User:TenOfAllTrades/Do you ever go fishing?

The story
A man was driving down the highway, making good time, led and followed by several other cars. Passing through a town, he saw flashing lights in his mirror, and obediently stopped on the shoulder of the road; a police car pulled in behind him.

The police officer stepped out of his car, and walked slowly up to the driver's window. He said, "Sir, you were doing eighty in a sixty zone. I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a ticket."

Watching dozens of other cars roll past, the driver asked in frustration, "Why did you stop me? All those other cars are going just as fast as I was!"

The officer paused a moment to frame his reply. He finally asked the driver, "Sir, do you ever go fishing?" The driver, somewhat perplexed, replied, "Of course...."

The officer then asked, "When you go fishing, do you ever catch all of the fish?"

On content
Wikipedia has four million articles, some of which probably don't belong here. No one person is responsible for weeding the whole garden, and it would be impossible for a single editor to try.

Consequently, the argument "We have an article on Y and Z, so we shouldn't delete X because it is at least as important" has very limited weight. It must be examined very carefully, if it is used at all.

If you believe that an article has been nominated for deletion in error, then make your argument (clearly, concisely, politely, and – where possible – with reference to policy and guidelines) at AfD. If you believe that a nomination is legitimate but that other, similar articles have been missed, then make the nominations yourself. (You can ask at the Help Desk if you're not sure how.) Whatever you do, don't nominate an article for deletion – or demand that someone else do it for you – just to try to make a point.

On behaviour
The conduct of editors on Wikipedia is regulated – to an extent – by a very small group of individuals on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors, a dozen or so volunteer members of the Arbitration Committee, a few hundred active administrators, and the peer pressure of a few tens of thousands of other editors. This structure allows for a great deal of flexibility and individual discretion, but it also has some blind spots.

If you have been blocked for cause, the argument "User:Joe Blow did the same thing a month ago, and you didn't block him" usually has little weight. It's likely that nobody even noticed Joe doing it; if it happened a month ago and the problem hasn't recurred, then a block now would be pointless. The circumstances around the incident might also be subtly (or not-so-subtly) different in ways you're not aware of.

Always remember that blocks aren't used for every transgression of Wikipedia policy. They aren't used to punish, and they aren't used to 'win' a fight. Blocks are used to stop or prevent an ongoing problem. Most admins apply blocks sparingly.

If you believe that a block has been placed in error, then make your argument (clearly, concisely, politely, and – where possible – with reference to policy and guidelines) following the instructions provided to you. Use the unblock template, email the blocking administrator, or follow up (calmly and civilly!) at the Administrators' Noticeboard after your block expires. Don't demand that other editors (or groups of editors) be blocked as well, just because you feel that they 'deserve' blocking at least as much as you do.

Related topics

 * Eventualism