Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Vote on Guideline

People who support this guideline:

—Eloquence 20:57, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Friedo 21:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
moink 21:24, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I was about to add myself as "neutral" then I read more that showed me the need for this. - Texture 21:28, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly. Jwrosenzweig 21:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Tuf-Kat 00:57, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Phil | Talk 14:24, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Morven I'd voted before below but thought it should be here too
Saul Taylor 17:35, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Angela
Moncrief 21:50, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner 20:52, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Ben Brockert 21:36, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Andrewa 22:57, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Arminius 01:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
MaxMad 08:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Karada 10:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Cymydog Naakka 14:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 21:57, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Gadykozma 21:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jmabel | Talk 20:59, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg 21:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rebroad 26 Nov 2004 - In principle. Should still be ok to make points in discussions, of course!
Sayeth 17:27, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 22:52, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
zen master 01:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 02:06, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
leigh (φθόγγος) 00:47, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC). The recent nonsense with ANUS led me to make this very argument to Iconoclast's talk page. "/temp" pages and talk pages exist for this very reason; there's no need to disrupt the 'pedia.
No brainer. Gamaliel 18:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
— Asbestos | Talk 12:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
nknight 10:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
DaveTheRed 19:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
BlankVerse ∅ 12:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) Although the misuse of this guideline is almost enough to get me to vote against it. There should be a corollary to this that says "Don't quote WP:POINT to make a point".
Nazikiwe 11:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Elian 02:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) - one of wikipedia's essentials

Karada 12:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) - multiple votes
Karada 07:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) - multiple votes

People who oppose this guideline:

Nohat 00:50, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC) . See my comments below.
I agree with Nohat. ugen64 00:21, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones 05:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) I don't oppose the advice here, which I think is excellent; after seeing how users can interpret disagreement with their own ideas as "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point", I strongly oppose giving this any kind of official status.
Eric B. and Rakim 08:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) This "guideline" doesnt guide anyone, it more reads like an veiled attempt at threating those the author feels are "trolling". Besides, inconsistencies in policies and guidelines are AWFUL and has to be corrected by whatever means neccessary. Often by proving like Abraham Lincon said aka. (in wiki longo) "trolling".
Zocky 09:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) What mr. Jones said.
What Mr. Jones said. -- orthogonal 09:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) And what Messrs. Eric B. And Rakim said. -- orthogonal 13:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Absurd attempt at control by power-hungry rogue adminsXed 14:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Opposing this mostly because I already broke it, and still think that was correct. What better way to show that a naming convention is ridiculous than to follow it? And yes, I have been told to argue my case. No reaction. The real ridiculous thing is that people make a policy, and when you propose an exception, they don't agree, but when you apply it to the exception, they say it is not meant that way. If that's the way policy on Wikipedia is made, the disruption from it is completely deserved. - Andre Engels 11:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- As for the examples: The listing of many article on VfD doesn't seem bad. If they are indeed so silly, discussing whether they are so silly as to be deleteable seems good. Deleting other similar things if one thing is judged 'unimportant' seems like a reasonable practice too. Basically, what this page says is: "If policy is against you at some point, don't use that policy against others." - Andre Engels 11:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
ADH (t&m) 14:05, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
✏ OvenFresh ☺ 22:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Stirling Newberry 18:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Shifted to against. There are simply too many cases where matters are let drop because "they aren't big enough". I approve of the spirit of the guideline, but, on balance, the imperative is to improve the mechanisms by which problems are fixed. Before we can apply sanction to people who take the law into their own hands, the law must be applied more uniformly. Stirling Newberry 20:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's a nice "rule to consider" and the sentiment is right, but the enforceable aspect is covered in established policies like Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Civility. Since this poll is being misused to force this as policy, I oppose. -- Netoholic @ 20:04, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
"Don't Disrupt the bus to make a point, Rosa". What? Often, this 'rule' is used to defend things which are wrong with Wikipedia and preserve the status quo. If the point is really worth making, an appropriate amount of 'disruption' could make Wikipedia that much better. Intrigue 20:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I think sometimes "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" is the only way to get your point across to people who just don't want to listen. 209.152.55.51 21:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC) Oops, that was me! Sorry! Ketsy 21:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

Do we have to vote for guidelines? -- Taku 22:07, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Is this an actual vote, or just a list of people who support and oppose? Anthony DiPierro 00:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - My understanding is that the vote is simply a way of showing community consensus. If the community supports this principle, then we can ask people to abide by it. I don't think there's any sense that violating it = ban or reprimand or anything in particular....except that it would become one of Wikipedia's norms, and repeatedly ignoring it might be seen as wrong in the eyes of the AC. But essentially the vote is just to demonstrate whether or not the community believes it is important to follow this guideline. That's my understanding, anyway. Jwrosenzweig 00:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

Anthony DiPierro I agree with Nohat for the most part, and I think the examples need work (for instance I think the third example of listing hundreds of silly articles on VfD is not necessarily a bad thing), but there's nothing really about this policy that I object to. Update: This page is now changing too much for me to register a vote. I thought the original version was OK, but somewhat pointless. It has since changed into more of a rant. Further update: I can't agree with No-one Jones. All policies are ambiguous to some extent. Making it an official policy doesn't give admins the power the power to interpret the policy any way they want. What it does is take an official position that certain types of behavior are to be avoided. Interpretation is still currently the job of the arb committee, but having an official guideline helps the arb committee see that there is consensus against the behavior. Not having an official guideline, or worse having a guideline which a significant group does no support, would indicate to the arb committee that the behavior is acceptable. That said, I think this page can be cleaned up significantly, sticking to the essence of what we're sayijng (don't troll), and leaving the most of the examples to other pages (such as user talk pages). anthony (see warning) (comment modified after reply, updates added)
1. Erich: for what it's worth I agree with Anthony (before you ask: don't know him, never met him)... it seems to me that listing 100's of pages of VFD may be a good thing... especially if they are worse than an example voted off. (but the examples seem pretty clear) e 06:24, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

A misplaced comment

You're entitled to the opinion, of course, but I disagree that this isn't a guideline. "Don't argue for things you don't actually want done" is at least one prescriptive sentence. I could identify others as well. The page is clear about what it's asking of contributors. - Jwrosenzweig
- Well, I added that sentence. If you can identify others, please do. I don't think it's clear at all. anthony 22:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

It seems to me that the examples (some or all, I don't know) are pretty obviously drawn from the behavior of Anthony DiPierro. Whatever one may think of his actions, I don't feel that it's necessary to add new guidelines to target one particular user. For similar reasons, this probably wouldn't belong in Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. That's meant to guide newbies and keep lots of people from making the same mistake, not prevent one person from making the same mistake repeatedly. --Michael Snow 04:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It was not meant to target one user. Each of the examples comes from the actions of a different user. moink 04:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected, then. In that case, the idea may be worth considering as a guideline. But I still don't think it belongs in Avoiding common mistakes, because the problem here is not really lack of experience, nor is this a common problem (in terms of number of people doing it, not number of instances). --Michael Snow 16:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right that it's not a newbie mistake. Maybe avoiding common mistakes isn't the right place for it. I guess I just saw a number of disputes that turned acrimonious for what I saw were similar reasons. And nobody had a guideline to point these people to and say, look, this isn't how we deal with disputes, we have words for that. That's why I think it might be useful as a guideline. moink 16:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have seen this behavior often, more frequently from users who have been here 1-6 weeks, but sometimes from the most experienced of old hands. I have been very irritated by it, and am glad this page exists. I hope that the community will agree that we ought to operate by this approach, as I think it exceedingly wise. Jwrosenzweig 20:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Echoing User:Jwrosenzweig's comment above. Doing things 'to prove a point' seems to happen over and over again on here, by newbies and old hands both. It's highly irritating, and it's long since time there was a statement of disapproval of such actions. —Morven 20:28, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The proposal is all well and good - it is something that good wikipedians would follow anyhow. However I found the name confusing. I initially read it as "just state your point of view, don't bother trying to explain you think it is best" ... example... suppose I think we should use news style all the time I could

State "I think we should use news style all the time
Write "I think we should use news style all the time because it will help our readers...."
Go round creating lots of news style pages on topics that should be of a different style (biographical style, listing style, maths style, whatever)

Obviously you want people to do 2) not 3)... but it could be interpreted as asking for 1) not 2). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I came up with the name and I agree with you, I don't like it either for the same reason. I thought about "State and justify your point don't prove it" but that seems too long. How about "Persuade through words not action"? I'm a little lost on the name, otherwise I would have named it something else. moink 21:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about "Explain, don't show"? Short and to the point. Could be a workable title, as long as we make it clear that this is a behavior guideline, and not a style/writing guideline. --Michael Snow 00:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Anthony DiPierro 00:19, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So was JRR Trollkien your sock puppet, then? --Michael Snow 00:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nope. Was he yours? Anthony DiPierro 00:35, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. --Michael Snow 00:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you like the title? Dislike it? Don't care? Anthony DiPierro 01:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel that the title Trollkien chose to move this page to is any better than the current choice. --Michael Snow 03:35, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seems much more clear to me. Anthony DiPierro 03:37, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Cream, not scream". Moriori 00:28, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

you need to tell this stuff to the admins, they are the ones deleting articles and erasing stuff willy nilly with no oversight nor accountability. --199.245.163.1

All actions are recorded and thus are accountable and thus can be overseen. Could you give a couple of examples of where things have gone wrong and unnoticed? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All actions may be recorded, however most users are not able to see the content of articles that are deleted, so there really is very little oversight done in practice. anthony 21:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, if you could still see the content of a deleted article, I don't think we could legitimately call it deleted. Regardless of how many safeguards you put on it, the power to delete will ultimately be the power to erase information that cannot be viewed by users. Sites that use our content are often out of date, however, and if an article is deleted, its contents can often be viewed there, if you want the opportunity for oversight. Furthermore, I think if there are actual issues being raised against admins, they should be raised in the appropriate forum with specific details being given. If you want to propose oversight, you should propose it. But I don't think this talk page is the appropriate location for the discussion. Jwrosenzweig 21:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've just said. Maybe we should move this thread somewhere else? anthony 21:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Glad we finally agree on a point, Anthony. :-) I don't know where this thread could really move, legitimately....somewhere on Meta, probably? Since it concerns admin rights, which are standardized Wikipedia-wide, I think? I don't really know what article to send it to there, though. Jwrosenzweig 21:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure we agree on lots of points. Not sure where to move it, either. I just wanted to clarify that there is not all that much oversight or even accountability of many admin actions, because Pete's statement seemed to suggest otherwise. anthony 22:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm just going to say it. As written, this is a terrible policy, which comes off as wrought by bureaucrats who fear having their notions of how things are upset by the cold hard splash of reality. This policy is very obviously a knee-jerk reaction to the bad behavior of a few users. I think that advocates of this policy have failed to take into account the chilling effects this could have on the nature of discussion and editing here at Wikipedia. The fact is that disruptive behavior is already forbidden, but this policy would effectively forbid all kinds of behaviors which we now tolerate because they ultimately make Wikipedia better.

People take Wikipedia policy very seriously, and I envision this policy being used to persecute and censure otherwise valuable contributors because their bold actions are interpreted as violating this policy.

Demonstration is a very powerful and effective tool for making points clear. When used correctly, it can quickly, effectively, and definitively show that some particular hypothesis or argument is in fact correct and that competing hypotheses are wrong. Making exaggerated edits, for example, can be a very powerful way to help people see what their POV is. Some of the suggested alternate names for the policy, such as "explain, don't show" and "persuade through words not action", in fact are completely counter to traditional approaches to argumentation: points are so much more often clearer when shown, not explained, and actions speak much louder than words.

It is certainly true that when used inappropriately or too strongly, such proofs by demonstration make a big mess and piss people off. Indeed, that has happened before and should be discouraged. But the fact that some people haved used the rhetorical method in ways that are abusive, obnoxious, or destructive is not a valid argument for outright banning it. That would be like making driving illegal because some people drive drunk and kill people.

Anthony's suggested alternative name for this policy, "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" is much more reasonable, because he's hit on what the real problem here is—the disruption—not the method of proving things by showing. The reality is that disruptive behavior is already forbidden. We don't need this policy. What we need is a clearer statement in the policy that forbids disruptive behavior.

Finally, it should be obvious to everyone that policies should regulate behaviors, not motives.

Nohat 00:50, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)

I think that it is still possible to argue by suggestion. i.e., in the form of "Well, if this is the attitude, should I go on to do X, Y, and Z?" Nor do I see why policy to deal with specific cases is a bad idea. If a user demonstrates a bold new way to screw up Wikipedia that we haven't thought of before, are we to sit around because we don't create policy to deal with specific cases? Snowspinner 20:52, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the policy would be better stated as "State your point, don't demonstrate it." The first dicdef of "prove" is "To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.". Having the policy say "don't prove it" suggests being less than thorough when presenting your point, which isn't desirable. -- Ben Brockert 02:06, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. We could be bold? moink 21:49, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If, by bold, you mean change the page name, I'm not yet that bold. You're welcome to be bold. --Brockert 22:48, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I still like Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. There's nothing wrong with demonstrating points which don't disrupt Wikipedia. anthony (see warning)

I like yours more than the current name, but not so much as to change it. I keep waiting for someone to come up with "the perfect name" but nobody has. I'm going to think about whether I like Brockert's solution or yours better. Certainly the current name sucks. moink 23:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits (and section removals)

Anthony, I started watching your edits when I saw your name on this article. The ones I first saw made sense and added much to the article. I was interested in seeing the additional changes you made later on when I saw your name again. You added some good text but where you changed and deleted I have to disagree. You removed good paragraphs and sections that added value. The changes seemed almost angry at the process and irritated at constraints. Can we discuss these changes? I have reversed only those sections that I took issue with the changes. They altered the tone of the original work. - Tεx τ urε 22:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Specifically, to the text "Another core value at Wikipedia is that many undesired editing practices are tolerated even though they are not condoned." you have added "This selective enforcement can serve a useful purpose, but it more often leads to introduction of POV." I think tolerance is not a selective enforcement but rather a part of developing text in a community.

Tolerating practices some times while not tolerating them other times is most certainly selective enforcement. anthony (see warning) 01:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see it as saying we should err on the side of tolerance and while we do not condone such practices we should not jump on the users by default. Basically, be tolerant. - Tεx τ urε 01:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't say both. anthony (see warning) 18:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also you added "Thus a bias is created, where articles on schools which are favored by Wikipedians are kept and articles schools which are disfavored by Wikipedians are deleted." Can we discuss this apparant irritation before anyone adds it? - Tεx τ urε 22:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Huh? anthony (see warning) 01:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, should have explained that one. We as a community are still discussing this issue and a vote is in progress. I think it is improper to say that our policy creates a bias. How about we wait and see how the vote comes out? - Tεx τ urε 01:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then remove that whole section, as it is no longer relevant to the point. And if there is still a vote in progress, how is it a policy? What is it an illustrative example of, if the issue is still being discussed? anthony (see warning) 18:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To give proper credit, you have added "On the other hand, once a consensus and/or a Wikipedia guideline on an issue has been established, it's perfectly acceptable to act on that consensus." to which I agree and "Abraham Lincoln once said that the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Those who support this policy disagree, and instead believe that the best way to get a bad law repealed is to argue for its repeal" which I think is very apt to this guidance. - Tεx τ urε 22:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In any case, I'm going to take a break from editing this page for a while. It initially was something that I could support, but it seems to have denigrated into an attempt to push a certain point of view. Maybe it'll be salvaged. anthony (see warning) 01:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I had to add an if

If articles you've started always end up on VfD,
- do reconsider whether the things you're writing about really are deserving of Wikipedia articles.
- don't start creating silly articles just to see how long it will take for someone to VfD them.

A fellow Wiki user just confessed to me on IRC that he had been doing just that. Needless to say it pissed me off and I just had to add the above. Now that I've looked at this talk page with lists of people voting for and against, I feel that I acted quite rashly in adding it, and I'm sorry if I did. Feel free to delete it if you think it shouldn't be there. - Cymydog Naakka 16:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Schools

I reverted Anthony's edit to the example using primary and secondary schools. His edit reversed the sense of the logic (stating that such articles are great but, sadly, they sometimes get deleted). I doubt if that is an accurate statement of the situation re: schools, and even if it is, such a change makes the example meaningless. If the text as structured presently is indeed unsuitable, another example should be chosen.

uc 17:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vote counting

The vote isn't 14 out of 20 - abstains and neutrals have never been counted as negatives. The standard way of figuring is Support/(Support+Oppose). Which is 78%, which is pretty decisive, I think... Snowspinner 19:39, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Neither are abstains and neutrals counted as positives—but they are still counted, are they not? 14 supporting out of 20 total votes works out to 70% support among all of those who voted on the proposal, which is not really decisive I think. I can't find any kind of guidelines on how to tally votes (other than advice to decide it in advance), so unless you can point something I overlooked, arguing over this is rather pointless. —No-One Jones 19:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The two ways I know that people do them is to simply count them as abstentions, which amounts to not voting at all, or to add them to both, in which case it would be 16/22, or 73%. But for RFA, at least, they're generally just set aside and counted as non-votes. Snowspinner 19:52, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

In real life, a pretty normal way to count votes for introducing changes of rules is to divide yeas with total number of votes. If there's 10 votes for, 0 against and 50 abstained, you can't say it's 100% consensus. Zocky

No offense, but you are dead wrong. Abstentions are not equivalent to votes against. They are non-votes. Snowspinner 12:17, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Nobody says abstention==nay. In some votes rules simply state that majority of all votes is required to pass a decision. In some votes, majority of the complete electorate is required. Do some research if you don't believe me. Zocky 12:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And clearly, in Wikipedia, we're dealing with a majority of votes - not of the electorate - or else we'd need thousands of votes to pass anything. In which case an abstention is an "I am actively not voting" as opposed to "I've not gotten around to placing a vote." But it is still, by definition, a non-vote. Snowspinner 12:57, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

It's funny how some people know definitions of human-made concepts, while thousands of books and people deal with oposing ideas about it and finding the right way to do it. But, more importantly:

Snowspinner, please stop tampering with the votes and stop the revert war on the project page:

There's no finishing date on this poll.
You assigned an arbitraty cut-off date and discounted nay votes after that as "late", without noting that the poll was over and without cutting off "yea" votes.
Even if your cut-off date is correct, there's 14:4:2, which is less than 80% whichever way you count it.
This page isn't linked from Wikipedia:Policy or anywhere useful, so regular editors can't even find it.
Wikipedia is a slow-moving community of hundreds of editors. 20 people can't decide actionable policy for the whole community.

Zocky 13:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I intend my neutral vote to be counted, not to be discarded. I specifically voted neutral instead of abstain for that reason. If I have to change my vote to Nay to do that, then please consider that done. anthony (see warning) 13:13, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I should also note that this policy has changed significantly since many of the votes were recorded. This is the problem with just throwing up some poll and then expecting it to be something official. If you want to have a poll which people accept, you need to run the poll well. You need to set a deadline, you need to not change the policy which people are voting on in between votes, you need to properly announce the poll ahead of time and during voting. See Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. anthony (see warning) 13:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Section removal

I have reverted Anthony's removal of the last section ("If you must..."). Please explain why you removed it in the first place? - Cymydog Naakka 14:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for Mirv

Mirv, would it reduce your objections if the policy were titled "Tit-for-tat editing considered harmful"? Tit-for-tat editing is a much more clear cut concept, and it covers most of the examples. Gadykozma 04:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spelling

The guideline on spelling says:

Spelling using either American English or International English is accepted. Articles written using one spelling should not be changed to use the other. However, where spellings are mixed in the same article, a practical problem of readability is created, and so spelling is unified within the article.

There is no such thing as "International English." I suggest the following rewording. I also insert the clause "without justification" because there are occasions when, say, British and American spellings should be seen side-by-side.

Spelling using the conventions of any English-speaking nationality is accepted. Articles written using one spelling should not be changed to use another. However, where spellings are mixed without justification in the same article, a practical problem of readability is created, and so spelling is unified within the article.

If there are no objections in fourteen days I'll add the changed wording.

--Minority Report 02:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. That should make all the Aussies happy. Gady 02:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The guideline should include more egregious historical examples

Things like...

A user or users repeatedly listing an article for VfD when it has overwhelming support to keep. When 100 times as much "criticism" of an article show up on a VfD page (as opposed to talk pages) that should be evidence of disrupting Wikipedia to "illustrate" a point.
One user's interpretation of wikipedia policy/guidelines does not give that user license to disrupt Wikipedia to "illustrate" a point. Wikipedia users not only disagree about article content and POV, but disagree about interpretations of wikipedia guidelines, this should require debate like everything else. Unilateral disruptive actions absent debate are most often justified as somehow defending Wikipedia's integrity.
Listing every sub aspect of a page for deleting (like images and templates) just so article quality is damaged because the article then includes numerous "X is listed for deletion" messages. The goal by these users seems to be to create more work for the "opposing" side, this should be evidence of disrupting Wikipedia to "illustrate" a point.

zen master 01:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"If you must"

This section seems spurious to me. Those people who pay any attention to guidelines will not engage in this behavior or will already have some restraint. Those who don't won't pay attention to the "if you must" section either. This section seems most likely to be used to validate disruptive behavior. Should it go? NTK 23:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The section amuses me, but I think you're right. I say move it over here to the talk page, and leave it off the main page. grendel|khan 00:37, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Section title

Perhaps "State your point; don't prove it experimentally" should be changed to "State your point; don't stage stunts to try to imply it"? My chief grievance with the behavior at hand is that it avoids direct discourse in favor of stunts which only indirectly imply the editor's point. -leigh (φθόγγος)

Incorrect statement

"[...] do not need to have arguments illustrated ad absurdum in order to understand them."

I'd say that this is obviously untrue. Most people on Wikipedia really are a bit dull and can't comprehend a concise argument unless it is rammed home with plenty of empirical examples, etc. The above untrue statement should therefore be altered in order for it to be taken seriously. — Helpful Dave 00:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question on "Wikipedia is inconsistent"?

Does the phrase "Wikipedia is inconsistent" in this policy mean "learn to deal with inconsistency" or does it mean "learn to resolve inconsistency in a calm and logical manner without being disruptive"? Just wondering. zen master T 19:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Both. Sometimes inconsistencies can be resolved, sometimes they can't. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

That can't be right, telling someone to "go way" or "learn to deal" is not working towards consensus. zen master T 20:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Policy?

(discussing here rather than revert-warring)

It didn't get ratified, but it comes up in quite a lot of AC cases and gets ratified every time and users are admonished at the least for violating it. This is in the AC's role of trying to act according to community consensus and how things are done; no-one has yet questioned us for this one, though they'll frequently question many other AC actions. OTOH, the page is phrased as a guideline, which means it's clues for the clueful. How official does policy have to be? It strikes me as ridiculous to have to say "This is Technically Not Official Policy, but everyone acts like it is and egregious violators do get penalised for it." - David Gerard 15:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

David, as I've said on Wikipedia talk:What is a troll, there's no reason to have flexible procedures for establishing policy to have flexible policy. If you want flexible rules, write flexible proposals and get consensus for them, don't stretch the definition of consensus to push through a policy that you agree with. Zocky 17:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think semi-policy is the right level, at least for now. Really, this page codifies what would normally have to be unwritten in a smaller community, and is largely derivative of other policy pages. -- Netoholic @ 16:24, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Is there a difference between policy and guideline? - Tεx τ urε 17:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This has been on "vote" for a year (not really, because it was never properly conducted) and still doesn't have 75% support (Anthony's vote counts against, as he says up there) - so it's definitely not policy. The mere existence of "semi-policy" is something that was never agreed on, but even that is better than calling this page policy outright. Zocky 17:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Anthony is #1 of 12 against. There are 36 for. That means there are exactly 75% in favor of the policy. - Tεx τ urε 19:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Err, read again. #1 of 12 against is jwrosenzweig. That's just a comment of anthony's there. Plus, this is not a real vote anyway. Check other comments above. Zocky 19:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Please look again. Anthony has a habit of quoting other people in difficult ways. Note the signature is plain text. You will find jwrosenzweig at # 5 of support. - Tεx τ urε 19:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what its status as a real vote has to do with anything. Are we really to begin nitpicking the structure of every vote that's been used to ratify something? This has acted as policy for a while now. Snowspinner 19:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

This policy is widely accepted by users and I suspect that if another vote were held, it would gather even greater than 75% support. Consensus doesn't mean "everyone agrees". Carbonite | Talk 19:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a BIG difference between people saying "I like this guideline, it gives good advice" and "This should be made enforceable policy". I like the page, since it describes an occasionally annoying habit of some users, but it is not worthy of policy status. -- Netoholic @ 20:08, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Frankly I think a 'running poll' is absurd. And anyway, policy is not decided by a poll, it is decided by consensus. This (along with WP:NOT) is one of the most often referred to rules (or guidelines) of the 'Pedia. "Do not disrupt to make a point" sounds to me like a very strong don't-do-this kind of rule, as opposed to, say, Wikipedia:Capitalization which is a guideline. The way the ArbCom often refers to it and is never contradicted on that point (and they are often contradicted on other points) makes me think it's policy. Radiant_* 20:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Anyway. This discussion isn't really leading anywhere. I'd suggest one of the following:
  1. Accept it as semi-policy if there are no objections (since there are objections to taking it for policy)
  2. Ask the ArbCom for a ruling
  3. Ask Jimbo
  4. Hold a poll with a strict ending date (say, let it last for two weeks) and make it policy if, say, 75% of all votes agree.
- R adiant _* 20:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed, though I doubt that ArbCom can actually ratify something as policy. OTOH, as this has already been used as an ArbCom precedent, ArbCom can pronounce it a principle it has decided to endorse and this page can be rewritten as a guideline which elucidates on that. In that case it wont't really require consensus, as it won't be "policy", but it should be written in a more descriptive and less prescriptive tone. Most of the "if you're in minority, shut up" attitude would have to be seriously toned down. Zocky 20:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC) On second reading, the "don't rock the boat" tone has been significantly reduced. Good work. It's even better advice now then it was before. Zocky 21:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait, Zocky, you lost me there... the arbcom can pronounce it principle it has decided to endorse and this can be a guideline to elucidate? Can we please reword that to English rather than Legalese? R adiant _* 20:52, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, ArbCom uses the principle "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" in its decisions. We seem to agree that they can do that even if there is no official policy that says "Don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point", because that is within their discretion. It's perfectly valid to write guidelines about how ArbCom works, so I'd have no objection if this page was one of them. Zocky 20:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I vote for pedantically arguing about it until we all get bored. It's the wiki way. Snowspinner 20:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I vote for being bold and making it policy (based on 75% agreement) - oh... we did that... now we're pedantically arguing about it. I'm bored. - Tεx τ urε 20:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. It was voted on, it's policy, let's move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually according to the rules of this vote, as they have been applied thus far, it is still being voted on and the current result is 36:15, which means that it has 71% of the vote and not 75% or 80% that the proponents of this proposal have so far suggested as the majority it needs to become policy. So it's currently not policy. Until more people come in and vote to support it. Ad nauseam. How about we organize a proper poll or pronounce this thing a non-policy guideline, as virtually no-one opposes the good advice on it. Zocky 21:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If you read the analysis above, you'll see it's actually 75% in favour; Anthony's entries have created confusion. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no cut-off date so 3 more people voted against since then, therefore changing the percentages. That's what the central problem with the poll is. Zocky 21:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur with making it "official policy". It strikes me as misleading to cite this in arbcom cases, use it as justification for blocking/banning/etc., and *not* have it be official policy. If that isn't official, what is? Is the only objection to making this "official policy" the numbers in the poll—which, by the way, doesn't mean anything except a rough gauge of opinion? (Oh, and m:polls are evil.) Absolutely nothing changes about how this guideline is regarded by calling it "official policy". It only becomes more transparent how it is actually used, and if you want to haggle over what to call it, settling on the option that makes it most clear to other editors (most of whom do less policy navel-gazing than the people participating here, myself included) how the rule is actually treated is hardly a bad move. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Polls are evil because they mean that debate has failed, not because shouting or rule by assertion is better. Zocky 21:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It simply didn't get ratified in any convincing way. No end date on the poll? Eh? Not very convincing. Run the poll properly. Intrigue 21:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

One can almost never get 100% agreement on anything here; what else would you suggest? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Run the poll properly, with a time frame, a success criteria, and publicise it properly. Intrigue 22:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I could understand complaining about a time frame if the vote were cut off too soon. How do you complain about a time frame when this has been a year in the voting? - Tεx τ urε 22:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not that it's not enough, but that you can't hold a vote without specifying in advance when and how the votes will be tabulated. How would an election be viewed if, instead of having a closing date you just said, well, we'll leave the polls open until someone declares them closed? Even if it was an imense amount of time that's not a satisfactory way to do it. A year? Why would anyone assume that a vote that ran for a year was being taken seriously? If it's been open a year, why not let it run another year? Just run it properly. Intrigue 22:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who came to this page even once thought... "Oh, it has no end date... I'll wait and vote in three years." That argument just doesn't hold water in this environment. It's not like you have to drop the kids with an aunt in order to drive to the polls. - Tεx τ urε 22:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, so suggest a date when this vote becomes or became meaningful. Tell us which votes should count and which should be discounted. If we want to have a vote at all, we must know how to count the results, but also when, because result change every time someone votes. Zocky 22:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You are arguing because that point was passed and someone was bold enough to realize a year went by and there was significant support to make this policy. It isn't that we haven't reached the end it is that you are disputing it. - Tεx τ urε 22:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that there isn't significant support to make this policy. However, there is also a significant oposition. If you have a problem with the fact that Wikipedia is ruled by consensus (not by majority or "significant support"), I suggest you put that up on a vote. Zocky 22:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can't gain more than 25% in a year how do you claim significant opposition? I have no need to call a vote on the obvious. - Tεx τ urε 22:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, currently its support in this poll is 71%, meaning 29% opposition. If we take this vote to be representative, that means that nearly a third of all people (i.e. several hundred editors) disagree. That's significant opposition. If we don't take it to be representative, then it means that it's supported by 35 people out of hundreds. Is that significant support? Who can tell?

The poll was 75% versus your 25%. Now it's starting over because the minority rejected facts. - Tεx τ urε 17:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, once more, then I give up. Polls are evil. Vote counting is evil. The only reason there was ever a vote on this is that some people refuse to admit that there is no consensus for this text to become policy. Consensus means that minority's views can't be trumped by majority's views. Whining about minority views is pointless and unhelpful. If you don't like consensus rule, tough. Zocky 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're done. You seem to be confusing "unanimous" with "consensus". - Tεx τ urε 01:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Polls really are evil, but the only alternative is building consensus, i.e. finding common ground. Zocky 23:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

What next

Lest we get sidestepped... The central problem with this poll (and the only reason we're having this debate) is that without a cut-off date the result changes all the time and that setting a cut-off date arbitrarily will also influence the result i.e. whoever cuts it off decides whether it has passed the vote or not. It's just not an honest way to decide anything and the poll should be scrapped completely.

But what then?

We can discuss whether this is fit to be policy until we all agree, meaning forever
We can ask Jimbo, although that strikes me like running to get the teacher
We can have a proper poll and settle it that way. The majority of opponents are sensible people who will support this as policy if it is ratified in a transparent manner.
We can change it so that it's acceptable to more people, making the vote unnecessary. This would be the prefered way, I suppose.

So, I suggest that we change the wording so that it centers on the only thing that makes it "more official" then mere advice - its endorsement by the ArbCom. What I would find acceptable is something like: Arbitration Committee has endorsed the principle "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" and has based several decisions on it. This is not a policy established by consensus, but rather an operating decision taken within Arbitration Committee's discretion. This page describes behaviour where this principle might apply, but its wording is not to be considered policy.

Link it to the page where ArbCom endorsed it and to the page where ArbCom is given such discretion and I'll be happy. Zocky 23:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Feeling a bit like Gordianus today, I've created a new poll at the top of the page. HTH. R adiant _* 07:36, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

During deliberations, the Arbitrators will construct a consensus opinion made out of Principles (general statements about policy) -- Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. Since the vast majority of our policies are informal and we have no official canon, obviously the arbcom has to decide which policies are "official" and which ones are not. This policy is obviously supported by a large part of the community, and has been cited in many, many arbcom decision. →Raul654 17:16, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean for policy creation? Somebody writes a proposal and the ensuing debate establishes that there is no consensus for it. Can the ArbCom decide that there was? Zocky 01:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The old poll has been removed - please vote on the new poll at the top of the page

In truth.... I find that very strange that such a community habit is shaped to be set as a rule. It sounds to me as just being a guideline and I would find very strange that anyone is "punished" for not following it. At best, we should frown over people not following that guideline.

What enforces the guideline is just the will to all work along nicely. If someone repeatedly go against such a community habit, the community pressure might push him to follow it after a while, or he might just never get used to it. Does that deserve more than just being frowned upon ? Anthere 20:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives