Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✔ This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Shortcut:
WP:POINT
This page in a nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked.
Wikipedia guidelines
Content
Article Inclusion
Notability
Classification
Editing
Discussion
Behavior

Etiquette
Assume good faith
Do not disrupt Wikipedia
to illustrate a point
Don't bite the newcomers
Do not "game the system"
Style
Manual of Style
See also policies
WP:POINT redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (shortcut: WP:NPOV)

Contents

[edit] State your point; don't prove it experimentally

Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented.

In the past, some contributors have found their wikistress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has been handled unfairly in their view. The contributor may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. And the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?"

This neglects two important things about Wikipedia: it is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (Some argue that these are not defects.)

In this situation, it is tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the "proof".

In general, such edits are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Some readers consider such techniques spiteful and unencyclopedic, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.

[edit] Specific kinds of 'disruption to illustrate a point'

[edit] Gaming the system

Further information: Wikipedia:Gaming the system

Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is subversive and in some cases, a form of disruption. It usually involves improper use of (or appeal to) a policy, to purposefully derail or disrupt Wikipedia processes, to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, or to attack a genuinely policy-based stance.

Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to): -

  1. Wikilawyering
  2. Playing policies against each other
  3. Relying upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy
  4. Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper
  5. Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply such as verifiability but willfully ignoring others such as neutrality)
  6. Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community
  7. False consensus
  8. Stonewalling (willfully stalling discussion or preventing it moving forward)
  9. 'Borderlining' (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach to make it hard to actually prove misconduct)
  10. Abuse of process

Gaming can sometimes overlap with policies and guidelines such as disruption (including "disruption to illustrate a point"), incivility (including posting of repeated spurious 'warnings'), personal attack, and failure to assume good faith.

If there is no evidence of improper intent or there is a genuine mistake, it is not usually considered to be gaming. But it may well be, if the action is deliberate, or it is clear there is no way they can reasonably claim to be unaware.

[edit] Refusal to 'get the point'

Shortcuts:
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
WP:IDHT

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.

Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.

Note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem.

[edit] Hoaxes

On a related note, please don't attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it; this wastes everyone's time, including yours. See Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes.

[edit] Examples

  • If somebody suggests that Wikipedia should become a majority-rule democratic community...
    • do point out that it is entirely possible for Wikipedians to create sock puppets and vote more than once.
    • don't create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you.
  • If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD)...
    • do make your case clearly on AfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying.
    • don't create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on AfD.
  • If someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier articles...
    • do state your case on AfD in favour of the article.
    • don't list hundreds of other articles on AfD in one day to try to save it.
  • If an article you've nominated for deletion on AfD is not deleted...
    • do reconsider whether your nomination was justified.
    • don't frivolously nominate the same article for featured article status.
  • If someone deletes information about a person you consider to be important from an article, calling them unimportant...
    • do argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article.
    • don't delete all the information about every person from the article, calling it unimportant.
  • If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...
    • do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus
    • don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion
  • If you're upset someone didn't follow process in making a change...
    • do find out why they did it and attempt to convince them otherwise
    • don't revert an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process" (see WP:IAR)
  • If you think that a particular barnstar is silly and pointless...
    • do discuss the matter on the template's talk page, at WikiProject Awards, or more broadly at the Village Pump
    • don't forge an implausible award to yourself to highlight how silly you think it is
  • If you think someone unjustifiably removed your additions to an article with the edit summary "unsourced"...
    • do find a source for your additions
    • don't remove all unsourced content on the page or re-add your information claiming that the entire page is unsourced
  • If you think that this list of examples has become excessively long and boring...
    • do suggest that half of them may be deleted without loss for the understanding of the guideline
    • don't add 42 more cases, however plausible they are

Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator. Editors involved in arbitration are likely to find that violating the spirit of this guideline may prejudice the decision of the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents for examples of the Committee's views on various types of disruptive behavior.

[edit] See also