Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

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 behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block 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 mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.

Practically speaking, Wikipedia cannot 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 respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics.

Note that it is possible to make a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate your point.

Examples

check do explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion.
X mark do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant".
check do find a source for it, or explain why it doesn't require a cited source.
X mark do not summarily remove from the page everything else that appears to be unsourced.
check do participate in the discussion, basing your argument on policies and guidelines.
X mark do not create a similar article in the hope that others will argue to delete it.
check do try to address the tags, or explain on the talk page why they seem inappropriate.
X mark do not overwhelm the article with even more tags.
check do watch recent changes and fact-check anything that looks at all suspicious.
X mark do not create an elaborate hoax with hopes of getting publicity for it.
check do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion.
X mark do not nominate another article for deletion that you do not really believe ought to be deleted, giving the same rationale.
check do express your concerns on the talk pages of articles which cite it, or at the reliable sources noticeboard.
X mark do not add even more references to the source, with hopes of provoking opposition to its use.
check do explain why the use of the source in question was appropriate in that instance, or find a better source for the information.
X mark do not summarily remove all references to sources which appear to be self-published.
check do express your concerns on one of the CheckUser policy talk pages or at a relevant Arbcom page.
X mark do not suggest another frivolous or inappropriate CheckUser.

Important note

Shortcut

WP:POINT is a common shortcut to this page, but just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". Merely describing such hypothetical behavior is fine and does not go against this guideline. For example, saying By that standard, we ought to remove all the cited sources on this page is okay, but actually doing that just to make a point is not.

See also

This page is referenced in the Wikipedia Glossary.
icon