Wikipedia talk:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point/Archive 2

message: Take a look at this VFD debate. The article was kept, in part because of a "protest" keep vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me that there are any protest votes there.  On the face of it, this article about a rare example of a surviving early Australian church survived on the merits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reason for not making "protest votes" 

message: Is it me, or is this guideline page a mess? It needs a lead section at least, and possibly further refactoring to make clear what behaviour we are asking people to avoid. At the moment the title provides a strong clue, but the text seems a bit messy. Pcb21| Pete 16:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had placed a simple statement of the rule in a big box at the top. Another user removed it, saying "That isn't what WP:Point means, however much you'd like to think so." I'm not sure what was controversial about my change, but I just don't do edit wars. Someone else can put it back if they like. Stevage 22:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline page a mess?

message: *I've decided to take up a radical, fundementalist, interpertation of WP:POINT, in order to suit my own needs, does anybody mind this?--64.12.117.10 06:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does anyone mind?

message: I reverted this edit. This page should not be encouraging people to accept inconsistency if they feel it's harmful, it should just encourage them to find non-disruptive ways to reduce it. Kappa 00:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: "Which only some people consider to be terrorism"...? Oh, plese. That's complete bollocks. I do not considder 9/11 or the Bali bommings or realy any-thing terrorism becuz I despise the term. For that reson, any givven event is an event "which only some people consider to be terrorism". How about:
"Which most people don't consider to be terrorism"? Even tho I despise the term, and there fore that exampl, I think that the wurding I hav suggested is much more rational and sensiccal than that previusly used.
--Node 12:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth are there discussions about terrorism here? Stevage 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the terrorism example as being an NPOV, rather than a POINT, issue. Feezo <FONT SIZE="-2">(Talk)</FONT> 13:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "which only some people consider to be terrorism". 

message: I may be guilty of having violated this policy with my edit to the article Phenol.  Actually, I think it is perfectly fine to mention the (mis)use of phenol in concentration camps; what I would really like to do is discuss the way in which policy differences in different-language Wikipedias can result in differing content that has nothing at all to do with language.  But I have not been able to find a more appropriate place to start this discussion--turning myself in might be a start, though, if someone could point me in the right direction.--Bhuck 12:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-criticism 

message: With the dos and don'ts, are we not violating the idea expressed on the "Don't stuff beans up your nose" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.97.127 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I thought. Perhaps theres a way to illustrate the idea of this page without tons of examples? --IG-64 15:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yikes! 

message: All across Wikipedia lately I have seen people exploiting the definition of this "policy (not actually a policy anyway, is it?)." I have seen several times when users have accused other users of violating this point when in fact what they are saying doesn't come anywhere near to what is said violates this guideline on this article. Several users I have seen have stretched the definition of this far beyond what is stated on the article and interpreted it far too literally. I think it should probably be made more clear what is actually considered disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and actually just stating a point. bob rulz 09:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: An anecdote and a thought experiment: 
::Anecdote: I just ran into a noob who self advertises on his talk page as a philosophy student... I won't say who because I am assuming good faith, but this person put a merge template on Conscience article and tried to merge it to Consciousness.  On the talk page, the comment was something to the effect of.. but what is the difference between these, REALLY.  My first thought was OMG, this person is trying to make a WP:Point about how morality is really just a function of consciousness or something. It doesn't matter if this was the intention or not... but this is a good lead in to my Thought Experiment. 
::Thought Experiment. Joe Philosophy student.. could be any Wikipedian really... is tempted to challenge other wikipedians' preconceived notions about some issue, say Aristocracy by proposing that it be merged with oligarchy... because after all... "aren't aristocracies really just oligarchy in disguise?." This person is making a kind of WP:POINT that is not described in the WP:POINT article. To where might I direct this Wikipedian to educate him on why his attempts to expand my mind are noble but misguided? 
Should we add some form of "don't make edits intended solely to express your deep thoughts" to WP:POINT? MPS 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose expansion of WP:point to... "don't make edits intended solely to express your deep thoughts"

message: I wasn't the one to violate this in the Rudy Gay article, but I've nevertheless read the guideline and thus pose the question: now what?
Okay, so my own point of view has been brought up (that even though a sports player is yet to become 'professional', so to speak, he is still deserving of his own article if he is significant enough. My argument was that Tom Hawkins, due to play AFL football for the Geelong Cats next year, is in the same boat as a college basketballer like Rudy Gay, who is also due to play professional basketball next year, yet has his own article. Apparently a contributor suggests that Hawkins is undeserving of an article, yet Gay is - inconsistency).
Does this site have any intention of correcting anything? Or is it simply content with having people's views outlined, then sitting back again? Boomtish 05:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now what? 

message: While in theory this seems sound, the fact remains disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point is actually quite effective and productive in many instances. Plus, I think we can all agree it can be quite entertaining to watch. --NEMT 17:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how seriously you take it. Could you name a place that it has been productive, and not simply a waste of editing time. Ansell Review my progress! 04:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on this policy

message: Hello. People say that "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" has been violated very often, but then forget to actually specify how come. People also quote the policy as "WP:POINT", which is, of course, a WP:WOTTAvio ;-)
Somehow the use of the abbreviation seems to inhibit peoples actual thinking about the issue.
It's frustrating, and it's come to the point where I actually find myself starting to ignore all posts that contain the dreaded "This is a massive WP:POINT" or words to that effect. Oops. That's something I probably shouldn't do. 
So here's two tips:
* Write out the name of the policy in full. WP:WOTTA is not just a good idea. It actually forces you to think a little harder. 
* Explain what disruption has taken place.
* Explain what point the person was trying to make with it.
Don't try to psycho-analyse by the way. If the point isn't blatantly obvious, then it wasn't a violation of Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Other policies, sure, likely, but not this one. :-P
Kim Bruning 10:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "How to quote this guideline" 

message: If I read the section on gaming correctly, it is possible for one to engage in activities which will be considered "gaming the system", without being disruptive. Is that permissible? Folajimi 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not very nice. Ashibaka tock 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; but that does not answer the question at hand. --Folajimi 10:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:DICK. Although, In general I don't think we could really call any action which is completely without disruptiong 'gaming the system'. Wikipedia is not policy bound, so if you do something which is in violation of either the letter or spirit of policy but your actions remain non-disruptive and beneficial, then there is no problem. --Gmaxwell 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please rephrase your reply? I found it rather incoherent. Folajimi 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were rather vague in your initial query, this makes it hard to be specific in a reply. I'll break it down for you:
*You're not allowed to be a jerk. See WP:Dick. So if by "gaming the system" you would be being a jerk, you should not do that.
*You asked what if you "game the system" but aren't disruptive, but I don't see how thats really possible... unless you don't understand Wikipedia:
*Wikipedia isn't bound by policy, which means that if you do something which violates the letter or even the spirit of policy (this is what is often called gaming the system, where you violate the spirit of a rule but not the letter), so long as the action is beneficial you are in the clear. If your actions are not beneficial then it becomes hard to say that the action isn't disruptive. 
I hope that made it more clear. --Gmaxwell 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? I don't know you from Jack. I'm not alleging that you've done anything wrong. There was nothing adversarial or confrontational intended about my reply. For all I know there is someone else who's behavior you're concerned with and you're trying to figure out if they are in the wrong or not.  Please don't assume people are having an hostile or otherwise emotional reaction in the absence of concrete evidence. --Gmaxwell 15:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, you could have used a neutral term. "Editors", "contributors" or "Wikipedians" would have worked just as well in any of those cases. Folajimi 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two handy rules to live by on Wikipedia: one, do not be annoying; two, do not be easily annoyed.  May I suggest that you have failed to observe rule number two? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations. You killed this conversation. Good day. --Folajimi 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is an essay, not a policy or guideline. So it does belong here. --Barberio 13:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAME vs DISRUPT. 

message: isn't it confusing to newcomers that the word ban links to the article about our banning policy, considering that the two terms are already commonly confused due to people using the terms interchangeably? 202.156.6.54 13:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'ban' links to [[wp:bp]]

message: The first was there already, I just added the second. Originally from the process essay in progress, but I realised it would fit here. I was most pleased to find the first was already here. Thoughts?
*If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...
**do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus
**don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion
*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"
(And yes, there are admins who do the latter way too much. The encyclopedia is more important than any process designed to protect it, and making a bad change to protect a process is a disruption to illustrate a point. The "do" needs rephrasing.)
- David Gerard 13:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the worst Rogue Admins (as in rogue, without any need for relativizing irony) are Process Fetishists, at the same time. 87.78.151.38 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rouge Admins vs Process Fetishists

message: Disruption? What's that? -- Chris 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck! 

message: When loading this page, Windows Live OneCare told me it had malicious software. It could not be cleaned and had to be placed in quarantine. Er...what the heck? 88.110.167.60 10:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let ya'll know, it did it when when I went on to this page again. 88.110.167.60 10:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how did you get here? I wonder, though, if it has to do with the little ad that they've been putting at the top of the page, trying to get you to donate money for wikipedia's Swiss bank account. Wahkeenah 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it let me load the page, but a file that got downloaded couldn't be cleaned, or something. It hasn't happened on any other page and it happened again when I came to this page to see if anyone had replied. Take a look. 88.110.167.60 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still doing it. 88.110.158.233 09:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really read it. What does it say the virus is? Wahkeenah 09:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Then at the bottom:
For more information on how to access the file and other options, click [Advanced options] (Hyperlinked)
That what you want? 88.110.158.233 16:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it's spyware or adware of some kind. I have trouble believing it's coming directly from wikipedia. I think you'll have to research "VBS/MB.A" in Google. Just be careful. Wahkeenah 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. Wish me luck. XD 88.111.186.128 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, it's a Dropper. At least, so this says. 88.111.186.128 23:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Er...Virus? 

message: Hi.
Does this refer to editors in general violating the guideline or just the ones involved in the ARB.COM.?
"Editors involved in arbitration are likely to find that violating the spirit of this guideline may prejudice the decision of the Arbitration Committee. " 74.38.35.171 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration committee?