Wikipedia:There is no justice

When editors with different backgrounds try to collaboratively interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines which require judgement, conflict is inevitable. Wikipedia has mechanisms to try to resolve such disputes as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Wikipedia content is public and freely-licensed; however this website is privately owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which sets the terms of usage. Therefore, editors have no legal right to edit it; no rights are being denied if users are blocked; and thinking in terms of a legal framework is counterproductive.

The purposes of Wikipedia dispute resolution are: Due to several factors, including ambiguity of policy and variety in editors who respond to requests, interventions are non-deterministic. Demands for justice, or that other editors receive the same sanctions you did for what you perceive are equivalent situations – regardless of the accuracy of the assessment – will not be well received. Pursued too persistently or vigorously, such claims may end up prompting the community to sanction you for disruption.
 * Help ensure encyclopedia quality.
 * Allow editors to return to productive editing instead of getting bogged down in conflict.

Ask for assistance, not punishment. It is not uncommon for it to quickly be apparent that a small number of editors will simply not be able to come to consensus. Continued and prolonged attempts at discussion in these situations can lead to frustration, acrimony, and disruption. It is good to ask for assistance from the community, but it is best not to request or demand specific solutions. It is also good to accept the possibility the consensus will turn out not to be your position; try not to view this as "you lost", so much as you helped Wikipedia achieve consensus.

Seek, not justice. Different editors react differently to similar situations, which is why there is inconsistency in the outcomes of similar events. Editors are volunteers that come from different countries, cultures, and philosophies; there is no way to have true consistency in outcomes unless the system were overbearingly bureaucratic. The key is to use polite and civil discussion and persuasion, or simply agree to disagree. Cries of injustice will usually fall on deaf ears. It is better to ask for practical solutions that are reasonably fair and that consider everyone's interests. Often, it is better to wait a day or two after a decision was made to allow reflection upon the events, and for cooler heads to prevail.