This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:POINT WP:DWIP WP:DISRUPTPOINT

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.

[edit] State your point; do not prove it experimentally

Discussion is the preferred means for articulating problems with policies or the way they are implemented. When one disagrees with an established policy or guideline, or with an interpretation of such, the temptation may arise to actively apply it in a way that is designed to prove it wrong. This may even entail an attempt to incite widespread opposition to a policy by satirically applying it on various pages.

Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. They also neglect to consider that Wikipedia is inconsistent, and its rules are not a code of law. One should not attempt to take any proposal, practice, or already existing consensus to its logical conclusion for the purpose of garnering support to reject or overturn it. If direct discussion fails to resolve a problem, and you remain convinced that you're right, try dispute resolution, if applicable.

[edit] Examples

• If someone creates an article on what you consider 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 what you consider to be a similarly silly topic just to get it listed on AfD and make others see your point.
• If someone deletes from an article "unimportant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...
  • do argue on the article's talk page for the material's inclusion
  • do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant".
• If you wish to change an existing policy or guideline...
  • do start a discussion on the talk page pointing out what you see as the shortcomings of the current rule
  • do not actively 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 find a reliable third-party published source for the information
  • 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, 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 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

[edit] Important note

A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it. With that in mind, linking here should be done with care.

[edit] See also

• Wikipedia:Be reasonable
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Gaming the system
• Wikipedia:Wikilawyering
• Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes