|This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. |
It is not meant to be taken seriously.
|This page in a nutshell: Not all ghosts are evil, despite stereotype.|
Unless you've been living as a troll for the last 6 years, you would have heard about Wikipedia's assume good faith policy, and you would probably have seen assume the assumption of good faith and assume bad faith. But in all of these pages, the good (living) people of Wikipedia have forgotten a crucial message...
What is this telling us, you may ask? Well, usually when you think of ghosts you think of horror movies, white cloaks, and Ghostbusters; 3 equally evil concepts. But ghosts have had a bad stereotype built against them through the ages (Ghostbusters 2 was the final straw, surely), and people have forgotten all about Casper the friendly ghost. You must never become one of these people.
If you ever see a ghost, or other spooky creature, always assume it is friendly, like Casper. Assume that it is benevolent, and not malevolent. Don't call it a "bringer of death", a "possessor of darkness", and please don't call the Ghostbusters! Give it a chance, and assume that it's a good wraith.
No, it doesn't, otherwise it would be an essay. If you can't detect the sarcasm in it then you really shouldn't be browsing the Wikipedia humor category, mate.
*groan* — You can AGW by not jumping to conclusions about spirits who may go slightly against the grain, but instead giving them a chance to show that they are acting for the better of the project. You can AGW by not calling even the most tenuous of
IP's ghosts a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and by not calling in a possessor of the banning stick.
Yes, we all understand. Sometimes, our strange mortal minds find happiness in the suffering of others, therefore, we assume that they are trying to do bad, so we can exorcise them, thus making ourselves feel better due to the fact that we are helping, and the fact that we made someone else banished to the other side. THAT'S A BAD THING TO DO! It's hard to resist sometimes, but just remember, you were a little spook once too, and you probably have edits deep in your contributions grave that you aren't exactly proud of, like that one where you accidentally scared the template so badly it made the whole page close due to being haunted. Long story short...just because it makes you feel better...it makes them feel worse, remember that.
...is that a rhetorical question or do you want an answer? I'll take the former.
Assuming good wraith is different from assuming good faith because you're not assuming the intentions of a Wikipedian, but instead assuming the moral compass of someone beyond this mortal realm. They are considered different from regular Wikipedians because they edit in a much different manner: they possess either a mortal Wikipedian (NOT to be confused with a puppet of any sort) or the device itself to edit. This may sound like a load of rubbish, and that is
because it is a load of rubbish I haven't got a lot to work with, darn it!
First of all, those are not wraiths. All wraiths are good wraiths, as per the title of this page. That so-called 'wraith' is most likely a demon, a goblin, a rogue gnome, or an Enderman. It is possible, but highly unlikely, that you could find a bad wraith edit here, here, or here, but we don't need to go there.
In the event that you encounter this scenario, you are advised to Assume Good Wraith only if the wraith in question happens to be editing under the account User:ToddW. Otherwise, inform an admin immediately.