Wikipedia talk:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dumbest Guideline Ever: WikiHemlock

This is seriously a dumb rule. It is totally subjective and based on a overly broad interpretation of the term "disruptive". Remember what happened to Socrates?

Arkhamite 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Unclear point

Under "Examples" is the following:

• 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.
  • don't create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you.

Isn't that first "do" worded unclearly, and can be interpreted as if it is "allowable" to do that, and the second "don't" just makes it sound like it's not advisable, rather than forbidden? It's "possible", but not "allowed", and is actually "forbidden", IIRC. I think it needs to be worded more clearly and unequivocally -- Fyslee 23:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pedantic people.. *sighs* No, it's not unclear. It's saying "DO point out" the reason why democracy would be bad. There isn't anything saying you can't reference the fact that people create sockpuppets. Just so you don't create them yourself to make the point. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And even then it's not actually disruptive, more a waste of the sockmaster's time. So it's a bad example. Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

On a more serious subject...

How is this not policy? Isn't it policy that you're not supposed to disrupt Wikipedia for any reason? Now, the specific examples listed and the prose format might not be suited to policy, but the general thrust of it is "don't violate policy to make a point". --Random832(tc) 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That it's not policy might be our way of adding "...but we wouldn't have killed Socrates!" Feezo (Talk) 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Difference between disruption and implementation of a precedent?

I think there is a clear distinction between WP:POINT (where, if a discussion is going in a direction you don't want it to, you bad-faith nominate similar cases) and demonstrating a precedent (after the first discussion has already closed, nominating similar cases on the basis of the first, even if you dislike the conclusion) --Random832(tc) 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just got bit by this being used to justify a block for me... and the thing is, while I've learned a lot and made a real effort to develop more understanding of best practice on Wikipedia in general... I still don't know the answer to this after getting blocked for it. In my personal case, I used one article which is nearly unilateral to another... and accepting defeat by concensus to my position for the first article, nominated the base under the same criteria. The trouble is I'm applying something across two articles that are very, very similar for uniformity, and with a small number (2 articles in total) and legitimate discussion that doesn't disrupt editing, I think it would be application. In all fairness to anybody who comes into this situation, we really need to figure this one out better and write some deliniation between good practice of uniformity and bad practice of doing things "just to make a point". Autocracy 07:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that all there is to the story? I find myself sketpical that you or anyone else would have been blocked for a borderline-at-best WP:POINT issue, especially given that set of facts. I smell missing information. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First time I believe I've applied something questionable under WP:POINT. Two articles were involved, and the Admin blocking me had blocked somebody else (SuperC63) earlier in relation to the same topic citing vandalism for his attempts. I felt that the topic in question was deserving of existance, and posted a deletion reveiew. Most of its on my talk page at present. I invite you to look over the history of my edits and discussion about this. Autocracy 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds more like misapplication of WP:POINT than a problem with WP:POINT's wording. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not up to standards

I was looking at this policy guideline and was amazed at how badly written and organized it is. I turned to this talk page looking for some clue of what was going on. 15 months ago this state of afairs was commented on. It is still not up standards. That is it just plain feels wrong. Its choppy and example laden. As if it doesn't have more than a sentence to say but just goes on. Finally it fizzles out completely at the end. I would half seriously suggest stopping after the title. How did something in this shape get to be a policy guideline? Edivorce 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Widely misused

This page is often misused. People will often link to the shortcut WP:POINT when people are making their point in a non-disruptive way, such as a single nomination of a similar article after an AFD they disagreed with closed, or starting a discussion on the village pump, etc. The idea that these actions are disruptive is not supported by this guideline.

I would like to add this header to the top of the page. --Random832 14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I thought about suggesting it should be an essay (or, at least, not a guideline), but the page itself makes a pretty good guideline. But the way it's used in actual arguments makes it out to be anything from a policy against consistency to forbidding any input by anyone who cares to anything else anyone wants it to be. --Random832 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This reads like highly personal petulance, like "some meanie misused this against me in the following specific ways, so I'm going to complain to all of WP about it by weakening one of its guidelines with a longwindeded disclaimer". I.e. the new note would come across as a WP:POINT itself. I'm not implying that's the intent, it's just how it would look (and did in fact look, for the while that it was at the top of the projectpage already.) That, and I don't see any evidence of "wide" misusage. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

#Abuse of this "guideline", #Definition, #"How to quote this guideline" are all evidence. As for how it reads - I do think it needs a tag, and if you would like to work on a better wording for this that would be great. --Random832 14:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

One actual example (which has not been demonstrated; the "this edit" link in "...this edit, User:Radiant calls..." at #Abuse of this "guideline" is an invalid URL), and two expressions of generalized "lots of people do it" concern that don't cite any evidence, do not demonstrate a widespread trend. That a particular admin might be over-relying on WP:POINT is an issue that should be taken up with that admin. All I see real evidence of is that a small number of editors have had a general feeling that WP:POINT is abused, and feel strongly enough to bother commenting about here about it (namely you, kmccoy, Seth Ilys, and bob rulz [whose issues did not garner any response at all, suggesting others do not share them]; The Uninvited Co., Inc. also expressed a twinge of concern about abuse, but with the caveat that it's an indivdual issue and not a problem with the guideline; Kim Bruning in #"How to quote this guideline" raised a completely different issue unrelated to this discussion, namely a lot of zeal about the little-known WP:WOTTA essay, so I don't know why you cited that thread as "evidence").

To the extent any of these concerns gain consensus recognition as real problems, they can be addressed by improving the wording of the projectpage, not slapping huge, distracting and doubt-instilling disclaimers on it. PS: Please review the contentious history of WP:N from ca. Nov. 2006 to early Feb. 2007. Similar concerns - cries of "it's being abused!", including from me - which were resolved by improving the guideline's wording, the way such issues generally get resolved on Wikipedia. There's no reason WP:POINT should be handled differently (though hopefully with less tooth-gnashing than took place at Wikipedia talk:Notability). So, instead of proposing disclaimer-laden warning boxes, why not actually discuss better wording for the guideline, or be bold and edit it yourself?

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is NOT with the wording of this guideline - it has taken on a life of its own with various people seeing "making a point" as a violation in and of itself without any disruption, simply because the shortcut says "point". --Random832 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I've seen even experienced Wikipedians invoke WP:POINT simply because someone is trying to make a point in discussion! It's as if they know the shortcut but have never read the actual guideline. However, this page has grown out of control and lost its way. I'll comment more on that in a separate section below. --C S (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New example that relates to WP:SOCK

That one seems really weak and particlar to some random case to me. I do think the issue needs to be raised - there have been cases of users being pretty much lynched for being sockpuppets and it turns out they weren't (I saw a rather testy arbcom case about this not long ago). I just don't think the extant example in the document actually adequately addresses the issue of WP:POINT violations by people wrongly accused of being WP:SOCKs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Debate on User talk:Jimbo Wales

There is a debate on the aforementioned page that seems to consume about 30% of its length and is so frivolous (the argument has been resolved, and it's still going). This leads me to ask: should this policy include disrupting talk pages?  ~Steptrip 20:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Continuing to argue in a discussion which is to all respects over is bad form and shows excessive stubborness, but it is not a WP:POINT violation if the view you are arguing for is sincerely the one you hold. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputing an example (process)

I have an objection to the following example

1. 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
   • don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"

I am not saying that the "don't action" is a good thing to do (it may or may not be, depending on the situation, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but in a heated debate, short-circuiting process can be detrimental), but even if it's a bad idea, I don't think it is a violation of WP:POINT. WP:POINT refers to actions a person knows is wrong in order to parody or spoof other actions, and show why that is ridiculous. Reverting an out-of-process change for no other reason that out-of-process is a revert made because the person thinks the process was important, and whether or not it is a wise move, it is a move which reflects the person's sincere opinion.

I propose changing the "don't" example to what is the really WP:POINT reaction is:

• don't deliberately provoke the community by going on a spree of provocative edits or actions without discussion, while citing WP:IAR as your sole reason for doing so.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Does no one have an example of gaming the system?

None of the examples in the "gaming the system" section show how people game the system in Wikipedia. They're just examples of being a jerk or a rules lawyer. Gronky 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DENY, and WP:BEANS. That's probably why "real life examples" aren't given. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For a real life example of gaming, see an arbcom case I'm an observer on, where a group of puppets gain control of an article by playing the consensus game ("of course you can object and we can discuss, but you have to accept consensus; we have voted a consensus in this [sham] poll, and objecting to consensus is a breach of policy". For another see various vandals who game the cite policy, whereby the policy of citation (which is intended to support good editing) is in fact twisted to server POV warring.

"Gaming the system" means to use Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. These are indeed forms of gaming, as I would see them. They are not disrupting to prove a point, but they are gaming. Perhaps the problem is that gaming is listed as a type of "point-proving disruption"; if so thats not quite accurate. That might be the difficulty; it's in a policy (WP:POINT) that doesnt fully apply to gaming.

The difference between gaming with WP:LAWYER and being a "rules lawyer" is that the latter uses rules inappropriately, for example is too fussy, or demands their own interpretation. Thats often harm not directly intended, but lawyer outlook. A gamester with WP:LAWYER is different. Its someone who is via bad faith seeking to adapt the rules to serve a known anti-policy agenda, finding within their apparent wording a basis to support a view that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In simple terms, one is disruptive and "dumb" (insisting on their own flawed interpretation), the other is wilfully gaming and "manipulative" (seeking to find novel interpretations that have the unintended consequence of seeming to allow their chosen mischief). See for example: Unintended_consequence#Purposeful_gaming_to_achieve_unintended_consequences and many comments in WP:RFC and other project pages for this usage.

I've reverted the edit concerned; I think that bad faith gaming of policy does often include lawyering, mischaracterization and mis-reference to policy to avoid NPOV. Please dscuss if unconvinced. However to show respect for your point, I have changed that "other forms of gaming involve XYZ" to "other forms of gaming can involve XYZ" FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Puppets are not gaming the system, they are cheating. You get an admin to check if the IPs are similar too often, and that's that.

"They are not disrupting to prove a point" - oh, well then they shouldn't be mentioned on this page.

As for you definitions of WP:LAWYER and "rules lawyer", you haven't defined "bad faith gaming of policy", you've just defined "bad faith editing".

I've nothing new to add, so I won't change the page again. Hopefully this thread will be found by someone who does have a good example some time in the future.

I suppose the ideal solution for the mean time would be to rename that section (to "Types of disruptive editing" or something) although this is problematic because a lot of pages probably already link to WP:GAME which points to that section. Gronky 06:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaming the system is a form of bad faith editing, yes. But not the only form of it, for example, misrepresenting others comments or attributing malicious motives are both common forms of bad faith editing that don't involve gaming the system. (Misrepresentation example: "If you vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked" ... "User X threatened to block me if I edited on subject Y again!") (Accusation example: "You clearly have a pro-[whatever] agenda here!") Gaming is the form of bad faith editing where policy is subordinated to claim a basis for actions that are clearly against policy.

On your other main point, I was thinking of ways to fix it too. One way would be to make "Gaming the system" a separate page, that way the WP:GAME link remains intact. The present article on WP:POINT might then simply say that Other forms of disruptive editing, such as [[WP:GAME|Gaming the system]], can also fall under this guideline if used to prove a point." This would also tie in well with your suggestion about renaming the section to "other forms of disruptive editing".

Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've created a page at Wikipedia:Gaming the system which covers gaming in more detail.

If community consensus favors the page (and comments either way would be valued) then we can rework within WP:POINT any examples of gaming which are not in fact to do with "disruption to prove a point", or refactor the gaming section here, to address your comment that in fact the section here is about "other forms of disruptive editing" more generally, not just gaming. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to get the point

A common disruptive strategy used to make a point, but not documented so far.

Example: it is reasonable (in the good-faith sense) (although misinformed) for an opinionated but new editor to believe that WP:CONSENSUS means that what editors believe is what counts, and to seek to override other policies based upon that. But if they are told 50 times and keep repeating it over and over and OVER... and using it to stall an article or claim some other editor is in breach of policy, this is no longer good faith, it's disruption to make or illustrate a point.

Likewise this would also cover spurious/disruptive "your edit was vandalism" allegations, where the edit wasn't "vandalism" at all, and they have repeatedly been told this.

Hopefully this isn't to controversial. It's a common tactic in edit wars and bad faith, so it's worth an explicit statment that it's no-go, in this guideline. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with WP:POINT

I have come to the realiization that this page largely exists to say "screw the minority." If wikipedia is trying to reach consensus, that is usuaully done through compromise. But if consensus is not reached for one reason or another (usuaully that nobody compromises), the side with the most people votes out the minority and declares consensus. Then the minority, if they try to get their viewpoint in the article, and attempt to NPOV it, they are violating WP:POINT. This doesn't seem right, and this policy may need to change (or be deleted) to fix this problem.--Sefringle^Talk 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I spent a few minutes thinking about this one. WP:POINT isn't so much about the situation you describe. It's more about 4 things:

1. If there is a genuine matter to address, then address it directly, don't demonstrate it. Demonstration is disruptive.
2. If there is an agenda being advanced, then using Wikipedia articles to advance that agenda is not appropriate. Even if a matter is factual, it can still be used to edit-war. (Ask any spin doctor.)
3. Ditto, but don't play games or 'stonewall' to 'win' a debate. That's disruptive too.
4. (unspoken) If you do feel a matter needs advancing because of POV inserted by others, or because others are preventing a neutral viewpoint being established, don't disrupt or begin playing games in return to 'win'. Go and seek dispute resolution.

None of these rule out any genuine concern. They are all about "how to do it, and how not to", rather that what may or may not be achieved. Hope that helps - comments? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I do hold one issue with the first purpose. In general, demonstration may be disruptive, but at times, it may be appropiate. Discussion doesn't always work, especially when both sides are using demonstration to prove their points. Sometimes no matter how well you explain your point, the opposing side may refuse to get the point. Especially in content disputes, both sides think they are right, but both sides may be demonstrating their point, but may not actually be disruptive. In some cases they are, but not always If anything, this needs more clarification as to imply it isn't cut and dry.--Sefringle^Talk 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So you know up front, my concern would be that even in these cases, there is usually a better way to do it that doesn't need rhetoric (making a point is often a form of rhetoric), and which doesn't have the same chance of just stirring up fruitless polarization of debate (as making a point often does).

Can you add a couple of examples of places you'd disagree with item #1? It'd help to be clear what kind of times it could be helpful, and what kind of demonstration might point out the issue without itself treading over a helpful line. Also to have a good idea what sort of thing you're thinking of, so it's not just hypothetical philosophy, but tied to some actual typical examples that demonstrate a sensible point in a good way. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

FT2, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Sefringle's statements. He is a self-confessed, unrepentent POV warrior. His comments above should be read in that light. Frankly, I don't see him surviving the arbitration in which he's a party. -- ChrisO 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that it is proper to make these type of comments. Let the arbCom case develop without such comments. It is not helpful, and may I say that can be construed as an attempt to baiting Sefringle? Not nice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful, do not escalate this further. If you want to stir the ambers to reignite the fire, keep making these comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO -- whether or not he's facing problems at arbcom, it's still good to answer a question like this at least once. I don't mind a bit of effort to clarify a question once. It makes me think too; and even an alleged bad-faith editor may occasionally speak their honest mind and deserve a fair answer. Of course, since WP:POINT includes that comment about "refusing to get the point", it's kind of self-fixing if the point is stated many times but refused to be got. In other words, it may be wasted effort, but in this case the question seems one genuinely felt, and isn't being tendentiously re-asked, so I'm fine answering it. To me, it's not a waste to answer, even if it may seem a waste to you. If the response is a considered one, I'm fine discussing, if the response is not then I may choose not to. Accept that's an informed considered view. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- ChrisO 23:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sefringle,
If somebody considers a decision is unfair and tries to prove this on applying the same decison on other topics and intend to use others' reactions as argument, he is himself -deliberatery- unfair because he applies a decision he considers unfair ! That is not a sane reaction.
To solve the matter constructively, we have to assume good faith and we have to discuss with people who disagreed when the decision was taken the 1st time and try to make them understand our point.
That is the philosophy behind WP:POINT.
Regards, Alithien 10:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

example about reverting because of process

I think this example is relatively well worded - it suggests trying to convince the person to revert themselves, rather than immediately reverting, if the change was "arguably good" and there is no other reason for reverting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

But what if there is a legitimate problem?

Just a few minutes ago, I was accused by another user of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I apologize for doing so, and I have vowed on several occasions not to do it again. However, I did see a legitimate reason for this.

It all started when I discovered that hoaxes and vandalism on Wikipedia are treated differently, depending on the source. If a vandalism occurs on a page that did not exist in WP before, or which had already been deleted, then the vandalized page is deleted completely and is not in the history that is kept on the WP servers (example). However, if the vandalism occurs on a page that redirects to another, legitimate WP page, then the page is preserved in the file history (example). The user that referred me also reminded me of this.

What I am trying to do is to point out that Wikipedia may have a major security problem. At the very least, it has to explain this inconsistency. So far, no user or site page has explained why this problem exists. I would like to have a further investigation to see what could be done to fix it. My best-case scenario is that the vandalized redirect pages are also removed; however, Wikipedia may have to be reprogrammed to do so, causing a temporary closure of the service. I hope this does not happen.

Another mistake I made was repeated use of this tactic. I have used it some 40 times since last April. This went from legitimate "troubleshooting" (or so I thought) to a perverse pleasure I enjoyed. I even went so far as to "dress up" some of my vandalized pages by removing fake picture files, correcting some spellings, and so on; this is how the user caught me yesterday. I cannot stress this enough: I vow never to be involved in this again. I understand the severe consequences that continuing this disruption could cause. The vast majority of my edits on WP are legitimate, and I do not want to be banned due to what I thought was a public service that could eventually help all Wikipedians.

This is not the only problem I have tried to expose. Very early on in my life as a Wikipedian, I discovered that the site's pages are not WYSIWYG when they are printed out. As a result, the only way to see the page as it was originally intended is on the computer screen. Unfortunately, I also expressed the problem the wrong way - by creating hoax pages (example: see the Buddy Wayne Barefoot deletion log). Another user pointed out that I could use the sandbox for how a fictional concept or idea could be expressed if it were a Wikipedia site. I now use two sandboxes, User:Desmond Hobson/sandbox and User:Desmond Hobson/sandbox2, for this purpose.

Again, to recap: Although I am truly sorry for the pain that I have caused my fellow Wikipedians, believe me, I would not have resorted to these tactics had there not been potential problems on Wikipedia that I wanted to bring to your attention. I would appreciate knowing exactly where to turn to find more information and troubleshooting tips. Thank you. - Desmond Hobson 12:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Coming to this comment with a complete clean slate, with no preconception of what may have gone before, this is my comment. if the above sentiments are not in fact accurate, then neither will this comment be, but for now I assume they are, and you are speaking without games.

Software does not develop in a short time, and often what seems useful may not emerge for some time. Partly also because there is a strong history of consensus seeking on big changes, to ensure everybodys views have had the chance to be expressed to some degree. There is also an inertia factor, that in any large group, some individuals will always find what others see as sensible, to be pointless or not for the best. There are forums within Wikipedia for active discussion of improvements. It takes time and experience to know why things are as they are now, and what actually might help. if you have an idea and want to check why it doesn't exist, if it'd help, or if there is a good reason it hasn't been set up already, there are places to ask that sort of thing. You might enjoy that, if you'd like to help.

A big thing to understand is, Wikipedia is not expected to be consistent in all ways. For example, we might have 10 episodes of some show, all listed for deletion, 6 are deleted for being "non notable", but 4 are deemed "notable" and kept -- and that's *okay*. We allow a degree of that to go on. (What wouldn't be okay is for the decision in one of them to be made in a way that flatly disagrees with the policies everyone has agreed upon.)

Wikipedia has a view based upon looking forward not backwards. Blocks and bans exist not to punish people (like courts do for crimes). They exist to stop people who despite asking don't choose to stop themselves, and look like they will continue. People change and what they are trying to do now is what counts. A person who did hoax and problematic edits can show goodwill and clean them up, or do more. Their own actions count most of all. A person who vandalizes often has the skill to be a good editor if they try, and regain trust. or they may not be able to resist pulling stunts in future. The main point where a block is replaced by a ban is where they do it so much the community simply loses patience and gives up on them. Or when someone asks for a formal decision they are causing damage and should be removed by the arbitration committee (arbcom). But all of that is in their own hands, because we all look for how people are acting, and how they look like they're going to act. The past is easy to shake off. many people have done it.

Hope this helps. I'm not addressing specific diffs as you can see, because I think explaining the principles a bit, matters more to start with. Ask your next questions, if you like :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of POINT warning templates

Several user warning templates related to WP:POINT have been nominated for deletion: {{Disrupt}}, {{Disrupt2}}, {{Disrupt3}}, {{Disrupt4}}, and {{Disrupt5}}. You are invited to comment on the discussion at their entry on the Templates for Deletion page. szyslak 06:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong wrong wrong

Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in Wikipedia itself.

This contradicts WP:BOLD, WP:CONSENSUS, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and several other items. In fact it has little to do with WP:POINT and has been tacked on later.

Therefore, paragraph removed.

--Kim Bruning 20:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On that subject, I don't see exactly how WP:POINT#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27 is relevant here. Being stubborn is bad, but the logic in the guideline is stretched very thin. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically a refusal to participate in the consensus process then. Hmmm, perhaps it's slightly out of place here, but it simply hasn't found a better home yet? --Kim Bruning 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's my impression. By the way, I distinguish between actions that have a chance of sticking or changing consensus with actions that are guaranteed be reverted without changing consensus. I call the former WP:BOLD, the latter WP:POINT... In any case, thanks for the boring nutshell. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell editing

Current version looks perfect! And purely by wiki-editing too, that was fun! :-) --Kim Bruning 00:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Interfering with consensus

There is a discussion started about addressing those who would take entrenched positions and act in ways to block consensus. This could be interpreted as a kind of POINT disruption. Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing#Blocking consensus. Input and opinions welcomed. Vassyana (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsure of wording in this point...

• 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.
  • don't delete all the information about every person from the article, calling it unimportant.

The inclusion of 'argue' in the 'do' sentence seems a bit too aggressive and suggests bad faith. May I Suggest that we change that to debate or discuss? Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything

should be proved experimentally.--Damifb (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it still disruptive?

Hi.

I saw this:

"In some cases, bad-faith editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. "

But what happens if they _did_ acknowledge others' input or that they may have been in error in some part, but continued with the gist of their argument, which turned out in the end to actually have been objectively reasonable? mike4ty4 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Any answers? mike4ty4 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a Good Principle But...

At WP:DICT the talk page contains intelligent debate against or in favour of improvement of the project going back for years and it is by and large ignored. Which pillar/project page supports acknowledging debate/suggestions/defending wikipedia policies? (surely after a few years)
ThisMunkey (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just don't get it.

'In this situation, it is 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. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the "proof".' Huh? Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we need this?

• 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
  • don't add 42 more cases, however plausible they are

I don't see why we need to digress into talking about the guideline itself in a jokey manner right on the guideline page.--Father Goose (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We need it, mainly because it's bloody hilarious. Seriously - lighten up! 58.178.80.251 (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What is it really about, anyway?

Hi.

I'm still not comfortable with this bit:

"In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.

Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point."

To me, the idea of WP:POINT is that you discuss your point, not demonstrate it by experimentation -- for example, if you think that there is something wrong with policy X, don't go and post a gazillion violations of policy X to show it wrong. The scenario above does not sound like that, it sounds more like "if a mob of editors says your have been discussing your viewpoint too long and we don't believe it, you must quit", even though discussion itself is not bad -- unilateral action is. Debates may go on a very long time, and there have been many long and protracted debates (which suggests that WP:POINT#Refusal to "get the point" does not mean this -- which makes it confusing) on Wikipedia before... The problem here is this section sounds like a way to say "screw the minority" and screw any attempts at paradigm shift. Now, WP:SPAMming a page with constant repetition and only repetition of the point may be another story, but the way the above sounds like it suggest that that is not the only thing that can be considered a breach of WP:REFUSE and that if the mob says the view's been discredited, regardless of it's true, objective status, it is disruptive. I.e. "screw the minority" or "maintain the status quo". From some observations of mine it seems that sometimes WP:IDHT (I Don't Hear That) is used as "WP:IDAWT" (I Don't Agree With That). mike4ty4 (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on this? After all, what if the other people's rebuttals really are wrong? This seems, as I said, like a limit on discussion, not just editing, and I'm not sure if it is a good one (due to the inherent good deal of subjectivity involved and it depends on the very "who is right?" question under dispute!). mike4ty4 (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Since this talk page doesn't seem to get much activity, maybe we should just boldly remove that section and see what happens? PSWG1920 (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer however to explore the rationale behind it, tweak it a little, maybe even spin it off to a separate guideline perhaps. It wouldn't be there without a reason. mike4ty4 (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Two points.

• Wikipedia isn't the place to attempt paradigm shifts, at least not in article space, see No original research.
• "Refusal to get the point" needs to be said somewhere, either here or in a separate essay. If multiple reasonable people say you're wrong then you should at least consider the possibility that you're wrong. I've been thinking about writing an essay called WP:BRDSL, (bold, revert, discuss, shrug, leave) not to suggest that one should leave the project when they lose an argument but just to point out that as in real life, "you win some you lose some". Go ahead and make your proposal and argue your case. If it's rejected, then perhaps it's best to just walk away and go "do something else (on Wikipedia)". Since consensus can change, you can revisit the issue another day.
  --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The rub here though is what the real problem is. Is it continued discussion, or is it broken-record repetition of the argument without any actual responses to challenges? Furthermore, "losing" the argument doesn't automatically mean you were entirely wrong -- only Objective Truth can determine that, and Objective Truth may or may not be knowable (here we get into a deep philosophical area that I really don't want to bother with right now, certainly not here. This is something that has been debated literally for centuries and to resolve it here on a WP forum would be a true miracle I somehow doubt would occur.). It's the behavior of the person that's important, and furthermore WP:POINT is about "do not demonstrate points by experiments" (and even more specifically, about trying to show flaws in policies by experimentally breaching them), not "do not discuss something too much". I would not call continued discussion an "experiment" (unless the specific point that is trying to be made has something to do with discussion itself!), or even boneheaded repetition, although the latter may not be good. Also, no, WP is not the place to attempt to initiate a paradigm shift, but I'm not sure exactly what the point is that is being made there, where did I say WP was such a place? mike4ty4 (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing this point. The problem here is this section sounds like a way to say "screw the minority" and screw any attempts at paradigm shift. In article space at least, attempts at "paradigm shift" unfortunately must be "screwed". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about that bit, oops. But I think now that it was poorly worded. Here, "paradigm shift" was the wrong term. You are right that such things must be "screwed" (i.e. disallowed), however that is the province of WP:NOR, not WP:POINT. I think what I was really trying to say was this: "The problem here is that this section appears to sound like a way to say 'screw the minority' and screw any attempts and trying to push unconventional or controversial Wikipedia policy revisions". "Paradigm shifts" is quite the wrong word. Now I'm laughing at what I wrote... WP:POINT is about breaching rules to try and prove a point about a flaw in Wikipedia's rules, not inserting original thought to try and catalyze a paradigm shift in academic or other real-world thought (which is, as mentioned, already covered by WP:NOR). So "paradigm shift" doesn't exactly work here, unless you want to call Wikipedia's current consensus/rules as its "paradigm", although I'm not sure if that would be a good description or not. So just "screw" that phrasing.

Back on the original topic here, my "critique" of this part of WP:POINT -- although Edit warring over original research material is disruptive and may be "to make a point", WP:POINT appears to really be here to deal with breaching experiments of Wikipedia policies, i.e. experimenting to prove a point on WP, as well as system-gaming. Other things are already covered by other rules, e.g. constantly reinserting original research material in an edit war is already covered by WP:EW and WP:NOR. And WP:CIVIL already covers repeating a point over and over while ignoring any counterargument or discrediting: "Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"" ("I didn't hear that") is listed right there. And in the "nutshell", it has "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." Repeating a discredited position or argument over and over to the point of nuisance without answering any discredital of it would seem to run afoul of those rules and those rules are official policy. mike4ty4 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Any Comments? Also, I've seemed to notice quite a bit of subjectivity in how it's applied several disputes -- just look at the invocations of this that can be found by looking at the "Whatlinkshere" to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (a.k.a. WP:IDIDNTAGREEWITHTHAT) and how it is applied. Is it often and consistently (mostly, at least) applied only to case whrrein the person is just totally ignoring the other people's arguments and repeating like a broken record? I'm not so sure. mike4ty4 (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If the mob(or the community as we like to call them) disagrees with your point, and does not seems to be likely to change their mind, then yes it should be dropped even if you are right and the community is wrong. Wikipedia is not about being correct, it is about working in a group. At a certain point it does need to be said in policy that people need to put the stick down and walk away from a dead horse.

I do agree that the line should be drawn between further productive discussion and simply trying the same thing that did not work before till people are annoyed. Chillum 14:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, logic should determine the "deadness" of the horse. And what if a new argument is discovered? Plus, WP:POINT is about experiments to generate evidence for a point. (E.g.: "Policy X doesn't work in this situation. See? <causes situation to happen to generate the "proof" of the problem>". And I never disagreed with the idea that simply repeating a point over and over again with nothing new only serves to waste time. mike4ty4 (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Mike4ty4 makes some good points. Here's my take on it. For a long time, this guideline was about the behavior where someone isn't making headway in discussion so goes ahead and does the opposite of what he or she was advocating. Namely to disrupt Wikipedia and by that show he or she was right. Somewhere along the way, people started citing this guideline whenever someone made a point they didn't like. I've seen it many times by now. People will typically say something like, "I think your pointy comments..." I've always wondered how that made sense. After all, just because one person makes a point (maybe even perfectly valid), the other person then basically accuses of disruption? Reading this bit of "refusal to understand a point" gives me an idea of why people engage in these silly invocations of WP:POINT. They must think that if someone argues with them and tries to make a point, that this is disruption. It doesn't even take a long discussion to cause such a response. Just a couple responses may be all it takes to be warned for WP:POINT. As I see it, this is a clear misuse of this guideline and I think the passage on "refusal..." encourages such misuse. This passage was included by FT2 around July 2007, and doesn't seem to have provoked any comments until Mike's. I believe it needs to be more fully thought out before being included. --C S (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it's more like "you have a point, so you run an 'experiment' to try and create 'evidence' that it is correct." This may involve doing the opposite, or doing the same, too: let's say I say "X is good" so then I go and do X at every last opportunity to "prove" my point that it is good. If this disrupts Wikipedia, then there is a problem (esp. if the person intended to cause disruption to attempt to prove the point, or they knew what they were doing was against policy, etc.). The thing about "refusal to get the point" better be moved somewhere else and modified too -- as it is all too often used, as you say, to just diss comments one does not agree with in a discussion, when it does not appear that was the original way in which it was intended to be used. mike4ty4 (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Perhaps a section should be added about not provoking another editor to resort to the kind of tactic this guideline deals with. For example, citing a rule as grounds for a change or revert, without explaining why this makes the article more encyclopedic, is the kind of thing which would be likely to result in this type of behavior from one who disagrees. Or simply brushing aside a point involving a different article which has been raised in discussion. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Often people are provoked by non-provocative actions, such as pointing out the relevant policy when making a revert. I would suggest simply asking on the talk page if you don't understand someone's explanation of their actions. Chillum 14:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

examples is WP:BEANS

It is a rediculious list of suggestions to those who don't heed this--Ipatrol (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

They're good examples of what not to do. Maybe they could be trimmed but they should stay. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Specific Examples" are irrelevant

I'm not sure that these are actually examples of disruption to illustrate a point, so much as disruption and rules-lawyering in general. Can we move them elsewhere? — Werdna • talk 11:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of what is not a breach of this guideline

I believe that what was deleted here or something along those lines should be reinstated. It's clear that this is a guideline dealing with disruption, yet some attempt to apply it to reasonable edits. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Something along those lines maybe, but certainly not that. It reads as if its a thinly veiled allusion to a specific incident. "addition to an essay or guideline based on the editor's experience" - That's awfully ... specific ... for such a general section name. Mr.Z-man 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Do not disrupt..." prohibits actions that are disruptive; it does not prohibit actions that are not disruptive. If we really need to spell this out for readers, I despair for us all... also, there's a separate page setting out what is considered to be disruptive editing, and I think it would be a mistake to duplicate the material at that page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of atomic explosion

I removed the image of the nuclear explosion because I find it threatening and don't find it conducive toward creating civility on Wikipedia. SharkD (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't threatening and can't affect civility. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support removal. While it may have seemed clever to the editor who added it, it does not meaningfully illustrate anything to do with this guideline and is potentially distracting. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This page has lost its way

The entire section called "Specific kinds of 'disruption to illustrate a point'" is bogus. It does nothing of the sort. All it describes are methods of disruption.

This page's original purpose was this: sometimes people in discussion would fiercely argue point X, e.g. no templates should have such and such. When they can't make headway in the discussion, they then go and change all the templates to have such and such in contradiction to what they were arguing. The purpose of this action is to stir up outrage and get people to agree that templates shouldn't have such and such. Note that the action in isolation was not wrong. It could be excused by saying the person was doing it in good faith and didn't know it would be a disruption. What was wrong was the purposeful disruption behind it, the intent behind it, a kind of dishonesty whereby the person was trying to manipulate people into agreeing with them. The nutshell sums up what the page is supposed to be about: "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."

"Gaming the system" is not done to "illustrate a point" or present it. You're not illustrating anything to anybody except that you will use dirty tactics to get what you want.

Another specific example given in the section is "refusal to get a point". Boy, this is even further away from the original intent of WP:POINT. Basically, if someone doesn't think your point is valid and argues their own point, you get to accuse them of disruption and cite WP:POINT? How bizarre. See the lengthy section above.

And why are hoaxes included? What point is being illustrated by a hoax?

This page is a mess. I'm surprised, given the number of experienced Wikipedians who have not only watched over it, but actually added this content to it. --C S (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be the last version before it started getting bloated. The next edit actually added an "If you must" section, which is no longer present. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section in question, moving WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to WP:Disruptive editing and replacing the other two subsections with links in "See also" (since they were already redundant to other pages.) The main section could probably use a rewrite. I'll further study older versions of it. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the version which was first promoted to a guideline. It is helpful in showing how things got to be as they are. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to have been a major turning point of this guideline. I have to say I like the Ulysses S. Grant example and I think it should be re-integrated. It is also apparent to me that the statements that Wikipedia "is inconsistent" and that it "tolerates things it does not condone" come from a time when Wikipedia didn't have nearly as many rules, and the original context reflects that. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the action in isolation was not wrong. That's incorrect, in my opinion. Violations of this guideline occur when people are trying to argue a point and in order to provie they interfere with the actual encyclopedia articles by doing soemthing that is otherwise indenfensible. In an exaomple from years ago, there was an organization (A) that was criticized by a different organization (B). In rebuttal to those criticisms, editors were adding criticisms of organization B to the article on A. To show how silly that was I added yet another criticism of organization B, thjis time by a notorious person. (It was quickly deleted and I never restored it. The other criticisms of B were eventually removed too.) It came up in a subsequent ArbCom case and I was found guilty of having violated this guideline. As for hoaxes, sometimes folks add hoaxes to prove how bad Wikipedia is at detecting hoaxes. That'd be a clear violation.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Wow, it's hard to believe my comments are so difficult to understand, but let me explain more clearly. If, as you say, people are trying to argue a point and do something disruptive to illustrate it, then the something is not being done in isolation. That's why I wrote also (besides the part you quote): "It could be excused by saying the person was doing it in good faith and didn't know it would be a disruption. What was wrong was the purposeful disruption behind it..." There are many such examples where the action by itself was not wrong morally, and that's the kind of example I'm using in my explanation. Think about it. If you happen to think changing some templates in a certain manner is ok, and then people get upset when you do so, I wouldn't say that was wrong in a moral sense. You live and learn. Being bold means you will make mistakes. What's wrong is when you knew everyone would get upset but you resorted to doing the action because you didn't believe you could convince people in discussion.

• • To use your example, the reason what you did was a violation of WP:POINT was not because you added criticism of organization B. Any editor could have done that believing that such criticism was valid content, reliably sourced, blah blah. What you did was wrong because you did it to illustrate a point and in a way that was deemed disruptive. --C S (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as hoaxes go, I think the WP:HOAX link in "See also" is sufficient here. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too. Thanks by the way for all the cleaning up. --C S (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem

I changed the title of the main section from "State your point, don't prove it experimentally" to "Do not attempt to prove a point experimentally". However, the tone of the section still reflects the earlier title. The real problem is that someone who might be considering doing what this guideline advises against more than likely already has tried to discuss their concerns, perhaps extensively. If we're going to be honest, this guideline should take the tone that "If by direct discussion you fail to get a desired change implemented, then, even if you remain convinced that you are right, just accept the failure, even though it might be tempting to make use of parody to illustrate your point". PSWG1920 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good summary. Do you have a good way to make it shorter and sweeter? 10 words or less? :-) But seriously, I see no reason why we can't work that into the nutshell. It'll need some editing. For one thing, I don't think we should just limit it to parody. For example, I wouldn't call nominating an article for FA that you were trying to delete in AFD "parody" per se. It's more like a hissy fit. --C S (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "parody" to "irony or sarcasm" (and I see that "irony or subterfuge" was there before.) Now the question is how do we adjust the nutshell? PSWG1920 (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say something other than "parody" or "irony". It is more akin to "civil disobedience" of a government, I've always thought. Not sure what would be the term to use for "disobedience" of "Wikipedia" which is not a government. mike4ty4 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see you already added it. --C S (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, "...more than likely already has tried to discuss their concerns..." is speculative; not really experience. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What's your reasoning for re-instating all the material like "gaming the system" and "hoaxes" that isn't part of this guideline? --C S (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't re-instate any "gaming the system" material. I re-instated the "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" material, it is not in any other guidance afaik. Even it if *were* in another guideline, the deep link redirects to the section you deleted, and for that reason, you can't just delete the section without giving proper content or re-redirection for the Wikipedia:IDHT and Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT redirect pages.

The redirects were already in place, so you are mistaken. You are also mistaken that the material is not elsewhere. I notice that despite you having noticed your mistakes, you did not revert yourself. Since your reasoning is invalid, I would expect you to. --C S (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I re-instated the hoaxes section, because afaik there is no other guideline page that covers that stuff as succinctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that hoaxing has little to do with this guideline. Just because you think Wikipedia:Don't_create_hoaxes doesn't contain this material is not a reason to add it here. --C S (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Francis is reluctant to discuss his rationale, merely reverting, I have reverted his most recent revert. I suggest his actions are against the consensus. --C S (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I used edit summaries, please read them, instead of suggesting I'm "merely reverting". --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that your short and mysterious edit summaries made perfect sense to you, but it doesn't appear to make sense to anyone else. Please justify your reverts. Your first edit summary said that you were reverting based on the idea of "telling people what to do" versus "telling what not to do"; however, someone else reverted you based on not understanding what this could mean. I don't get it either. Your second edit summary was "please don't remove the sections then". I have no idea how this contributes to the discussion. Should I remove your additions by saying "please don't add the sections"? How does this explain anything? --C S (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re. Please justify your reverts. - I did.

Maybe start with not misquoting me: I wrote "...a [...] guideline explaining what to do, instead of merely stating what not to do...", I never said "telling people what to do" or "telling what not to do".

Someone wrote the edit summary "How does removing these sections turn it into more of a guideline that "merely states what not to do"?" - since I had not removed any sections, I found this rather curious, and reverted without giving it much thought. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You reinstated 2 sections, "refusal to get the point" and "hoaxes", with an edit summary "rv, this is a positive guideline, explaining what to do, intead of merely stating what not to do". Yet I did not think this was good rationale for reinstating the sections, as it does not make sense: how does not including these sections make it less of a "positive guideline" (and so reverting them to restore it to a state where it is more of a positive guideline)? Both sections are "don't do something" not "do something" (i.e. negative guidelines, not positive ones.). The "removal" I was referring to was the one you were contesting by reinstating those sections, not a removal of your own. mike4ty4 (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, anyhow, I was contesting a mere "Do not attempt to prove a point experimentally", which I changed back to "State your point; do not prove it experimentally" (like it had been for quite a long time).

As said, I had seen the removal of entire sections as bland vandalism, not giving it much of a thought when reinstating them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I might try removing them again, and see if it sticks or someone else objects. mike4ty4 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, looks like it's been done already. Never mind. mike4ty4 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaming

Hi.

I wanted to say this about the "gaming the system" thing. It does seem to be related to this "point-making" thing, as one type of system gaming is that done to create evidence for the point, like by posting lots of fake "warnings" (as was one of the mentioned examples.). Perhaps this section could be trimmed as to not include all forms of system gaming, just those that are relevant to the "point-making by disruption"? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that since Wikipedia:Gaming the system is already a separate guideline, a link to it in "See also" is sufficient. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike's point is a valid one. However, there are many kinds of disruption that may be utilized to make a point. I don't know if the "gaming" type is particularly suited. Indeed, I would say the successful gamer tries to get away with the dirty deed without attracting undue attention.

I'm not seeing the example you describe. Perhaps you could clarify. All I see is reference to posting spurious warnings (which would overlap with the (in)civility guideline). Such posting is harassment and a primitive example of gaming the system, but I don't see how it is "evidence for the point". I suppose if you were arguing in discussion that people are posting spurious warnings or whatever, and then you decide to do so to demonstrate something, it could be. But that's why I don't think it's worth mentioning such examples. Any form of disruption could be used to "make a point". There's no reason to list something like gaming the system, which unfortunately, is often confused with this guideline. --C S (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The "example" is just that: that particular item about the warnings. mike4ty4 (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Well, do you agree with my point about the relevance of the gaming subsection? --C S (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, actually. As one may consider a few of them attempts at "parody" ("mocking" the policy or rule), for example. mike4ty4 (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Summary style, as it is currently for the "gaming" material works better imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Gaming the system" section here, as it is now, seems like a clear content fork considering WP:GAMING is a separate guideline. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1. "summary style" is not a content fork, see relevant guidance;
2. WP:content forking is a mainspace guideline, does not *necessarily* apply to project space; while "summary style", the technique, can be used in any namespace.
3. As I said, I think summary style the right way ahead here, and I see no consensus to the contrary. I've seen no convincing argumentation to the contrary either. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:REICHSTAG

Why the link to WP:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man in the "see also" section? How does this have to do with WP:POINT? mike4ty4 (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Who knows. Probably, as experience thus far indicates, most people don't watch what's going on here except when they want to add something. I'm going to try and revert the owner of this policy one more time to a more consensus version. Probably he will revert and there will be zero progress after all this discussion. --C S (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SIGNIFICANT — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems even less relevant. --C S (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ulysses S Grant and civil disobedience

The wording in question appears to have been removed with no specific explanation in a whole-sale rewrite on August 12, 2005. [1] As far as "no reason to delete anything", the sentence I "deleted" was pretty much redundant to the second paragraph. "This guideline is opposed to both of these practices: instead it proposes that discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with these policies." Compare that to "Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating problems with policies or the way they are implemented." PSWG1920 (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Still, bloated, and somewhat contradicting WP:IAR (policy, at least some variants of civil disobedience are covered by that policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this guideline as a whole contradicts IAR. What better way to bring about improvements in policies than to actually demonstrate their shortcomings? I suspect that this page may have been created originally in response to edit-warring done in the process of point-making, but in my mind it is legitimate to satirically argue for changes you don't want. PSWG1920 (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "civil disobedience" meant breaking a rule deliberately in order to be noticed. Just yesterday I saw someone who had apparently been banned from an article correcting spelling errors in it, and actually said that he was practicing civil disobedience. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

That's an example of WP:disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you're going to have a sockpuppet, edit in good faith.--Shaymin (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's possible to use sockpuppetry to purposefully cause a disruption to illustrate some point (usually the point is regarding sockpuppetry itself). But most sockpuppeteers are trying to avoid detection. They aren't using the disruption to "illustrate a point" as understood in this guideline. They're just trying to use the apparent weight of superior numbers to win the argument, which is really quite a different thing altogether from what this guideline is about. In other words, "disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" here does not mean that you are being disruptive in trying to win an argument or make your point. It means using the disruptive behavior itself as a way to show what you are talking about. So instead of arguing/discussing your point, you think it'd be better to actually cause a big disruption to get the point across. --C S (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

no fun

"do not forge an implausible award to yourself to highlight how silly you think it is"

dude there goes my 'living in moms basement award'

"Upgrading" to policy.

What does everyone feel about making this a policy instead of a guideline. It's one of the two rules that are outliers regarding what they are and how we follow them (the other being CIV, which is being discussed presently). I believe this should be a policy because: a) it's more of an instruction than advice, and b) blocks for violating it tend to stick. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 14:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a policy. We regularly block people for violating the advice given in this document so I think calling it a guideline is misleading, it should be policy in my opinion. Chillum 14:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose promotion, and consider demoting to essay. First, it's not always clear when someone is actually doing this (similar to WP:AGF and other behavioral guidelines.) Secondly, it may be necessary to ignore WP:POINT and illustrate a problem with a policy or guideline in order to get it changed. On the principle of WP:NOTLAW, how else do you ensure that policies and guidelines only describe accepted practice and do not end up dictating such? You could of course discuss it on the policy or guideline's talk page, but there's no guarantee that editors who already participate there represent widespread community consensus. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

People regularly get blocked for point violations and the community upholds those blocks. This is describing our practices. People need to know that if they do this they will get blocked. It is not a suggestion but an instruction to not act disruptively to prove a point. Calling it a guideline may make people think avoiding this behavior is optional, when in fact it is actionable. Chillum 03:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that it is actually edit-warring in the process of illustrating a point which gets people blocked. WP:Edit war is already a policy. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another red flag here is the list of examples. We should be very careful before making any page with a long list of examples into a policy. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is probably the most misapplied WP:ALLCAPS rule we have. Its probably misapplied as often as its used correctly. People call any disruption a "point violation" regardless of whether or not it was trying to prove something. Less frequently, people will try to apply it when people prove a point, even if they don't do so disruptively. Mr.Z-man 03:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I raised that issue above, but as you pointed out my proposed wording was far too specific to the situation in which I was accused of point-making. Part of the problem is that there was a lot of junk here for a long time which was not directly relevant to the behavior this guideline was intended to address. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Further consideration

The key question here is whether anyone has ever been blocked or banned (and if appealed, had it stand up) for trying to prove a point experimentally without also in the process breaching anything which currently is a policy, such as WP:Edit war, WP:HARASS, or WP:SOCK. Unless we can find an example of someone being blocked or banned just for violating WP:POINT then I think we should consider this matter closed with no consensus to promote to policy. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy not against trying to prove a point experimentally, it is against disrupting Wikipedia while trying to prove a point experimentally. WP:Disruption is another example of a "guideline" that people often get blocked for violating. Chillum 16:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pruning of examples

When cleaning up this guideline previously (see above discussions), one thing we neglected to address was the list of examples. I just removed a few examples, and clauses within other examples, which seemed to be outside the scope of "disruption to illustrate a point", or which just didn't make a lot of sense. I think I gave pretty clear reasons in the edit summaries, but they can be discussed here if anyone disagrees. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell

It seems likely to me that the current nutshell is a part of the reason which this guideline is so often misapplied (a fact which been discussed several times on this talk page.) 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. While that is probably a true statement, and applicable here, it doesn't seem to be a very good synopsis of this guideline, which concerns disruption to illustrate a point. I tried to change it, got reverted, tried to address the issue raised by the first revert summary, and got reverted again. [2] [3] Any thoughts? PSWG1920 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I felt the new synopsis misses the point of this guideline completely, and could appear from the perspective of outsider to look like a whitewashing of the guideline. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That raises the question, what is the point of this guideline? PSWG1920 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the guideline is often used in Arbcom and ANI to justify blocks, bans, etc. for this specific type of disruption.

I think the latest rewording is better, though rather awkward, especially "disruptively trying to take it to its logical conclusion." I'm not going to revert if we're just going to reword this to make it a bit clearer and smoother. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Let's see what others think. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording is awkward, but definitely it is a big improvement. --C S (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Final paragraph

Seems fine to me. Given the nature of this article, I think it is a necessity to put this in perspective of how admins and Arbcom apply this article.

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.

--Ronz (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I appreciate your rather aggressive editing here. Why do you feel the need to revert everyone else while they can't revert you? I'll leave it alone, but I'm just wondering here. --C S (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are reading a lot into how Arbcom may use this guideline/essay/whatever it is. For example, Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents (which redirects now) does not at all explain Arbcom's view on this. Your addition is merely stating that disruptive behavior is not allowed and Arbcom doesn't look upon that lightly. There's already WP:DE, so unless it's become standard to make such an addition on any guideline dealing with a type of disruptive behavior, there's no need to summarize that here. --C S (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to make it clear when a behavior may result in a block in the article discussing that behavior. Please note that it is not my addition, but has been a part of the article since 10 June 2005 . --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few things which didn't belong remained on this page for years, see above, so that's not a convincing argument for keeping anything here. If anything, we should restore the original June 2005 wording and work from there, as that was more focused on the specific behavior this guideline pertains to. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"so that's not a convincing argument" Luckily, no one is using it as an argument for keeping the material. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of your talk page edit summary: important and 4 years of consensus. So it seemed like you were using that as an argument. Anyway, would you agree that it would be better to at least make the paragraph in question more focused on this particular guideline? PSWG1920 (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"This is a guideline, not policy, so making your point by demonstration is not in itself a disciplinary offense. " [4]. I find this sentence misleading, if not outright inaccurate. It contradicts the information in the behavioral guideline infobox at the top of the article.

"If you find it absolutely necessary to prove a point experimentally, at least take care not to breach any policies while doing so; e.g. don't edit war to keep your "proof" once it is reverted, don't harass anyone, don't use sockpuppets, etc. " [5] This further misleads the reader about the difference between behavioral guidelines and policies. Worse, it could be taken as advise to WP:GAME. --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know whether there has ever been a case where someone has been blocked for WP:POINT-making who was not also breaching one policy or another in the process. That is further applicable to the above question of whether WP:POINT should be promoted to policy. At any rate, one setting out to illustrate a point very likely would edit-war, harass, or do something else inappropriate if they were not guarding against that, so I think my addition (which incorporated ideas from an old section) made sense in that regard. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't find this last section very useful either. I don't mind if it stays but it just doesn't provide any helpful information:

Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator. - true but it doesn't apply to this guideline in particular.

Editors involved in arbitration may find that violating the spirit of this guideline will prejudice the decision of the Arbitration Committee. - like PSWG1920, I'd be interested to see an example of violating WP:POINT, which wouldn't also violate a policy.

See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents for examples of the Committee's views on various types of disruptive behavior. - again true but off-topic, as none of the examples on this page mention WP:POINT. Laurent (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm of like mind here. We have a lot of confusion already over people assuming WP:POINT is about anyone with a point behaving disruptively. The reason for cleaning this page of accumulated cruft was to restore the original meaning of the guideline/essay/whatever. --C S (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As shown in the link I provided, when this information was originally added, it contained links to three related ArbCom cases.

Given the nature of guidelines, I certainly don't expect ArbCom to ever make decisions based solely upon guidelines.

WP:ANI is searchable. It contains 628 instances of "wp:point".

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions states under "Article probation", "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT."

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles states under "Civility/disruption/reasonableness", "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally."

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration is searchable. It contains 166 instances of "wp:point". --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Absurdum

This policy while with good intention (having people refrain from disrupting Wikipedia) has a horrible way of doing so. Reductio ad Absurdum is perhaps one of the best forms of counter-argument. Why? Because the majority of the time when people argue, they attempt to argue in an absolute fashion. Reductio ad absurdum gives people a wake up call and forces them to think in context.

This policy of not disrupting wikipedia is a good one but it needs to be reworked in terms of examples and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.114.94 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you identify the specific statements that you have issues with? PSWG1920 (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this a guideline or not?

This page is tagged with both Template:Proposed and Template:Subcat guideline. Which is it? The former template states that, as long as it is in place, the page should not be tagged with the latter one. So there is an inconsistency there. --LjL (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where the proposed template came from but I have removed it. This guideline has been in place for years. Chillum 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears it was added here [6] when it was proposed to make the guideline a policy. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. I think that discussion is finished, so I don't think we need the tag any more. Chillum 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This guideline can be abused

We should be consistent. Yet if one strives for consistency, someone could and has brought up WP:POINT. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Which guideline can not be abused? LjL (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Propose merge

This guideline seems to be a special case of WP:GAME. Should we merge? This page looks really short anyway... --Edge3 (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning toward support. I just observed that WP:GAME links here four times, so a merge seems logical. Interestingly, WP:GAME was previously part of this guideline, and contributed to a mess which was only recently cleaned up. But now that we have isolated the parts which truly did pertain to the type of behavior this page was originally created in response to, a merge should work. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Really??? I was not aware of the previous history! I'm only proposing this as a way to reduce the massive number of policies newcomers have to wade through to understand what's behaviorally expected of them. --Edge3 (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, observe how rambling, off-topic, and redundant this page once was. [7] It has been gradually cleaned up since then. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Nice job! So how do I proceed with this proposal?--Edge3 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I've just placed merge tags on this page as well as WP:GAME, linking to this thread, to make more editors aware of this proposal. We should now wait to see what others think. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - disrupting to illustrate a point isn't really gaming the system. Its sort of the opposite really. Gaming the system implies doing something that's technically allowed as a means of accomplishing something disruptive (wikilawyering, etc.). The actions themselves aren't especially disruptive, only the reason/effect. With this, the action itself is disruptive, but the reason/effect may not be. Mr.Z-man 00:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point may be a subset of "gaming the system", but it is a large subset with almost daily examples. I think we benefit by having a specific document for this specific issue. Chillum 00:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grinding a point may be a way of gaming the system. However, there are many other ways to game the system, as reflected in WP:GAME. Sunray (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is about a type of disruptive editing. WP:GAME is about bad faith use of Wikipedia policies/guidelines. There is very little overlap between the two, and merging them would eliminate or confuse the differences. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that didn't go to well...--Edge3 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)