that a bad wraith is evident, do not retaliate by acting spookily in return, as this will only provoke the poltergeist further. It is ultimately much easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies if the party representing the living remains alive throughout.

Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors will usually be glad to help, provided that they are given a fair warning about the specific state of the article or talk page.

Hey wait, isn't this just AGF with some different wording?

Of course not! There's jokes in here too.

See also

• Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)
• Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith (WP:AAGF)
• Wikipedia:Assume bad faith (WP:ABF)
• Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)
• Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies
• Wikipedia:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
• Wikipedia:Yes legal threats (WP:YLT)
• Ghostbusters (On second thought, don't ever see this)
• Anthropogenic global warming — the real definition of AGW.