Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:POINT WP:DWIP WP:DISRUPTPOINT

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
Conflict of interest Do not use overly lengthy quotations Disambiguation Do not create hoaxes Patent nonsense Reliable sources User page
Article Inclusion
Notability
Classification
Subpages Cats, lists, templates Lists Categories
Editing
Be bold Linking Edit summary Article size
Discussion
Talk page guidelines Sign on talk pages
Behavior
Etiquette Assume good faith Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Do not bite the newcomers Do not "game the system"
Style
Manual of Style See also policies

[edit] State your point; do not prove it experimentally

Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating problems 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. Moreover, the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?"

While such examples are legitimate to cite in a discussion, two important aspects of Wikipedia should also be considered: it is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not necessarily encourage. (Some argue that these are not defects.)

It can sometimes be 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. Such tactics are considered to be disruptive and spiteful, as others are caught in the crossfire of edits which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. Generally, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge, as this is the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.

[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.
  • do not 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.
  • do not create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on AfD.
• If an article you've nominated for deletion on AfD is not deleted...
  • do reconsider whether your nomination was justified.
  • do not 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.
  • do not delete all of 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
  • do not push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion
• If someone removed your source because it is an unreliable self-published source...
  • do provide a reliable third-party published source
  • do not remove from the article all the sources that vaguely look like blogs or wikis
• 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
  • do not 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 Wikipedia Awards, or more broadly at the Village Pump
  • do not 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
  • do not 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
  • do not 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

• Wikipedia:Be reasonable
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Gaming the system
• Wikipedia:Wikilawyering
• Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose
• Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?
• Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
• Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes

v • d • e Key Wikipedia policies and guidelines Overview Policies and guidelines · List of policies · List of guidelines Global principles What Wikipedia is not · Consensus · Dispute resolution · Ignore all rules Article standards policies Neutral point of view · Verifiability · No original research · Biographies of living persons · Naming conventions · Deletion Behavioral policies Civility · Edit warring · No personal attacks · No legal threats · Ownership of articles · Three-revert rule · Sock-puppetry Behavioral guidelines Assume good faith · Etiquette · Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point · Please do not bite the newcomers · Gaming the system Classification guidelines Subpages · Categories, lists, and navigation templates · Lists · Categorization · Template namespace Content guidelines Conflict of interest · Do not include copies of primary sources · Disambiguation · Do not create hoaxes · Notability · Patent nonsense Editing guidelines Be bold · Linking · Edit summary · Editing policy · Signatures · Hatnotes · Substitution · Talk page guidelines · User page Style conventions Article size · Manual of Style