How to defeat editors you disagree with

{{essay|WP:ANTIWP]] {{nutshell|If you're an established editor and a member of a cooperative editing clique, you're always in the right and there is always a rule to justify anything you do; your authority must be respected above all else. If you're not, then you're always wrong and no content you add to Wikipedia has any value.}}

Theoretically, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia anyone may edit. Any content which is not up to par is edited and reworded until it is. Wikipedia's rules on civility are supposed to be geared towards this goal.

In practice, a small subset of the already small subset of established editors who have appointed themselves (the "regulars") have rigged the entire system of Wikipedia's rules to favor them, to ensure they are paid tribute and honored, while newcomers are all treated as vandals. Even some established editors who are not part of the clique are treated with great disrespect and uncivility by the clique while the clique simulataneously admonishes them for lacking civility! These are the proven tactics on How to defeat editors you disagree with, to treat them without any respect while simultaneously making everyone think you're being civil, and to ensure that anything they add to Wikipedia is promptly removed and does not survive in any form. Wikipedia's rules on civility can be perverted to be used as weapons against those you disagree with.

The tactics they use are described here. If you find these tactics disgusting and slimy, keep in mind that editing Wikipedia is a savagely cutthroat undertaking. Edit without using these Machiavellian tactics, and it won't matter how correct your content is, how well-sourced, how amenable to rewriting and updating it may be; it will be summarily deleted without anyone asking whether it has any value.

Newcomers who want to use these tactics will have to pay their dues by kissing up to an established member of the clique and completing missions assigned by them.

The tactics
Anytime someone adds something to an article in a way you, an established editor and part of an editing clique, disagree with, you can use these steps more or less in order:


 * 1) If they don't have any footnote citations, revert them and cite WP:NOR. It doesn't matter if they have half-formed inline citations. It would be more in the theoretical ideal of Wikipedia to change those half-formed inline citations into fully-formed footnote citations. But that doesn't respect your authority, which is the most important consideration here.
 * 2) When they add citations, revert them and cite WP:SYN. It doesn't matter whether any conclusions are actually synthesized from the multiple sources they're citing, it's synthesis on the say-so of your authority alone.
 * 3) When they revert for the third time, cite WP:3RR. The 3-revert rule applies to them no matter how much they may change the content they're adding, but it doesn't apply to you even if no changes are made to the content.
 * 4) Sooner or later, they will be infuriated and let something slip that could be construed as offensive and uncivil to you. That's the time to attack them with WP:CIVIL. But have a newcomer attack them with that.
 * 5) If they ever put a template on your page, respond with WP:TEMPLAR. You can put all the templates you want on their page, but they have no right to put templates on your page.
 * 6) Have a newcomer regularly remove unflattering comments from your talk page under the guise of "archival." Flattering comments on your talk page shouldn't be moved to an archive until they are at least a year old.
 * 7) Semi-protect the page so only "regulars" can edit it. The "regulars" are only the editors in your clique.

Remember, your authority is the most important thing. Truth and correctness are of only secondary importance.