From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". |
 |
This page in a nutshell: If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked. |
They might produce amazing results, but just tell us...
Discussion is the preferred means for articulating problems with policies or the way they are implemented. One should not attempt to take any proposal, practice, or already existing consensus to its logical conclusion for the purpose of demonstrating its shortcomings or garnering support to reject or overturn it. When one disagrees with an established policy or guideline, or with an interpretation of such, the temptation may arise to apply it in a way that is designed to provoke outrage and opposition. This is highly disruptive, and neglects to consider that Wikipedia is inconsistent, and its rules are generally not absolute or immutable. Points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge, as this is the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.
[edit] Examples
- 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.
- do not create seven sock puppets and have them all agree.
- If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD)...
- do make your case clearly on AfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying.
- do not create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on AfD.
- If someone deletes information about a person you consider to be important from an article, calling them unimportant...
- do argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article.
- do not delete all of the information about every person from the article, calling it unimportant.
- If you wish to change an existing policy or guideline...
- do start a discussion on the talk page and try to establish consensus
- do not push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong
- 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 provide a reliable third-party published source
- do not remove from the article, or from any other article, all the sources that vaguely look like blogs or wikis
- If you think someone unjustifiably removed your additions to an article with the edit summary "unsourced"...
- do find a source for your additions
- do not remove all apparently unsourced content on the page
- If you think that this list of examples has become excessively long and boring...
- do suggest that half of them may be deleted without loss for the understanding of the guideline
- do not add 42 more examples just for the purpose of making it even more cumbersome
Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator. Editors involved in arbitration are likely to find that violating the spirit of this guideline may prejudice the decision of the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents for examples of the Committee's views on various types of disruptive behavior.
[edit] See also
|
Key Wikipedia policies and guidelines |
|
| Overview |
|
|
| Global principles |
|
|
| Article standards policies |
|
|
| Behavioral policies |
|
|
| Behavioral guidelines |
|
|
| Classification guidelines |
|
|
| Content guidelines |
|
|
| Editing guidelines |
|
|
| Style conventions |
|
|
