Wikipedia talk:Wikilawyering

message: As an openly-admitted lawyer (see my user page), and in part to Laurent's assertion that real lawyers might not feel offended, I have to at least weigh in and say that I do, in fact, find the term offensive. The arguments made, above, for why lawyers shouldn't feel offended by it are themselves contrived and, frankly, Wiki(substitute N-word)rigged.
Would you have been offended by that term, had I spelled it out? Why? It just refers to the practice of shoddily constructing something. Everyone knows what it really means, it's not really a reference to African-Americans, and African-Americans shouldn't therefore be offended by its use. I could go on with references to Wiki(I-word)giving and Wiki(J-word)ing and Wiki(B-word)ery, but I won't because my intent is not to disrupt WP to make my point.
Appeals to bush lawyer, barrack lawyer, and ruleslawyer are of no benefit, they're just as offensive as wikilawyer. Frankly, the foregoing comments of DVdm as much prove my point as not, and he's not the first editor who I've encountered who has expressed or implied the idea that if lawyers cannot set aside their lawyerly habits that they simply shouldn't be editing WP at all. Indeed, the first subparagraph of the Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Advocacy in Wikipedia section comes very close, indeed, to saying just that in a damning-by-faint-praise manner. (And it's interesting to note that when that subparagraph was  in 2006 that the Association of Member's Advocates was still in its heyday and was in fact playing a disruptive, er..., active role at ArbCom and other fora. Now the Association is gone (and it went away a few months before I began editing here), that subparagraph can even more strongly be read to say that lawyers need not participate.)
I must, however, say that Wikifinagling is not an adequate substitute, nor is Wikipettifoggery nor a prior  at WikiCaviling. Rather than come up with a substitute term, I would advocate for eliminating its use altogether. Perhaps others can come up with examples of where it was properly used in its exact meaning to describe what someone was actually doing, but I strongly suspect that it is rarely, if ever, used other than as an unfounded accusation and, as such, is just a form of name-calling. Let's give it up. Shorthand terms are convenient, but when they're offensive we can take the time to say what we mean — emphasizing the letter of policy over its intent — rather than offending. Though I grew up in a time, place, and culture where the use of racial epithets for African-Americans and Latinos were part of everyday parlance, I don't use them. Not out of political correctness or fear of getting in trouble but simply because they might offend. Why should we prohibit the use of "racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets" (and to those who would say that the ones which are prohibited are the ones that one cannot choose, such as race, age, or sex, I would point out the inclusion of "religious" and "political" in that list), but yet allow this one? If we're going to foster a culture of collegiality and consensus, why should we encourage the use of terms that can offend?
Full disclosure: I have, and do, on occasion use the term, but I ordinarily do so in a jocular way to refer to my own positions and arguments, not to refer to the activities of others. Since coming to Wikipedia in 2007 I've been trying, probably not always successfully, to use my skills as an attorney to benefit the encyclopedia and to change the term wikilawyer from a negative one to a positive one, so I've not avoided its use.
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "wikilawyer" refers to misguided attempts to look for loopholes in procedures, in order to excuse unhelpful behavior at Wikipedia. There is no reason for a lawyer to find the term offensive since the "lawyer" part of the term is not used in any disparaging manner. As a website, Wikipedia is fundamentally different from Real Life, and wikilawyers are editors who mistakenly imagine that RL approaches to rules are useful here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The essay says, "It may refer to certain quasi-legal practices ... In other words a 'wikilawyer' is an image drawn from a lawyer" (it said "poor lawyer" until  in February, but I've not reverted it because, frankly I'm not sure which one is more offensive), so that's the most WikiPolish (i.e. stupid) argument I've recently encountered. Oh, that usage shouldn't be offensive to Polish people since I'm only really referring to the Poles who are actually stupid, not all of them, just as Wikilawyer only refers to the lawyers who misguidedly practice law in an irresponsible manner. And by tacking "Wiki" on the front I'm clearly limiting its use to here at WP and not making any reference to Real Life. The fact is both those terms refer to an implied and false stereotype and are patently offensive. (And I apologize to my Polish family, friends, and relatives for using the term even for purposes of illustration.) There is certainly a reason for lawyers to be offended by the term and, indeed, I am offended. I must admit, moreover, that I may have been wrong in one of the things that I said above, in particular, the observation that the behavior currently described by the term wikilawyering may not really occur often enough here to justify any term to describe it. Your argument could not be a clearer example of "4. [R]elying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lawyer" is a chosen profession, not an unchangeable accident of birth. What about WP:POLICE? Offensive to cops? Needs to be changed? What if somehow there was an essay WP:PUMPINGAS?  I can just hear the cries of  "that's offensive to gas station attendants!" Not the same thing as using slurs against someone's ethnicity or race. Not even close. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Religion and political affiliation, both of which are personal choices, are protected by WP:NPA#WHATIS. I'm not suggesting, however, that professions ought to be added to that list, but only that this essay ought to be revised not to use the term "wikilawyering" and to state that the use of the term is discouraged; in other words, I'm not saying that the use of the term ought to be banned, but only that the encouragement of the use of the term ought to be discontinued. As such, the use of wikilawyer would become much like the use of profanity on WP: tolerated but not favored. It should be noted that in addition to the categories banned by WP:NPA#WHATIS, and notwithstanding WP:PROFANE, WP is not insensitive to mere offensiveness: we block usernames for offensiveness as mild as "poo" (block log, 13:46, 25 July 2011) and "bastard" (block log, 14:40, 1 August 2011). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that username policy enforcement has become absurdly prudish. That doesn't seem particularly relevant to the naming of this essay. I also don't see any personal attack, so NPA is not really relevant either. This is dead horse, I suggest you let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And, indeed, I have dropped the stick insofar as I never intended to do anything more than, first, register my objections here and, second, to hope, without much real hope of success, that the community would listen. I do reserve the right, however, to continue to respond to comments made here (or elsewhere, if a discussion about the appropriateness of the term should come up), but I haven't gone around, and don't intend to go around, being a disruption and objecting or raising the issue every time I come onto the term being used outside this discussion and, indeed, wouldn't have said anything more here had you not commented. (And that's not intended to be criticism: I welcome your, or anyone else's civil, good faith remarks on the subject and, though I disagree with what you've said, would like to thank you for making your comments.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: We regularly use "police" and "cop" in the same manner ("No one needs you play wikicop around here", etc.).  Real police officers might be a bit twinged by that.  But I submit that they knew what they were getting into.  Everyone who goes to law school or police academy knows that some people do not hold every single aspect of their profession, or more to the point, every single behavior pattern by every member of their profession, in high regard.  Any reasonable Wikipedian will also understand that the overall behavior patterns of these professions – to argue technicalities to win for one side even if the end result isn't the overall best outcome collectively, in the case of lawyers, and to enforce a law-and-order pattern under a strict code, in the case of police – are not very constructive approaches here.  PS: Comparing racist epithets to criticism of lawyers is about the worst false equivalence case I've encountered here in years. [Yes, I'm "necroposting" on purpose; this is the first post people see on this page, and we're not archiving it for some reason.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensiveness, again 

message: Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsensical way "
A small point, but is "commonsensical" a real word? I've certainly never seen the term "common sense" turned into a compound word before but maybe I'm just behindthetimesensical. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and changed it . Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

text: "Commonsensible" would make more sense, but that's not a word, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course commonsensical is a real word.   Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''commonsensical''? really? 

message: While the lead usually summarizes the article, in this case the lead is the only coverage of the main points of the article and the body of it just contains specialized sidebar notes.   I IMHO long term more in-depth coverage of the main concepts introduced in the lead would be good.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This article has an unusual structure, and lack of coverage of main points in the body of the article

message: In addition to being highly offensive, this essay is also misleading in that it encourages people to think that on Wikipedia we may do without law, lawfulness, and lawyers. None of this is true. Hyacinth (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not written with sufficient precision and narrow operative clauses to be used as law.    And the most common persistent problems in Wikipedia are MISUSE of policies and guidelines while using claims of "enforcing the rules" as cover. Highlighting this problem and giving it a name (as this does) is a much-needed small step towards resolving or minimizing this. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Please see my comments above which explain what this term means, and why it is not at all offensive. Johnuniq (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Is this an April Fool's post, or not?  I can never tell what I should take seriously on Wikipedia today.  I'll note in passing that by far the most respected and trusted member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is a real-life lawyer—something the community is entirely untroubled by.  (Indeed, the more editors like Newyorkbrad that we can have, the better.)  This essay isn't aimed at lawyers; it's aimed at the people who try to act like the fake lawyers they see in television melodramas: the ones who use perceived loopholes in written rules to generate pointless drama. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnuniq, really? I believe I've more than adequately demonstrated in my posts of May 12, 2011, and August 1, 2011, above just how it is offensive and, I repeat, that as an attorney I do, in fact, find it offensive. TenOfAllTrades, if it's not aimed at lawyers then its name is misleading: simply rename it and the problem is solved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

text: One more word, @North8000, if "Wikilawyer" means all those who "MISUSE ... policies and guidelines while using claims of 'enforcing the rules' as cover" then it implies that all lawyers misuse the law in the name of enforcing it. That implication is exactly what is offensive about the term. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several fatal logical flaws in what you just said. But rather than dissect that, I'll  go right to what I think is the heart of it.  A portion of the profession IS influencing the outcome of some things by working the technicalities of something, and yes, sometimes that does include going against the clear intent of the law/contract etc..  A parallel situation does exist in Wikipedia,  and I think that the term is named after that particular type of action, not the profession as a whole. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See my post of May 12, above, which directly addresses that argument. Naming a whole group for the actions of a few is stereotyping. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I now see what you are saying.  It's not about the actual practice in Wikipedia, it's that it is using the name of a profession in a way that implies that the profession is negative.  Do you have a better idea on a name to use for this behavior? North8000 (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

text: To me it seems overwhelmingly obvious that the most persistent problems are not violation of policies, but mis-use of policies to conduct warfare, mostly along the lines of the behaviors called wikilawyering. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not seen that, except perhaps once. Please don't take this to be a challenge or a gauntlet-toss, it's just an expression of curiosity: Could you point me to some examples of what you've seen? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These two came to mind just due to the quantity of examples (maybe 50) in one place of mis-using policies to conduct warfare. These are non-typical in two ways:  POV is not the motivation for the warfare, and the degree of cleverness in obscuring that it is such.  At Machine vision, just about everything in editing and talk from  10/28/2010-10/11/2011 and on 5/13/12.  At Feast of the Hunters' Moon  just about everything in the last 2 years. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I think that yours and my feeling are in opposite directions.  IMHO, using policies for purposes other than for the good of Wikipedia (e.g. to conduct warfare, POV an article) is a widespread and severe problem, and giving it a pejorative name is a good tool to try to fix it.  But it's unfortunate that the pejorative name includes the the name of a profession in it.   Your good faith effort & edit (thanks you for your efforts) goes the other way, and also in a conversational tone. I did not revert, but those are my thoughts.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for talking first.  I think you are referring to my first edit which I don't feel that strongly about and intended mainly as a peace offering based on some of the other remarks here.  The edit I do really care about elaborates on one way the term is often misused.  Do you like or dislike the latter? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just clarifying, I don't feel strongly enough to revert and didn't plan to.   But it does have that conversational wording issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I suspect that TransporterMan thinks wikilawyering isn't real because his experience at WP:DR process pages is amongst editors actually trying in good faith to resolve disputes. These are the least likely places to find actual wikilawyers.  They are mostly trying to  DR processes, and rely on haughty (but wrong or wrong-headed) proclamations about policy to get their way without having to go through something that mediatorial. As for the term being offensive, it shouldn't be.  If acting like a psychiatrist and giving out bogus, incompetent, and bad-faith-motivated diagnoses were a real problem, we'd call these people "wikishrinks", with the same implication: The wiki- prefix in such a context indicates on-wiki wannabe behavior, much like "armchair-" or "barroom-" would indicate similar sorts of poorly qualified and self-important pontificating).  Actually, wikishrinks  a problem. I think I should write that essay. I can't even estimate the number of times I've seen someone on here trying to make a mental diagnosis of another editor; it's one of our most common forms of incivility.Anyway, picture it in a different context. If this were a role-playing game, and someone were trying to bluster all the time about the rules, we'd call them gamelawyers.  Because real-life lawyers are in fact often trying, in order to best represent the interests of their clients, to exploit loopholes and evade common-sense judicial findings by extreme literal interpretation of a law or regulation, it's just a real-world fact that lawyers as a profession have a reputation for this, and that it will be used metaphorically. Too bad, so sad. It's not even lawyers' fault, but that of the legal system being adversarial, and legal ethics (of defense attorneys, and civil litigators) being grounded in what's best for the client, not what's best for the community. (Prosecutors are supposed to focus on the latter, though they tend to focus in reality on what is best for political perception of their effectiveness in the role.) So, yet a third way of looking at this: WP is not a legal system; wikilawyering is the bringing of a lawyerlike approach to dispute resolution (particularly one dominated by WP:WINNING, "proof by verbosity", nit-picking at technicalities, and other techniques common to that style of argument, into a community in which that is inappropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading

message: I'm worried that Wikipedia is being encumbered by people who legalistically wield an arsenal of policies and guidelines to push for changes they would like that are of questionable value.  Anyone who does not have a detailed command of the policies and guidelines will be at a disadvantage in such an encounter, even if their basic argument is sound.  This is not simply frustrating for the newbie or the editor who never got around to reading all of the guidelines; in my opinion it is bad for Wikipedia and creates a situation where committed activities activists are able to park on pages and prevent a balanced presentation of various viewpoints.  I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way.  Is there a thread somewhere where this topic is being discussed?  Many thanks in advance for any leads.  modify 02:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 19 pages of sporadic discussion about that topic at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules. I don't know any place where there is active, ongoing discussion about it, but let me give you my take on it. But before I do I should tell you that this is one of the oldest, most fundamental arguments at Wikipedia. So much so, as a matter of fact, that the various sides on it are included in the Wikimedian philosophies at Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. Here's the problem: Without rules, we end up wasting vast amounts of time repeating the same arguments over and over and over again. Moreover, due to the size of this place, many of those arguments are going to come to opposite results, causing inconsistency. What rules do is to set basic principles; or as the consensus policy puts it, policy is the recorded consensus of the community. The problem with that is that broad rules don't always give clear guidance in particular situations and sometimes cause the wrong outcome in some particular situations, so the broad rules are modified to become more complex and new rules are adopted. And the more complex the overall system is, the more complex the rules then become. That then causes the very problems that you raise above (and is the reason that lawyers, like me, exist in the real world): the system becomes so complex that it is difficult for the average person to comprehend and deal with. Moreover, as you point out, it allows people with a good knowledge of the rules to misuse the rules to obtain results which are not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. That's wikilawyering (a term which I dislike for reasons I've stated earlier on this talk page), which is what this article is about. One of the reasons that dispute resolution (DR) exists at Wikipedia, however, is to provide a pool of neutral editors who can help newcomers and others who are less experienced with the rules against editors who misuse them. However, I have to end by saying that I work at all levels of DR and I very rarely encounter situations in which I believe that an experienced editor is intentionally wikilawyering. I see it far more often in encounters between a slightly-experienced editor versus a truly inexperienced editor, and even then it is more often due to a careless misunderstanding of the rules than a fully-considered and intentional misuse of them. Finally, if you are in a conflict in which you feel that you may be being wikilawyered, consider asking for a Third Opinion or filing a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or asking for a clarification of the rules at Editor Assistance or one of the specialized noticeboards such as Reliable Sources Noticeboard (there's at least a partial list here). If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to try to answer them. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the very informative reply.  I've seen problems arise in various contexts over the years; the one that brings me here is an AfD request which I think is being made for reasons other than the stated intent; it appears to be part of someone's crusade against pseudoscience, and he does not appear to care about whether the article is informative or not or whether the information can be verified. Which if any of those lines of action do you suggest I pursue in this instance? modify 03:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually none of them. AfD is kind of a dispute resolution venue in itself because an experienced user, usually an administrator, will evaluate the arguments and decide whether there is consensus to delete or retain the article. Note "evaluate"; if there is wikilawyering going on, it will be immediately apparent to the experienced closer. On the other hand, users who merely feel that they are at a disadvantage because of other users' familiarity with policy have time to bone up on the policies being asserted to see if they apply and make counterarguments. Moreover, there is an "appeal" via WP:DELREV if anyone feels that the closing editor misinterpreted consensus either way. For that reason, the regular content dispute resolution processes do not accept filings in regard to matters pending at AfD. I've looked through the discussion there and I see nothing that obviously appears to be wikilawyering; at the same time, however, your argument made there that the article is generally valuable and should be kept only for that reason is very unlikely to be persuasive because it flies against the verifiability principle which is one of the three most fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia frequently excludes information which is unquestionably true and vitally important merely because sources cannot be found which meet Wikipedia's standards. Your concern expressed just above about "whether the information can be verified" should be carefully evaluated by the closer, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A side-band problem is that WP:DR does not cover anything that is not a mainspace content dispute. An enormous shipload of wikilawyering goes on outside of articles and their talk pages, and there seems to be no recourse of any kind other than a full-blown ArbCom case. If you take it to AN*, what almost inevitably happens is that whichever party is more popular with the pool of editors and admins paying attention that day will get their way, no matter what the underlying facts are.  And they noticeboards are stacked with drama-mongers and vigilantes, not with those interested in dispute , just disputation punishment.  Often, whoever of the conflicting parties simply posts the shorter responses wins. I've seen this result so many times I generally don't bother with admin noticeboards for anything any longer.  If you don't have an entourage, and you actually try to explain your "case", instead of just relying on dismissive but catchy one-liner arguments to emotion, you're fucked.WP very badly needs a WP:DR process that will mediate disputes about the editing of policies and guidelines, templates and modules, Help: and Mediawiki: pages, user talk, etc., etc., not just article content.  ANI in particular is a ridiculous farce. It simply isn't true that "if there is wikilawyering going on, it will be immediately apparent to the experienced"; it might be if they'd bother looking but they generally don't. Closers of noticeboard disputes in particular are often looking to punish someone for allegedly "disrupting" the noticeboard itself or the forum from when came the dispute, with zero interest in the details of the dispute.  Someone engaging in shameless OR, even source falsification, can get away scott-free if the filer of a noticeboard action against is seen as not quite polite enough about it. The typical result at noticeboards is that the argument is skimmed, the diffs ignored, and whoever is liked better will get what they want, while anyone who irritated anyone else (even years ago) will get railroaded, no matter how in-the-right they actually are with regard to the matter under dispute. If you have a previous block (no matter for what, no matter whether it was valid or not), and the opposing party does does, you lose. Master "wikipoliticians" can manipulate these effect, and do so frequently, but that's really a different form of WP:GAMING from wikilawyering.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a discussion somewhere on the culture of Wikipedia becoming too legalistic? 

message: I hear "wikilawyering" a lot around Wikipedia but this essay doesn't make it any clearer. It seems to say that wikilawyering is following too strictly to the rules but that doesn't seem like it would be that big of a Wiki crime.
When I hear the term, what I THINK it means is editors/Admins who answer questions by replying with rules (like WP:DEADHORSE, WP:HOUND, WP:NOTHERE) instead of actually providing answers or responses. They just quote policy instead of addressing the details of a dispute. 
Would this be a valid interpretation? Liz Let's Talk 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Depending on the degree to which it is done and to whom, that's just either a bit of discourtesy or newcomer biting. Wikilawyering is using a rule in a false or misleading way to try to achieve an outcome other than what was actually intended by the rule (a concept which has its own set of problems, since under the policy policy, which is not a typographical error, rules here are supposed to be written to say what was intended) or, more controversially, it means to intentionally use the rule as it is intended to achieve a result which is in strict compliance with the rule but which is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. As I've noted above, my personal opinion is that real wikilawyering (a term I dislike for reasons also stated above) is very rare and the term is more often used as shorthand for "I know that rule applies, but I don't like it because it won't let me do what I want to do" than for it's real meaning. On another level, there is a long-term dispute between what might be called the Wiki-idealists and the Wiki-bureaucrats in which the idealists say that the rules should be nothing more than general guidelines and should never be considered to be binding except in the most general sort of way and in which the bureaucrats say that the rules are there to help prevent constant disagreements over what should be done and should be followed except when there is a very good reason and consensus not to follow them. To an idealist, the bureaucrats' position can be seen as wikilawyering. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Liz's comment about DEADHORSE et al, I also see a lot of out-of-content misuse of NOTCENSORED and RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Skookum1 (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Re TransporterMan's comments, those bureaucrats and their kind persistently ignore the Fifth Pillar when claiming that guidelines are policy or rules.  But WP:There are no rules is very, very, very clear, and they are wrong.  Another one is using BLUDGEON when it is the person who is accused of that (simply for being long-winded as in my case, and staying on point persistently despite ongoing dismissals of same), when in fact the person wielding that essay - surely not a guideline? - is the one bludgeoning the person so criticized.  If you do not have TLRD syndrome, you are welcome to read the long new passage at the bottom of my own talkpage about that, and also in the last quarrels of the CfD on Feb 19 for "Squamish".  It's just a way to tell someone to shut up, and wielding an essay as if it were a policy...which is is not.  To me, the bureaucracy around here is getting stronger and stronger, and more obsessed with its own priorities than with content or actual encyclopedism, and guidelines are being used monodimensionally without WP:COMMONSENSE; WP:GOODJUDGMENT would use an essay too, though maybe COMMONSENSE covers that.  Wisdom is in short supply lately, very different from Wikipedia's early days IMO, and what we have instead is a lot of behind-the-scenes jockeying for control by people who want guidelines to be hard and fast....and who often revel in, and abuse, or misuse, their powers.  But if they actually weren't quoting and applying them out of context, would disprove their own positions; pointing that out has had me slapped with DEADHORSE and BLUDGEON and worse.Skookum1 (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: "There should be a new line added to the wikilawyering use of legal techniques; discrediting a proponent through attacks on their credibility and ability and even sanity as a way of having to avoid talking about the issues."
Word that how you like it, it's rife.  Word it how you want in more strict terms, but it's definitely part of the wikilawyer milieu.Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always seen this essay as relating specifically to how we cite procedure, etc, in word or deed.  Real life lawyers have an endless bag of tricks beyond that sort of thing, and you are describing the run-of-the-mill "ad hominem".  There is no need to make a redundant entry in this essay because it is already covered in policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  See also, WP:ADHOM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, in light of what I've said previously here, I'd scream like a panther and throw my shoes over the People's Bank building if that were added. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: re NewsAndEventsGuy's reply about NPA and ADHOM, that may be true, but these fall closely next to tub-thumping a guideline out of context or cherrypicking only one part of it; though NPA and ADHOM maybe are already linked in this article/guideline/essay/whatever-it-is, this particular tactic does fall in what I have seen (too much of) in wikilawyering-type activity.  Often at the same time as the three techniques listed so far.Skookum1 (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Both of these are already covered elsewhere. For the first, see WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, etc.  For the second, see WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:FORUMSHOP, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  another lawyer's technique that should be added to the existing three 

message: I would like to retarget WP:LAWYER so that it redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (law)#Lawyers. I think that is a far more likely target than this essay, which is obviously a controversial target. James500 (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has objected, I am going to put my plan into effect. James500 (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . James500 (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That got reverted immediately, on the grounds of link breakage.  A 2017 RfD concluded with consensus to retain WP:LAWYER as a shortcut to this essay and WP:LAWYERS as a shortcut to the notability guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: If the concept of 'Wikilawyer' is modeled after a bad lawyer, what term can we use to describe someone who studies the policies and endeavors always to use them effectively and accurately, for the benefit of the encyclopedia? I found myself recently wanting to raise a point of 'Wikilaw' regarding another user's conduct, and am not sure how else to describe myself. I felt that the other user's conduct was not fully defensible, and at the same time it was being described unfairly. I felt like a defense attorney for someone who had stolen a candy bar, and who was being accused of murder. JerryRussell (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How about not calling any editor by any of these labels and instead make your outstanding RS based arguments shine all by themselves?   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I still want a shorthand term of endearment for myself when others might accuse me of Wikilegalisms. Wikicounsel for the defense? JerryRussell (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If others talk about your behavior, a better approach is to just ignore it, and instead Focus on content.  If you just can't stand it and you just gotta defend yourself, then (re-)read WP:Don't take the bait. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, good advice there. I hadn't seen that essay. JerryRussell (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

text: What NewsAndEventsGuy said.  Jokingly, however, I've referred to editors experienced in WP policy analysis as "wiki-paralegals" because we do all the policy work with little credit, and don't spend time grandstanding and trying to WP:WIN.  >;-)   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you call an editor who argues policy effectively? 

message: Please see: Wikipedia talk:User pages#Minor GAMING/WIKILAWYER fix, which is relevant to this essay's application to guideline wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKILAWYER/GAMING tweak to USERPAGE 

message: Please see: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Change to "Memorial", on application of this essay's premise to some policy wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKILAWYER/GAMING tweak to WP:NOT 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Wikipedia:PETTIFOG and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Wikipedia:PETTIFOG until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  FMecha (to talk|to see log) 16:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:PETTIFOG" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: As background, I think this is a helpful essay with useful guidance about constructive discussion and conflict resolution. I have a suggestion for a revision to this part: "Unlike Wikipedia, the legal world is 90% about technicalities, and a part of a lawyer's job to achieve a result using technicalities.  So "wikilawyering" merely means taking a practice that is a good idea in the legal world and moving it into Wikipedia where it is a bad idea."
As a possible revision, I suggest: "In the legal field, lawyers may use technicalities to win a case. "Wikilawyering" can refer to emulating legal practices that may win a court case, but are likely not helpful for resolving disputes on Wikipedia, which is not a bureaucracy." 
I also suggest moving the revised text into the lead after "It can serve to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution." Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  technicalities 

message: Is it just me, or does it seem like  doesn't actually fit the rest of the material? I think this probably should move to WP:GAMING, since that line item is about bad-faith abuse of process as a battlegrounding tactic, GAMING is about bad-faith abuse of process (including bad-faith forms of wikilawyering, for that matter), and nothing else in WP:LAWYER is dependent on bad-faith intent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  That fifth bullet point is more of WP:GAMING matter. Merge it to there?