More information People who I try, but often fail, to emulate, WamI ...
People who I try, but often fail, to emulate
...the kind of nation [South Africans] want to be. A nation where all belong and know they belong; where all are insiders, none is an outsider, where all are members of this remarkable, this crazy, country, they belong in the rainbow nation.
Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another...I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realised. But my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
I believe diversity of editors and opinions is essential. The "sum of all knowledge" can only arise from all people participating. I exclude people who espouse hate speech as defined in the South African Constitution’s exception to the right to freedom of expression. I will help any Wikipedian in good faith(AGF), whether or not I agree with their opinions (within reason). This applies especially to new editors and more established editors struggling with editing.
When advising editors who are struggling to understand the rules, I will advise them in English, not "Wikipedia policy codes" (attribution: Irtapil), sometimes used to exclude rather than educate. Sub-culture speak is fine as long as it not exclusionary and the culture teaches newcomers the in-speak rather than bludgeoning them with it. The essay defines "Bludgeon" as "to beat powerfully with an object of great mass". The rules have extreme mass. They shouldn’t be thrown at new or confused editors. If not understood, they can hurt rather than educate. Being told you’re incompetent (CIR), or don’t have ability to edit, is unnecessarily cruel, and counterproductive.
Related to 0RR I apply Bold => Discuss => maybe Revert (BD[R]) to other editors’ good faith edits, not Bold => Revert => Discuss (BRD): Even if I disagree with another editor’s boldgood faith work I don’t believe it should be destroyed by reverting until discussion and consensus (CON) occur. If I disagree I’ll take it to the talk page without reverting. If consensus is to revert, I’ll revert if the original editor would rather not self-revert. If the consensus is not to revert I’ll abide by that. I have no problem having BRD applied to me as written. I’ll not revert the reversion but will discuss until consensus is reached.
I will use Nonviolent Communication (NVC): A communication tool with the goal of first creating empathy. The idea is that once there’s empathy between parties, it’s easier to talk about solutions satisfying everyone’s needs.
I apply Inclusionist principles: Don’t lose notable information (see Mr Universe above). Keep is always better than Delete (except the 3RR exceptions and clearly non-notable content). Merge is the only other option in extremis (information is lost in a merge). WP:Stubs are fine if notable. In notability edge cases I err on the side of notability.
I Remain calm and civil, or disengage and go do something that makes me happy (Cool). Wikipedia is not the be all and end all of existence (the Scottish play Act 1, Scene 7, line 5). Our physical and mental wellbeing are more important than any edit. Walk away if I/you need to.