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 talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:POINT WP:DWIP WP:DISRUPTPOINT WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA

This page in a nutshell: When you have a disagreement with other users, state your point plainly and continue to discuss the matter if necessary. Do not try to win an argument by playing games.

Wikipedia guidelines
Behavioral
Assume good faith Conflict of interest Don't bite the newbies Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point Etiquette Gaming the system User pages
Content
Citing sources Identifying reliable sources Notability
Discussion
Signatures Talk page guidelines
Editing
Article size Be bold Don't add the full text of primary sources Don't create hoaxes Edit summary Patent nonsense
Organization
Categories, lists, and templates Categorization Disambiguation Subpages
Style
Manual of Style Manual of Style (lists) Manual of Style (tables)
More
List of policies and guidelines

WP:POINT redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (shortcut: WP:NPOV)

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, enforcing it consistently. This may even entail an attempt to turn consensus against a policy by satirically applying it on various pages to show that it is ridiculous.

Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban. Issues with rules or practices should be addressed through plain discussion, not through parody or manipulation. If direct discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.

Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then consider leaving the issue alone and accepting that the outcome was not what you wanted. Do not resort to disruptive tactics in an attempt to sway consensus.

Examples

• If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it...
  • do participate in the discussion, noting any examples of similar article subjects which consensus has rejected.
  • do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic just to get it listed for deletion and have others make the same arguments you are making.
• 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 have added a reference which someone then removes because the source is self-published...
  • 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 self-published sources from an article
• If you think someone unjustifiably 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 remove all apparently unsourced content on the page
• If you feel that a policy or guideline should be changed, and others disagree...
  • do explain what you see as the problem with the rule as written, and perhaps post a notice of the discussion at the Village pump
  • do not attempt to enforce the existing rule with the aim of provoking opposition to it
• If you feel that it is too easy to add misinformation to Wikipedia...
  • do watch recent changes and fact-check anything that looks at all suspicious
  • do not create an elaborate hoax with hopes of getting publicity for it
• 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 47 more examples just to show that people won't actually read such lists

Important note

Shortcut: WP:NOTPOINTY

A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. 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, such as in the above examples.

See also

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