Wikipedia talk:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

This guideline keeps instruction creep in place

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)

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)

• 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)
  • WP:SELFQUEST and WP:ELNO. Some of those restrictions seem kind of arbitrary. 178.63.246.164 (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    • And you claim they're arbitrary how exactly? --Cybercobra (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What if a long-standing part of a policy is largely not representative of accepted practice, but editors won't agree to change it, even when an RfC is opened? What recourse is there, other than applying the flawed policy in a way that will result in an outcry against it? 199.48.147.46 (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here's an example of bad policy being kept in place by this guideline. For about three years, WP:ABOUTSELF stated that material cited from questionable sources should be relevant to their notability and should not be contentious. Eventually, these restrictions were removed, not because community consensus had changed, but because they were flawed from the outset. [1] [2] [3] If not for WP:POINT, any editor skeptical about these restrictions could have put them to the test simply by enforcing them consistently, and consequently these flawed rules would have been fixed a lot sooner. The argument against allowing this is that the encyclopedia would be harmed. However, the changes to articles could and almost certainly would have been reverted by those who opposed them. Yes, some people's time would have been taken up, but on the whole time would have been saved, as there wouldn't have been as many discussions about the policy. So can we please overturn this guideline now and allow policies to be rigorously tested? 93.114.44.37 (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

No extremism

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)

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: [4][5][6]. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Other similar wikispace pages define what to do and not to do. For example, civility explains what is civility and what is not civility. Similarly, we can say what point is and what unpoint is. Moderation is the key. Assorg (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Remove redirect Wikipedia:POINTY to here?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

I agree with this edit. No disruption = no violation. I will go further and state that one should make edits they disagree with! It is a basis for WP:WFTE and WP:CONSENSUS -- if a strong consensus exists that something should be done, editors should consider countering disruption by editing attempts to counter the consensus, even if the editor does not agree with the consensus. They can make their objections clear in discussion. Their honourable actions might even help some reconsider their arguments. Blackworm (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

I will note that I revised my clarification and was reverted again. The comments at the top of this thread definitely lead me to believe that some sort of clarification is wanted and needed, but it appears there is not even agreement as to what this guideline's purpose actually is. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Examples are not all inclusive

I'd hope this would be self-evident. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My wording stated that "behavior should only be considered "POINTY" when someone is trying to prove a point in a manner akin to the above examples". That is most certainly not saying that WP:POINT violations are limited to the specific actions described in the examples.

Also, the example you just added would not be "disruption to illustrate a point", as nothing is being illustrated. WP:GAMING would seem more applicable to that action. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a way to prove a point common to young children - they try to change the rules to their benefit. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly is that an attempt to prove a point? PSWG1920 (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By changing the rules, they remove anything that goes against their point. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that situation involves any point. An agenda, yes, but they are at least being direct about it. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

For reference here is the version prior to all the rewriting. While I think we've become more focused, I think the meaning has changed and the examples and discussions are too narrow. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That version was a bloated mess. It appears from the edit history as well as the talk archives that new ideas which didn't neatly fit elsewhere were liberally added to this guideline. "Gaming the system" now has its own page, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is now part of WP:DE. Most likely, the presence of such off-topic material led to off-topic examples. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to the consensus that the material was off topic? --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Here and here. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I don't see the consensus. I see discussion on what this guideline is about, and I see unrelated editing of the guideline. The editing seems to have been made without understanding the discussions. I don't see any connection.

I'm not sure if futher discussion along these lines will be helpful.

This version has been pointed out as the last one before the guideline became bloated. As with the version I pointed out, I think we've changed the meaning since this version as well. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure we're not going to get anywhere this way. What we need are opinions from more editors. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nutshell, etc.

In regards to [7], changes were discussed at that juncture. I would also point back to discussions which began here, as the page seems to be losing its way once again. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I've reverted the nutshell, before finding the discussion here. Sorry about my edit summary.

As I mentioned then, it looks like we've whitewashed this guideline. "Illustrate" is being interpreted very literally, and relevant examples have been removed (specific examples, as well as approaches).

From my perspective, "State your point—do not prove it experimentally" summarizes this guideline properly. This guideline is not only about certain types of experimenting, but experimenting rather than discussing and experimenting in a way that's disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that "State your point—do not prove it experimentally" is a good summary of this guideline. But what does "prove" mean? Was that being interpreted too literally as well? In the example you added, one is not trying to prove any point, regardless of whether the action is appropriate or not. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For one, proving a point disruptively is not the same as "disruptively applying reasoning with which you disagree." --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of "prove" how about "further," "advance" or "promote?" --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Those three words are decidedly different in meaning from "illustrate", which has been in the page's title ever since it was created in 2004. For that matter, how would one "further a point", "advance a point", or "promote a point"? PSWG1920 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the title is too misleading then? I think changing the title is a good idea, once we settle on the details.

So we agree that "disruptively applying reasoning with which you disagree" is not the equivalent of anything in this guideline at all?

I'm trying to find better wording. I didn't suggest a context, only an alternative to "prove" after you brought it up. --Ronz (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, disruptively applying reasoning with which you disagree is not an acceptable way of discrediting it is representative of most if not all of the current examples. I don't think it's perfect as a summation, but a bit better than If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point. A third option would be to turn what is currently the first section header into the nutshell: State your point—do not prove it experimentally. It would probably need to be tweaked a bit in order to stand by itself, but I would support keeping "point" and "prove".

I would not support changing the title of this guideline, as I think Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point accurately expresses the meaning which was originally intended. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop referring to the current version of the guideline as if it is sacrosanct. It's not.

We agree that at minimum, some clarification is necessary. Let's clarify then.

What does "disagreeing" have to do with proving a point experimentally and disruptively? --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As the first section notes, if one disagrees with either an existing rule or just the way it's being applied, it can be tempting to turn around and apply the reasoning you disagree with somewhere else, proving it wrong from your perspective. That is the connection between disagreeing and proving a point. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I find it unnecessarily limiting, and in contradiction with this guideline prior to your changes to it. Yes, there's some sort of disagreement that will be involved, but "apply the reasoning you disagree with somewhere else" doesn't follow (nor does "somewhere else" for that matter). --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Somewhere else" could mean somewhere else in the same article, and is not in the nutshell anyway. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Then let's ignore "somewhere else."

While there's going to be a disagreement at the heart of any POINT problems, such problems are not necessarily the application of applying reasoning you disagree with. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding page protection and edit warring

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) User:Toddst1 Please consider lifting of your protection of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point or at least significantly reducing the duration - While there's a conflict here, most of it appears to be WP:BOLD editing, with one editor trying alternatives and another editor reverting them simply because they weren't discussed. Protecting the page, although a quick fix, doesn't solve the problem - even though both editors were walking a thin line around 3RR, counseling them towards seeking some kind of dispute resolution would be a better solution, and that's what I'm trying to do above. Triona (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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. {{editprotected}} works very well. Sort it out or sit it out, fellas. Toddst1 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep it protected. I'll help with anyone who wants unrelated changes made. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay protected. Any needed change can be made by an admin. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Has this guideline been reduced without consensus?

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)

Dispute tag.

{{editprotected}} 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)

 Done, although I would prefer to unprotect it and instead block those who are edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

PSWG1920's editing has dropped to nothing in the past day. I see no need to keep the protection. Until we resolve this, I'll limit my editing to this article to 1RR and focus on the discussing my concerns on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This guideline is not limited to "applying reasoning with which you disagree"

Relevant, past discussions: June 2006 July 2007 June 2008-Feb 2009. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

This guideline is about disruption

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)

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)

Editing in bad faith to make a point

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)

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)

Nutshell again

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)

The point may not be about being right. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

To prove someone else is right or wrong. --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

I prefer guidelines be straightforward, rather than requiring convoluted explanations to make sense of them. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

"rather than requiring convoluted explanations..." Perhaps this is a cultural misunderstanding? --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Again, I'm not sure how adding mention of other people with "others" or more specific motives "prove others wrong" is helpful. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Not disruptive

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

These examples make sense in the context of the guideline. Note that there is another example which is even more explicitly against enforcing policy: "do not attempt to enforce the existing rule with the aim of provoking opposition to it". Why would we tell people not to enforce policy? Because of their reason for doing so. Same with the two examples in question. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How do I fight Hypocrisy without making a POINT?

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)

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)

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)

Remove the WP:POINT shortcut

I agree with the sentiments expressed by others above: WP:POINT is used far more often as a weapon to try to quash debate than for it's intended purpose—"Joe is just trying to make a WP:POINT [so his argument is invalid]" or "here's WP:POINTY Joe again [with obviously no useful contribution to make]". Yes, Joe might counter with WP:NOTPOINTY but the damage is already done: attention has successfully been diverted away from the matter-in-hand. Why facilitate such shenanigans? The simple and quick solution is to remove the WP:POINT shortcut. (For future consideration: "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", "Oh; so it's okay to disrupt Wikipedia for other reasons?") Uniplex (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence?

Seems a bad idea regardless. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The most immediate piece of evidence is the fact that it has been necessary to add the ‘Important note’ section of the article, which is just an attempt to hold things together with sticky-tape, not addressing the root cause of the problem. Why do you think it's a bad idea? Uniplex (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The other obvious piece of evidence is that the people above would like to see it removed completely; this is probably because it's being mis-applied. The proposed change should substantially reduce the number of mis-applications. Uniplex (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm having to guess as to your concerns; here's a compromise suggestion however: rename the shortcut to EDITPOINT. Whereas a POINT may be good or bad, and may be raised in discussion or illustrated by disruptive editing, this guideline relates only to the latter. POINT by itself is far too general; EDITPOINT adds enough specificity to prevent most out-of-context usage. In summary, the message of the guideline is: don't edit to make your point: discuss to make your point. Another positive consequence of this change is that the guideline is simplified: the Important note section is no longer needed. Uniplex (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hah! How ironic that you should propose this! WP:POINT exists for a very good reason, one of which is to minimise contentious content, edit warring and rambling, fruitless discussions by editors who don't wish to collaborate. Next you'll ask to abolish 3RR or AIV! Radiopathy •talk• 19:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What a strange and unhelpful comment. No, it's not about abolishing guidelines, it's concerned with a shortcut—the clues's in the section title. And no, the guideline in question is not about edit-warring etc. (for that, see WP:EDITWARRING; again, the clues are there). Uniplex (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Restated the proposal below due to apparent confusion, in part due to my changing it half way through. Uniplex (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's really silly to expect that renaming this guideline will stop anyone from mis-citing it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename the WP:POINT shortcut to WP:EDITPOINT

As discussed above ("Remove redirect Wikipedia:POINTY to here?"), and as highlighted by the "Important note" section of the guide, the WP:POINT shortcut is frequently misunderstood and referenced in an incorrect context. Whereas a POINT may be good or bad, and may be raised in discussion or illustrated by disruptive editing, this guideline relates only to the latter. The problem is caused by the word POINT by itself being too general; EDITPOINT however would add enough specificity to prevent most out-of-context usage. In summary, the message of the guideline is: don't edit to make your point: discuss to make your point. A positive consequence of this change is that the guideline can be simplified as the Important note section would no longer be needed. Uniplex (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. If allowable, we could then direct WP:POINT and WP:NOTPOINTY to a page which explains the circumstances that led to this. PSWG1920 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the existing shortcut is well known and widely used. I have no objection to an additional shortcut - but wiping out the existing shortcuts would cause confusion and be a disruption in itself.

Additionally, a change to such a widely used shortcut (at least 1100 existing uses of WP:POINT), a broader audience for the discussion is needed. Possibilities might be WP:RFD or WP:RFC. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Whilst, of course, considering what disruption such a rename might cause is important, I think PSWG's idea covers this nicely. The fundamental issue is that POINT is (or has become) ambiguous; PSWG's idea is effectively for POINT to point to a disambiguation page—i.e. standard practice for the very similar circumstances of a title rename. Uniplex (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm still waiting for some actual evidence of the problems described. At this point, I have to wonder if there is any. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• That we value clear and unambiguous expression is evident from the WP:MoS and WP:POLICY. That POINT without adjective or other context is ambiguous (unlike say, CCC, or NPOV), is obvious (good point, bad point). That said, two pieces of evidence that it is being used out of context: a previous discussion here on the matter, and the "band-aid" Important note section that has been added to try to address the problem, were mentioned above. Also, the user towards the end of the previous section, who believes that POINT refers to edit-warring and long discussion, is further evidence of the confusion that this badly-chosen shortcut causes. However, the recent change to the Important note section, suggests that what is being referred to might better be described as 'protest' editing—this may imply a better name for both the shortcut and the project page. Uniplex (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Protest" could be severely misconstrued as well. I can just imagine people saying "Don't WP:PROTEST" in response to many legitimate actions. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right; on its own, PROTEST could be just as bad. Unless there are any other suggestions, we can stick with the proposed EDITPOINT, which is close enough to the substance of the guideline. Uniplex (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any value that outweighs the disruption caused by such a change. Feel free to create an additional redirect - but eliminating the old one is problematic in itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion to avoid any disruption, which sounds fine to me, was made above. Uniplex (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever would have been submitted to a new landing page can just as easily be incorporated into this existing article, pending consensus - with the bonus that doing it on the existing page does not cause any extra disruption or confusion from existing usage. The existing note seems adequate, although it could be moved up further on the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving it up might well help, but it doesn't seem as clean as using a new landing page since a) there would still be stuff on this project page that would be historical only, off-topic to most readers, and b) having it on a separate page would allow it to be designated as a "dead" page to which no links should ever be made (cf. a redirect page that may remain after a page move) and for it to have page stats which might be used as an indicator for possible future deletion. Uniplex (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following you on point A, and I disagree with point B. Moreover, as I pointed out before, a change in usage to such a well-known and widely used redirect needs to have a broader audience for the discussion. Possibilities to achieve this could be WP:RFD and/or WP:RFC. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: The rationale for the rename isn't particularly logical. Anyone bent on mis-citation of this guideline for abuse in fallacious debate tactics won't be deterred by renaming. Piped links can be bent to whatever use you want to put them, such as footage of kittens being stomped to death by people who want to rename guideline shortcuts. I don't see any evidence that WP:POINT is in fact abused frequently, and on one level it really can't be abused, since anyone can read the guideline and see whether it actually applies to the discussion in which it has been cited. What I do see is an enormous number - thousands upon thousands – of uses over many years that would suddenly make no sense to anyone reading them after such a change. Sweeping things under the rug doesn't clean anyone up. If someone is mis-citing this guideline, they should be called on it. Simple. I think what's probably behind this is that a few people have had WP:POINT used against them, and were offended that someone didn't like their tactics. Whether they were called out for being POINTy on the basis of actual disruptive behavior or simply as a form of ad hominem attack is old news about something that happened on one talk page somewhere. I.e., coming here to change one of the best-known guideline shortcuts on the entire system seems to be an exercise in axe grinding. And, well, it seems kind of inherently POINTy, as a matter of fact. This "landing page" idea smacks of disclaimer-itis. Wikipedia doesn't go there. PS: "POINT without adjective or other context is ambiguous" is unimportant and is true of every shortcut that just uses a word. People are expected to read our guidelines if they're going to be involved in debates that bring them up. WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:SOAPBOX, etc., all have this same non-problem of being "ambiguous". (Is notabiity important? Is Wikipedia based on voting instead of consensus? Is Wikipedia a soapbox?) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• You're completely missing the WP:POINT ;) This isn't about those who are "bent on mis-citation"; it's about clear and unambiguous expression: a highly valued characteristic of writing for both an encyclopedia and its guidelines. WP wants new editors and it doesn't want them to have to learn their way around a lot of confusing jargon (something explicitly shunned in the MoS). The words Wikipedia & intuitive don't currently make happy bedfellows; Jimbo complains that WP should be looking to the future, not the past—"it's always been that way" is not justification for blocking improvement. The POINT page is not an easy read in itself; it has to resort to a bunch of examples to try to make its point. If someone in discussion says, "he's just not getting the WP:POINT", then yes, everyone involved could go and read the guideline and try to get their head around it; the claimant may well be just as confused. But why should anyone go and read the guideline? "he's just not getting the WP:POINT" seems self-explanitory: he's not getting the point and WP deems this to be bad. "disclaimer-itis Wikipedia doesn't go there" The proposal is to move the current disclaimer, the Important note section, to the current redirect page (no new landing page is required) and change the redirect to be an ordinary page (a bit like a dab page, extremely common practice in article-space). Let's try one of your examples: "he just doesn't get that WP is a WP:SOAPBOX": it's just not in the same league; no one's ever going to take it seriously. Uniplex (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not been looking at all, but happened to spot this one today: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=462911578&oldid=462910371 Uniplex (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)