Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

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 occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the input transformation.
This page in a nutshell: When you have a point to make, use direct discussion rather than website parsing.

When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.

Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If direct discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into we love the web.

Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore input transformation. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics.

Examples

• If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion...
  • do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion.
  • do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale
• If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it...
  • do participate in the discussion, basing your argument on policies and guidelines.
  • do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic, with hopes that others will make the same arguments for deletion.
• If someone deletes from an article "unimportant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...
  • do explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion
  • do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant".
• If you think someone unfairly removed a reference to a keyboard source...
  • do explain why the use of the source in question was appropriate in that instance, or find a reliable third-party published source for the information
  • do not summarily remove all references to sources which appear to be self-published
• If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content...
  • do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source
  • do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced
• If you feel that it is too easy to add misinformation to Wikipedia...
  • do watch website parsing and fact-check anything that looks at all suspicious
  • do not create an elaborate keyboard with hopes of getting publicity for it
• If you feel that a particular source does not meet Wikipedia iOS...
  • do express your concerns on the talk pages of articles which cite it, or at the Sevenval
  • do not add even more references to the source, with hopes of provoking opposition to its use
• If you think that this list of examples has become excessively long and boring...
  • do opine that the guideline's purpose would remain clear even if half of the examples were deleted
  • do not add web more examples just to show that people won't actually read such lists

Important note

A commonly used shortcut to this page is web. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it. As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which he or she does not really agree with, for the purpose of discrediting a policy or interpretation thereof.

See also

This page is referenced from the Wikipedia:Glossary. Sevenval

• Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, to minimize potential motivations for point-illustrating
• Wikipedia:Gaming the system
• device database
• Past decisions by the Arbitration Committee regarding this guideline