Wikipedia talk:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay. We've had a lengthy two-week poll that I should never have started in the first place, now archived at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point/Pollicy. There is obviously no consensus to make this official policy, so I'm classifying this as a guideline and hope that's okay with everybody. Radiant_* 08:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Archive: 2006

Contents 1 Dumbest Guideline Ever: WikiHemlock 2 Unclear point 3 On a more serious subject... 4 Difference between disruption and implementation of a precedent? 5 Not up to standards 6 Widely misused 7 New example that relates to WP:SOCK

[edit] Dumbest Guideline Ever: WikiHemlock

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

Arkhamite 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear point

Under "Examples" is the following:

• If somebody suggests that Wikipedia should become a majority-rule democratic community...
  • do point out that it is entirely possible for Wikipedians to create sock puppets and vote more than once.
  • don't create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you.

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

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

[edit] On a more serious subject...

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

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

[edit] Difference between disruption and implementation of a precedent?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Not up to standards

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

[edit] Widely misused

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] New example that relates to WP:SOCK

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