Wikipedia:Assume faith

This Wikipedia editor exists and is editing, and accusing them of not existing because they are not human is not helpful.

On Wikipedia, users do, indeed, exist, and if they are editing the encyclopedia, you can safely assume that they do in fact exist and are editing the encyclopedia. Although existence may be considered by some to be an implicit requirement for editing, as it is assumed that a person behind an account exists to be communicated with, it is not explicitly required by policy that an editor exist. It is generally difficult to edit Wikipedia if one does not in fact exist, and editors editing without existence may fall afoul of other requirements for productive editing that presume the existence of a person making decisions. For this reason, proposed policies to prohibit editor non-existence have not gained consensus.

Editors should not be presumed to not exist unless it can be demonstrated that they do not in fact exist, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is generally best to assume faith in their existence. Accusing other editors of non-existence without good cause is detrimental to the collaborative environment necessary to build an encyclopedia, and may in some circumstances constitute a personal attack. Even if editors do in fact demonstrably not exist, the nonexistent editor should be left alone if their nonexistence is not disrupting the encyclopedia.

Editors who exist

Faith in an editor's existence is assumed when they create an account, as the editor must have existed in order for the account to exist. If the editor never edits, their existence may be considered ambiguous by some, but they should, nonetheless, be assumed to exist until it is unambiguously clear that they do not. Users who create accounts but do not edit, and leave the account dormant for a timespan in excess of a natural human lifespan, may be presumed to no longer exist, although this assumes that they are in fact human and not a vampire, zombie, deity, or other entity that is not bound to a normal human lifespan.

IP addresses are not assumed to correspond to extant editors until someone makes an edit from the IP address in question, given that not everyone with an IP address edits Wikipedia, and not every IP address is necessarily actually in use by any particular person. Nonetheless, once an IP has begun to edit, the editor who edits from the IP should be assumed to exist, just the same as the community assumes faith in the existence of any active editor with a named account.

Editors who do not exist

In certain circumstances, a particular editor may be clearly nonexistent. In such cases, the editors should be left alone, provided that their nonexistence is not disruptive. Such examples include:

• Bot editors: Technically, the edits of bot accounts are not directly performed by editors who actually exist, given that the bot is not a human. However, generally speaking, it is not productive to point out that a bot editor does not actually exist, as this fact is obvious to most other actually extant editors. Even if the bot is not a person who exists, the bot's edits unambiguously do exist, and the users who maintain the bot also presumably exist. It is best to treat the bot as an editor who exists, as failing to do so may be seen as a personal attack against the extant maintainers of the bot.
• Deceased Wikipedians: Editors who have passed on may technically no longer exist, but they did previously exist and their contributions should be acknowledged as much as that of any editor who still yet exists.
• Editors who claim to not exist: On occasion, editors may state on their user pages that they do not actually exist. As long as they are editing competently, this should not be a problem. Do not accuse an editor who states that they do not exist of actually existing, as this is not conducive to collaboration with the nonexistent editor and may create unnecessary drama.

Editors whose nonexistence may be problematic

On occasion, an editor who appears to not exist may prove to be problematic, requiring sanctions against the user account or accounts of the nonexistent editor in question. Examples may include:

• Disruptive bots: While bots are often helpful, as described above, bots that do not comply with the bot policy, or which exist solely for the purpose of disruption, may be blocked from editing.
• Editors with usernames that violate the username policy: Even if an editor has not edited, they may be blocked if their username constitutes an egregious violation of the policy on acceptable usernames. It is not required that the editor's existence be proven in order for them to be blocked for such a violation. The editor may be required to prove their existence as a matter of course if they opt to rename their account to an appropriate name in order to resume using it.
• Compromised accounts of nonexistent editors: Editors whose accounts are believed to be compromised after their nonexistence is definitively proven may be blocked. If the editor does in fact exist, they shall need to either prove their existence or create a new account.
• Editors who appear to have ceased existing after being taken to WP:ANI: If an editor's continuing existence is called into question while their conduct is being discussed at ANI, the community may choose to err on the side of assuming that the editor still exists and needs to be blocked, regardless of whether or not they still, in fact, actually exist.
• Editors who edit like bots: An editor whose edits suggest that they cannot actually exist, because their editing patterns suggest that they are not a real human editor, may be assumed to not exist, and blocked if the nonexistent editor's edits prove disruptive.
• Editors who talk like bots: Editors whose communication with other editors appears to consist principally or entirely of text generated by a large language model may be assumed to not exist. Even if the editor does in fact exist, if their communication strongly suggests that an LLM is speaking for them and they are not making themselves available to directly communicate, that is functionally the same as not existing for the purposes of collaboration.

Conclusion

Even in circumstances where editors who unambiguously do not exist are disruptive, not existing is, once again, not prohibited by policy. It is generally more helpful to point out the disruption in question, the same as one would disruption by a clearly extant editor, rather than derail and inflame discussion of the issue(s) with irrelevant accusations that the editor is an NPC. Past consensus of editors has dictated that throwing an editor's existence or lack thereof into question is generally disruptive and tends to not help solve any problems.

Therefore, it is generally advised to assume faith that editors exist, that their edits are real, and that you also exist and are editing the encyclopedia. If you are not convinced that you exist and feel the need to ask the community to decide the matter of your existence, it may be best to take a WikiBreak, as Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue to seek confirmation that you are in fact real.

See also

• Wikipedia:Communication is required
• Wikipedia:The duck test
• On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog