Wikipedia talk:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point/Archive 1

message: ===People who support this guideline:===
# —Eloquence 20:57, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
# Friedo 21:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on Guideline

message: # —Eloquence 20:57, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
# Friedo 21:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: People who support this guideline:

message: # Nohat 00:50, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC) . See my comments below.
# I agree with Nohat. ugen64 00:21, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
# —No-One Jones 05:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: People who oppose this guideline:

message: # Do we have to vote for guidelines? -- Taku 22:07, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
#*Is this an actual vote, or just a list of people who support and oppose? Anthony DiPierro 00:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstain:

message: # Anthony DiPierro I agree with Nohat for the most part, and I think the examples need work (for instance I think the third example of listing hundreds of silly articles on VfD is not necessarily a bad thing), but there's nothing really about this policy that I object to.  Update:  This page is now changing too much for me to register a vote.  I thought the original version was OK, but somewhat pointless.  It has since changed into more of a rant. Further update: I can't agree with No-one Jones.  All policies are ambiguous to some extent.  Making it an official policy doesn't give admins the power the power to interpret the policy any way they want.  What it does is take an official position that certain types of behavior are to be avoided.  Interpretation is still currently the job of the arb committee, but having an official guideline helps the arb committee see that there is consensus against the behavior.  Not having an official guideline, or worse having a guideline which a significant group does no support, would indicate to the arb committee that the behavior is acceptable.  That said, I think this page can be cleaned up significantly, sticking to the essence of what we're sayijng (don't troll), and leaving the most of the examples to other pages (such as user talk pages).  anthony (see warning) (comment modified after reply, updates added)
## Erich: for what it's worth I agree with Anthony (before you ask: don't know him, never met him)... it seems to me that listing 100's of pages of VFD may be a good thing... especially if they are worse than an example voted off. (but the examples seem pretty clear) e 06:24, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral:

message: *You're entitled to the opinion, of course, but I disagree that this isn't a guideline.  "Don't argue for things you don't actually want done" is at least one prescriptive sentence.  I could identify others as well.  The page is clear about what it's asking of contributors. - Jwrosenzweig
**Well, I added that sentence.  If you can identify others, please do.  I don't think it's clear at all. anthony 22:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A misplaced comment

message: Anthony, I started watching your edits when I saw your name on this article.  The ones I first saw made sense and added much to the article.  I was interested in seeing the additional changes you made later on when I saw your name again.  You added some good text but where you changed and deleted I have to disagree.  You removed good paragraphs and sections that added value.  The changes seemed almost angry at the process and irritated at constraints.  Can we discuss these changes?  I have reversed only those sections that I took issue with the changes.  They altered the tone of the original work.  - Tεxτurε 22:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Tolerating practices some times while not tolerating them other times is most certainly selective enforcement. anthony (see warning) 01:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it as saying we should err on the side of tolerance and while we do not condone such practices we should not jump on the users by default. Basically, be tolerant. - Tεxτurε 01:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we can't say both. anthony (see warning) 18:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Huh? anthony (see warning) 01:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, should have explained that one.  We as a community are still discussing this issue and a vote is in progress.  I think it is improper to say that our policy creates a bias.  How about we wait and see how the vote comes out? - Tεxτurε 01:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove that whole section, as it is no longer relevant to the point.  And if there is still a vote in progress, how is it a policy?  What is it an illustrative example of, if the issue is still being discussed? anthony (see warning) 18:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: In any case, I'm going to take a break from editing this page for a while.  It initially was something that I could support, but it seems to have denigrated into an attempt to push a certain point of view. Maybe it'll be salvaged. anthony (see warning) 01:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits (and section removals) 

message: *If articles you've started always end up on VfD,
**do reconsider whether the things you're writing about really are deserving of Wikipedia articles.
**don't start creating silly articles just to see how long it will take for someone to VfD them.
</td>
A fellow Wiki user just confessed to me on IRC that he had been doing just that. Needless to say it pissed me off and I just had to add the above. Now that I've looked at this talk page with lists of people voting for and against, I feel that I acted quite rashly in adding it, and I'm sorry if I did. Feel free to delete it if you think it shouldn't be there. - Cymydog Naakka 16:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I had to add an if 

message: I reverted Anthony's edit to the example using primary and secondary schools.  His edit reversed the sense of the logic (stating that such articles are great but, sadly, they sometimes get deleted).  I doubt if that is an accurate statement of the situation re: schools, and even if it is, such a change makes the example meaningless.  If the text as structured presently is indeed unsuitable, another example should be chosen.
uc 17:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools 

message: I have reverted Anthony's removal of the last section ("If you must..."). Please explain why you removed it in the first place? - Cymydog Naakka 14:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removal 

message: Mirv, would it reduce your objections if the policy were titled "Tit-for-tat editing considered harmful"? Tit-for-tat editing is a much more clear cut concept, and it covers most of the examples. Gadykozma 04:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for Mirv

message: The guideline on spelling says:
* Spelling using either American English or International English is accepted. Articles written using one spelling should not be changed to use the other. However, where spellings are mixed in the same article, a practical problem of readability is created, and so spelling is unified within the article.
There is no such thing as "International English."  I suggest the following rewording.  I also insert the clause "without justification" because there are occasions when, say, British and American spellings should be seen side-by-side.
* Spelling using the conventions of any English-speaking nationality is accepted. Articles written using one spelling should not be changed to use  another. However, where spellings are mixed without justification in the same article, a practical problem of readability is created, and so spelling is unified within the article.
If there are no objections in fourteen days I'll add the changed wording.
--Minority Report 02:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. That should make all the Aussies happy. Gady 02:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Things like...
# A user or users repeatedly listing an article for VfD when it has overwhelming support to keep.  When 100 times as much "criticism" of an article show up on a VfD page (as opposed to talk pages) that should be evidence of disrupting Wikipedia to "illustrate" a point.
# One user's interpretation of wikipedia policy/guidelines does not give that user license to disrupt Wikipedia to "illustrate" a point.  Wikipedia users not only disagree about article content and POV, but disagree about interpretations of wikipedia guidelines, this should require debate like everything else.  Unilateral disruptive actions absent debate are most often justified as somehow defending Wikipedia's integrity.
# Listing every sub aspect of a page for deleting (like images and templates) just so article quality is damaged because the article then includes numerous "X is listed for deletion" messages.  The goal by these users seems to be to create more work for the "opposing" side, this should be evidence of disrupting Wikipedia to "illustrate" a point. 
zen master 01:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The guideline should include more egregious historical examples 

message: :"[...] do not need to have arguments illustrated ad absurdum in order to understand them."
I'd say that this is obviously untrue.  Most people on Wikipedia really are a bit dull and can't comprehend a concise argument unless it is rammed home with plenty of empirical examples, etc.  The above untrue statement should therefore be altered in order for it to be taken seriously.   — Helpful Dave 00:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect statement 

message: Does the phrase "Wikipedia is inconsistent" in this policy mean "learn to deal with inconsistency" or does it mean "learn to resolve inconsistency in a calm and logical manner without being disruptive"?  Just wondering. zen master    T  19:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both.  Sometimes inconsistencies can be resolved, sometimes they can't. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That can't be right, telling someone to "go way" or "learn to deal" is not working towards consensus.  zen master    T  20:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on "Wikipedia is inconsistent"? 

message: Lest we get sidestepped... The central problem with this poll (and the only reason we're having this debate) is that without a cut-off date the result changes all the time and that setting a cut-off date arbitrarily will also influence the result i.e. whoever cuts it off decides whether it has passed the vote or not. It's just not an honest way to decide anything and the poll should be scrapped completely.
But what then?
*We can discuss whether this is fit to be policy until we all agree, meaning forever
*We can ask Jimbo, although that strikes me like running to get the teacher
*We can have a proper poll and settle it that way. The majority of opponents are sensible people who will support this as policy if it is ratified in a transparent manner.
*We can change it so that it's acceptable to more people, making the vote unnecessary. This would be the prefered way, I suppose.
So, I suggest that we change the wording so that it centers on the only thing that makes it "more official" then mere advice - its endorsement by the ArbCom. What I would find acceptable is something like:
Arbitration Committee has endorsed the principle "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" and has based several decisions on it. This is not a policy established by consensus, but rather an operating decision taken within Arbitration Committee's discretion. This page describes behaviour where this principle might apply, but its wording is not to be considered policy.
Link it to the page where ArbCom endorsed it and to the page where ArbCom is given such discretion and I'll be happy. Zocky 23:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What next

message: Can we please get rid of this guideline? What it forbids is a necessary line of defense against a bad "consensus". It likely keeps a lot of instruction creep in place, by preventing it from being exposed. 18.246.2.83 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to expose instruction creep or bad consensus, then use discussion and reason, not disruptive behaviour. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: * Retain While having been tempted to make a point in the past, I agree that discussion is the better approach. I do not disagree that there is instruction creep occurring, but do you have a specific example where a point would be the best solution?--SPhilbrickT 12:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: **WP:SELFQUEST and WP:ELNO. Some of those restrictions seem kind of arbitrary. 178.63.246.164 (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: ***And you claim they're arbitrary how exactly? --Cybercobra (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Better to bone up on your debating skills rather than to disrupt Wikipedia to show up poor policies and guidelines. WP:POINT is useful and necessary. Fences&Windows 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Debating with who? As WP:CREEP notes, "Editors involved at a policy page are not always an accurate sampling of the community at large—this is why instruction creep can persist." However, actively applying a policy you don't agree with in ways that others won't agree with would be a sure way to get more editors involved in the policy discussion and sort out what the community consensus actually is, except at present you will get WP:POINT thrown in your face instead. 178.63.246.164 (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper thing to do would be to debate policy you disagree with, calling an RFC to bring in outside opinion if necessary. Disruption never helps one's case. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: After reaching a consensus among those participating in policy discussion, you may decide to "roll out" a change into active use (or trial use) without the consent of all editors. Some of those editors might be upset, spurring further discussion. This could be seen as an invocation of POINT, but it's a normal part of the policy implementation process - it's not practical or efficient to ask everybody in the world beforehand. Dcoetzee 09:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly yhe behavior this guideline is intended to prevent. Most of of us have had the exact same thought as you. Of have wished to make a point about another editors argument by showing how absurd it would be in practice. Yet if we all did that with abandon there'd be chaos.   Will Beback  talk   22:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But we're not just talking about arguments, we're talking about policy. If a policy is out of line with accepted practice, simple discussion on the policy's talk page is usually not enough to make the community at large aware of it. There is also nothing to compel editors participating in such a discussion to really think their positions through. If we were just talking about local arguments over matters not addressed by any policy or guideline, that would be a different matter (and from the page history, that appears to be the situation WP:POINT was originally intended to address.) 199.48.147.4 (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Virtually every policy and guideline can be applied in some absurd way in order to show their weaknesses. But we're not here to write better policies - we're here to write an encyclopedia. If you can suggest improvements to policies then that's swell. But don't harm the encyclopedia just for the sake of better policies. That'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face.   Will Beback  talk   04:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Enforcing a policy should not harm the encyclopedia; if it does, the policy is flawed. Better policies will allow for better articles, so we should be able to do whatever is necessary to improve policies, including applying flawed policies in ways that will provoke widespread opposition to them. 178.63.97.5 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I suspect that the guideline is unnecessary. “Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point” is a ridiculous thing to say; “Do not disrupt Wikipedia at all” makes sense, but then that's covered elsewhere. “Never boldly apply any policy or guideline whose merit you doubt” is probably all that needs to be said here, but again, that can fit in elsewhere. Uniplex (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've always found it odd that we have a guideline against WP:Disruptive editing and then another one against "disruption to illustrate a point". However, the ip appears to be advocating that we simply scrap the principle and more or less allow the kind of point-making which this page is against. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This guideline keeps instruction creep in place 

message: We must not falsely accuse people of WP:POINT yet we shouldn't refuse to believe it exist.  WP:POINT is written very much to accuse others (or be used as a reason to accuse others).  We need to have a little balance.  So let's keep it 99.5% accusatory and 0.5% non-accusatory by using language such as....
Furthermore, policies, guidelines, and actions should be applied to all articles as evenly and fairly as possible. When done in a non-disruptive fashion, working towards consistent and fairly deliberated Wikipedia editorial decisions is permitted.
Assorg (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first part of the "Important note" section already does this adequately. This piece of text is too general, and could easily be put under any policy. I'd like to note that Assorg inserted this text, which would appear to be against consensus, 3 times so far: . Equazcion (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit that I don't quite understand this guideline.  Here is one situation I find odd that seems to be accepted as normal:  Editor A performs change 1, citing policy X.  Editors B, C and D revert change 1 and argue that policy X does not apply to change 1, and only applies in the specific case Y, of which change 1 is not a part.  Editor A claims that policy X makes no mention of only applying in case Y, but after a heated discussion/editwar on change 1 without an emerging consensus, gives up on change 1, and instead decides for the sake of clarity and consistency to edit the policy X page to explicitly specifically only apply to case Y.   This change to policy X that makes explicit B, C, and D's interpretation of policy X, gets reverted by editors B, C, and D, who claim that Editor A is violating WP:POINT.  Thus editors B, C, D have both avoided the need to gain a consensus on the policy X page that policy X only applies to case Y, and applied their non-consensus interpretation of policy X in blocking change 1.  Blackworm (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is partly why the italics part is useful.  WP:POINT can and is used to justify that your change is voted down irrespective that similar guidelines are rejected elsewhere.  The italics part is a moderate way of saying not to POINT but then also to treat everything equally.  POINT is often used as a veiled personal attack.  The italics seeks to calm all sides, which is what Wikipedia should be (not a battleground). Assorg (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see any mention of clarifying policy as a result of experiencing a practice being deemed a POINT violation. That happens all the time -- we get more specific in policies based on what we experience the practice as being. It could be POINTy, though, to make a bad-faith policy edit with the intention of highlighting caveats that make the policies you don't agree with look nonsensical and call them into question; or to simply make your opponents look foolish by describing, within a policy, what they're doing in a negative way. IF you're concerned your edit will be perceived that way, it's probably better to suggest the edit on the talk page first, and explicitly cite the example you experienced. Equazcion (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Assorg, I suppose I simply haven't accepted that this encyclopedia prides itself on having contradictory interpretations of policy in different articles (or even different parts of the same article).  How can you "treat everything equally" when you find that doing so (treating article A like article B was treated) can get you accused of violating this guideline, and gets your treatment of article A gleefully reverted on that basis ("POINT! POINT!") by the same editors who argued that the logic you applied to article A applied to article B -- with the effect of masking the problem with article B's faulty (but "consensus", or "local majority") interpretation of policy?  I value consistency of the encyclopedia as a whole as more important that the whims of whichever small group of editors controls which article, and it seems that is in opposition to Wikipedia's stated guidelines (i.e., this one).  As many editors seem to have a few articles or topics dear to them and don't really care how policy gets applied elsewhere, the chilling effect of this guideline on the consistency, uniformity, and yes, neutrality of the encyclopedia seems glaring apparent.  How can one say the encyclopedia is neutral if two articles interpret policy in contradictory ways to form the content?  After all discussion and reason fails, an editor who applies to an article an interpretation of policy consistent with the consensus in another article is doing the encyclopedia good IMO, this even if they still disagree with the other consensus and/or are doing it sarcastically; because at worst it has the result of drawing attention to the contradiction and possibly getting it resolved by a consensus composed of more editors.  If we fatalistically accept that Wikipedia is internally inconsistent and we like it that way, then essentially we are saying that you can interpret policy any way you want as long as the people who happen to be editing the same article as you agree.  That seems the antithesis of WP:NPOV.  Does WP:CONSENSUS override NPOV, or are there a group of editors, like me, who believe that neutrality flows more freely in an environment where policy must be applied the same way in all articles, even if a few feathers get ruffled along the way?  If each small group only cares that their interpretation of policy applies to "their" article, what you get is a POV mess.  Blackworm (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The reminder to apply this rule fairly is utterly pointless. All rules are to be applied as fairly as possible, but that being said, nothing on Wikipedia is fair.  Please don't restore it without reaching consensus. So far 3 editors including me don't think it should be there. Edit warring is not the right way to make the point. Toddst1 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No extremism

message: I've argued that the scope of this guideline has narrowed, without any consensus to do so. First, does anyone disagree that the scope has narrowed? Anyone disagree that there was little or no consensus backing these changes? --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Has this guideline been reduced without consensus?

message: While this page is protected due to an edit war, this page should have an appropriate dispute tag such that anyone reading the guideline can review the dispute. Triona (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: , although I would prefer to unprotect it and instead block those who are edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag. 

message: Relevant, past discussions:  June 2006
July 2007
June 2008-Feb 2009. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede that that nutshell may have been a bit too narrow, and I don't have a big problem with the current one. Beyond that, I suppose that the actual subject of this guideline depends on the selection of editors actively involved here at a given time. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This guideline is not limited to "applying reasoning with which you disagree"

message: I think we need to be very clear that this guideline is about types of disruption, rather than any experimentation at all. Experimentation is allowed, encouraged, and expected. What we don't want is experimenting to prove a point in a disruptive manner, especially when involved in dispute resolution related to the point. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will note that with recent changes, experimentally no longer appears in this guideline. Any opinions on whether it should return? PSWG1920 (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This guideline is about disruption

message: I've reintroduced my example, slightly reworded here. Yes, it's an example of bad faith editing and gaming the system, but editing a policy to prove a point in a dispute elsewhere is disruptive to concensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I really have trouble following your reasoning here, which is why I stopped responding earlier. Editing policy "to remove those aspects with which you disagree" could be done disruptively, but is not inherently disruptive. As far as "editing a policy to prove a point in a dispute elsewhere", what point exactly would one be trying to prove by doing so? This example seems flawed and extremely off-topic. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing in bad faith to make a point

message: I'm going to attempt to mediate a little here since I think page protection is just as disruptive as edit warring:
User:PSWG1920 and User:Ronz, I'd like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus_as_a_result_of_the_editing_process and WP:BRD. In particular, rejecting edits simply because they don't have consensus is a poor reason to revert. Discuss why you disagree with the change, beyond the fact that it was not discussed first. WP:BRD should come into play any time you revert a bold change - if you revert, both parties should discuss at that point - and more bold changes may happen rapidly - these sort of changes aren't edit warring - even though they look like it to an outsider. Try to respond with another change - trying to move towards a compromise - this even goes for policies and guidelines, even though they do require more care than articles - Bold editing can be just as much a tool to reach consensus as discussion itself. If it gets too heated, give it a break, or get additional opinions - don't keep hitting the revert button.  Triona (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to unprotect if the EW is over. This is a behavioral guideline, not an argument over the color of someone's shoes on the Banana Splits and a lousy place for an edit war.   works very well. Sort it out or sit it out, fellas. Toddst1 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it protected. I'll help with anyone who wants unrelated changes made. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should stay protected. Any needed change can be made by an admin. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding page protection and edit warring

message: *If you have added a reference which someone then removes because the source is self-published.
:*do explain why the use of the source in question was appropriate in that instance, or find a reliable third-party published source for the information
:*do not remove all references to self-published sources from an article
*If you think someone unjustifiably removed "unsourced" content
:*do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source
:*do not remove all unsourced content on the page
The above two examples are not disruptive. Removing unsourced or self-published material is never frowned upon. Marcus Qwertyus  03:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a gross oversimplification and misses the point entirely. You are WELL within your within policy to remove unsourced content, but it is best to attempt to find a source first and add it or at least tag it as unsourced. Additionally, self-published sources are permitted in some instances. — BQZip01 — talk 15:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Marcus. Those two examples should be removed. While I understand BQZip01's reasoning, it would require too much elaboration for these examples to be correct, since the usual case is that self-published sources should be removed, and unsourced content should be removed. So while there are exceptions to WP:V and WP:SELFPUBLISH - and deleting article text covered by those exceptions would be disruptive - we should cover general cases, not complex hypothetical cases. --Surturz (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove these two examples along with the rest of the page. Enforcing policy and asking for consistency are not bad things. 199.48.147.36 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

text: If such examples "make sense in the context of the guideline", that just shows how asinine this guideline truly is. Enforcing policy should never be frowned on. If enforcement of a content policy causes a problem, fix the policy, don't punish the one enforcing it. 178.21.20.86 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not disruptive 

message: I don't agree that this wording is clearer than what had replaced it. Though I was the one who added it originally, I found "for the purpose of discrediting a policy or someone's reasoning" to be quite awkward; I only used it because at the time I couldn't think of any better way to convey the idea. POINTY edits are intended to be unpopular, and upon further reflection that seemed like a good thing to emphasize. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Important note" wording 

message: There is no absolute truth and everything depends on each person's point of view. No one is neutral, not even the moderators. Sometimes making a point is the only way to make the other side see something the way you do. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great point! It would helpful to be able to make some enduring ground-rules for contentious subjects as to what sources are considered RS, and exactly how the article is going to be structured. There is no good tools for dealing with dummies other than throwing up your hands and walking away. Editing to make a point is a last-resort way to show someone of the logical consequences of their argument. If it doesn't work it could be reverted. Or you could leave the absurdity as a red flag to readers and future editors that this article is not to be trusted. Just thinking out loud here, but we really do need some better tools. Brmull (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why WP:POINT needs to be overturned as a guideline. As long as it exists, we are deprived of an important safety net when faced with flawed "consensus". 178.63.97.5 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I fight Hypocrisy without making a POINT? 

message: When people complain about POINTy behaviour it is usually not about what POINT forbids. So, perhaps it is time to write up a new essay/guideline describing what POINTy behavior actually is. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I suggest: POINTy behavior means behavior where one is correct, but all other opposing arguments based on policy have failed.  Accusations of pointy behaviour or content may also be weak attempts to suggest the material opposed fails WP:NPOV without actually claiming the material is non-neutral, and thus not requiring any evidence of the claim.   Blackworm (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a large discrepancy between this guideline and the usage of POINTy in debate. Often POINTy just means the opponent is making a point provocatively, which is not what this guideline is about, it is about not, e.g. mass nominating articles for deletion, to make a point. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the concerns expressed here, I tried to further clarify this guideline's purpose, and was reverted. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline is about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I'm unclear on how the comments above relate, other than there is some agreement that POINTy might mean something different. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The point (no pun intended) is that anyone who is really "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point" is doing or advocating for things which he or she doesn't actually agree with. It is quite possible to be disruptive while making edits you do agree with, but then WP:POINT is not the applicable guideline. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "is doing or advocating for things which he or she doesn't actually agree with" I don't agree. As I said in my edit summary, this "doesn't represent (the) entire guideline." I'd add that it doesn't appear to represent the ideas expressed in this discussion either, but then again I'm not clear what those ideas are that go beyond this guideline. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the guideline through, I don't see anything which would contradict the clarification I added. Things which would have contradicted it were long ago removed from the page as the consensus was that they were off-topic. Hopefully we will hear more from the above three editors. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think it clarifies anything? Why do you think it's related to the discussions above by other editors? --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I made the edit mainly in reaction to Sandman888's comment. I was definitely not trying to say you shouldn't make edits you disagree with, just that you shouldn't do so as a way of arguing (according to this guideline), and whether someone is using such a tactic is the test of whether the behavior is POINTY, since the question of what actually constitutes "POINTY" behavior is what started this discussion. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove redirect [[Wikipedia:POINTY]] to here? 

message: Regarding this revert, I don't see how I was "changing the basic definition from general to specific". If anything, "in an attempt to prove that you are right" would seem more general than "to get a point across to others". PSWG1920 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The point may not be about being right. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly certain that it would be about being right. Otherwise, why would one be making it? PSWG1920 (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To prove someone else is right or wrong. --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One trying to prove that someone else is right must agree with that person, and one trying to prove that someone else is wrong must disagree with that person. Either way, they are also trying to prove that they themselves are right. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer guidelines be straightforward, rather than requiring convoluted explanations to make sense of them. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I, which is why I made that edit. I actually think that "Do not play games in an attempt to prove that you are right" is bit more straightforward than "Do not play games to get a point across to others". PSWG1920 (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "rather than requiring convoluted explanations..." Perhaps this is a cultural misunderstanding? --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand what a "convoluted explanation" is, I just don't agree that the wording in question would require one. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Others or people has been in the nutshell since 2 November 2010. Also, the wording which you are restoring, "get a point across to others", refers to motives. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell again 

message: Not a problem or criticism, but with regards to this example:
*If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it...
**do participate in the discussion, basing your argument on policies and guidelines.
**do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic, with hopes that others will make the same arguments for deletion.
Surely this is actually productive contribution if it meets the criteria under which the previous page was kept, even if the underlying intention is bad faith? --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The same argument could be made in regards to many other examples. Someone could unintentionally improve the encyclopedia by removing unsourced content, removing self-published sources, or nominating an article for deletion, even if the intent was just to illustrate a point. However, I dislike the example in question for another reason, discussed above. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Example question

message: The examples here should involve actions that people are likely to think up on their own, otherwise we are giving people ideas. This example's "do not" does not seem like something that would occur to most people to try. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the many concerns on the clarity of this guideline, I think we ignore BEANS in favor of making a well-written and easily understood article. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how this example makes the guideline easier to understand. Other examples communicate the principle as clearly if not moreso. The recent concerns about clarity center around the WP:POINT shortcut. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So we're back to edit-warring. This time it's over BEANS vs IAR! Classic. How about we leave this guideline alone? --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained why we don't need to ignore WP:BEANS. Namely because other examples communicate the guideline's principle just as effectively. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An explanation does not mean consensus is changed, nor is it an excuse to start edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows what the consensus might be? The entire list of examples has been objected to in the past, and an editor recently suggested that this entire guideline be reduced to a single sentence or paragraph. Many previous examples have been removed, some for being WP:BEANSy. As for edit-warring, see WP:KETTLE. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please just stop the edit-warring. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, WP:KETTLE. You yourself have made three recent reverts on the page, so don't complain about "edit-warring". PSWG1920 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will continue to point it out whenever I see editors trying to change policies and guidelines without consensus through edit-warring, which is the case here. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would dispute that I have edit-warred in this case. When you reverted me the first time, I started this discussion. I then answered your objection, and waited a while without getting a further response. In other words, I followed WP:BRD. True, no clear consensus to remove this example had been established, but other BEANSy examples have been boldly removed from this page without objection. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: The first two examples listed are:
:*If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion... 
::do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, noting any examples of similar article subjects which have been found to be legitimate 
::do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale 
:*If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it... 
::do participate in the discussion, noting any examples of similar article subjects which consensus has rejected. 
::do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic, with hopes that others will make the same arguments for deletion. 
The sections highlighted in bold appear to me to be very bad advice, given that anyone following their suggestion will be slapped with WP:OTHERSTUFF within moments. Could we perhaps replace these examples with something more appropriate? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indicative of the problem with this guideline as a whole. That one making that kind of argument would get slapped with WP:OTHERSTUFF shows why you should be able to illustrate your point by putting the opposition's arguments to the test. Let's overturn this guideline. 96.44.163.75 (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So very much not what I meant at all. WP:POINT is a very valuable behavioural guideline, since adherence to it minimises disruption to the encyclopedia. My issue is purely with the phrases in bold above, which are contrary to WP:OTHERSTUFF when applied to deletion discussions. I've reverted your edits, which removed both these examples in their entirety and a few others - examples like this, especially with regard to AfD, are an extremely useful shorthand for guiding editors. Since AfD is probably the place where POINTy behaviour is most common, deleting the explanation of how (not) to behave in an AfD discussion is somewhat counter-productive. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language of examples 

message: There seems to be a POV that pointing at a Featured Article and asking if it should be deleted based on similar logic would be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind that and WP:OSE would seem to be on my side. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also WP:ATA says "While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case." Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles