Wikipedia talk:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate pointillism.

New example

I'm not sure how this example fits under the scope of this guideline. Such comments could be disruptive, yes, but what would they illustrate? It also sounds rather specific for an example. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that someone can comment about a policy (or guideline or governance) on an unrelated talk page, under the pretense of contributing to that discussion, while in fact actually airing a grievance that should be discussed in the context of the policy. Such disruptions would serve to illustrate inconsistencies by drawing attention to other drama obliquely related discussions. In other words don't hijack an unrelated discussion to make a point. (Admittedly, the example is pretty specific, but it is similar to other examples that occur at RfA's.) - MrX 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Could we at least change the example a bit? At present, it isn't even clear why someone would try the "do not". PSWG1920 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The example actually happened (diffs available upon request). I'm receptive to changing the example though. What did you have in mind? - MrX 00:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do provide the diffs. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the sequence of events:

1. Pointy comment at an RfA (you may have to read some of the surrounding text to understand how out of place his comment was)
2. Talk page discussion
3. Follow up RfA comment by the same user
4. The user changes his RfA !vote

I think this is a fitting example of how WP:POINT can apply to non-content areas of the encyclopedia. - MrX 01:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see that someone frivolously suggested a CheckUser to make a point about CheckUsers. Even though that happened in this instance, it is probably not something that most people would think to do. Thus WP:BEANS applies. Moreover, novice editors reading this page may not even be aware of CheckUser, so that example wouldn't help them to understand this guideline. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. We already have several examples for new users, so I think this example is more helpful to experienced users (or metapedians). If anything, I think it would be useful to have a couple of more examples that apply to Wikipedia namespace. - MrX 14:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I simplified the example. I still have doubts about it, especially in regards to WP:BEANS, but we can wait for a third opinion. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess the example is fine, but I still don't see why we need to "clarify the scope" in the first section. It is clear from the examples that this can occur in deletion discussions. The Checkuser example shows that it can occur elsewhere. The reason I said that this sentence disrupts the flow is because it takes the discussion away from the tactics themselves. PSWG1920 (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems a useful summarization, if a bit wordy. Editors shouldn't have to look to the examples for such information. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The trimming is an improvement, but it seems too brief now. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

press mention

See the New York Book Review article here: [1] SarahStierch (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Odysseus illustration

Odysseus made his point to Polyphemus in the most unpleasant way. Don't be like Odysseus. Consider other possible courses of action before you poke someone in the eye with a stick.

• oppose — cyclops is not not some sort of project. Arguably, Odysseus did IAR, which is commendable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Tell that to Polyphemus! But fair enough, point taken. KDS4444^Talk 14:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding new example

Addition of a new example to this guideline is discussed at WP:VPP#Requesting closing statements for archived discussions (subsection: "Rationale") --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Some issues with this page and its misuse

WP:NOTPOINTY points out that just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. However, this isn't the most common misconception about this page, which would be this part: editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree. Basically, I believe that the page's scope is much smaller than simply "disrupting Wikipedia" - it's quite possible and common for people to "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" without "making edits with which they do not actually agree". In fact, the vast majority of the cases I've seen involving the improper invocation of WP:POINT are reactions to impolite (of course, to various degrees depending on the editor) edits by someone with whom the editor disagrees - often uncivil, sometimes disruptive, and rarely ever specifically what's described in this page - doing something opposite to what they believe.

As the talk archives show, chronic misuse (and potentially abuse) of this page has been noted since at least 2005. I believe that the misapplication arises for two connected reasons: 1) people don't read pages closely, relying on the given shortcuts, title, and/or nutshell; and 2) the shortcuts, title, and nutshell do not adequately describe the behavior outlined in this page. Now, for the shortcuts, we can't do anything, since they're so ingrained in the culture here, but the other two we can. I think that part of the reason the title is so broad is because the content now at WP:GAME and WP:IDHT was once here; they've now been moved to other pages. However, this leaves us with a title which overreaches the scope of the page - something noted in the talk page sections above (from 2010). Since this page is so heavily known, would it be a good idea to move it to a more descriptive title? I feel like it would cause some hand-wringing, deserved or not. And, there would still have to be a different title to move to. I don't know, but I feel like in its current state, this is not working. ansh666 10:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Consistency and perfection

"Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect."

The funny thing about that is, if you are on the wrong side of the rule, they will say, "The rule says such-and-such! We need to apply the rule!" If you argue, "We don't need to apply the rule consistently; the rule isn't perfect," they'll say, "If you don't like the rules, you can leave Wikipedia and post your content elsewhere. The door's that way."

But if you try to apply the rules consistently, they hit you with, "Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect." So basically, it's another way of saying, "We do whatever we want, and justify it however we want, and it's the prerogative of the users who make up the 'rough consensus' to be as consistent or inconsistent as they want."

As I was pointing out at Wikipedia:Don't just cite a page of rules; cite the relevant part of the rule and explain how it applies to the specific situation, people will often say, "Go read WP:XYZ." Yet, if you want to do something POINTy, you can't just say, "Go read WP:XYZ"; you have to respect the community's prerogative to ignore the rules as it sees fit. If you, the individual editor, enforce the rules consistently, you're being disruptive; on the other hand, if you, the individual editor, disobey the rules, you're also being disruptive.

So really, disruption just means going against the flow; it means ignoring the complexities of all the self-contradictory ways in which the wind is blowing. It means exposing hypocrisy and trying to do something about it unilaterally.

It's kind of like how in the U.S., if you break the law, you can't argue to the cop or the judge, "I should be allowed to break this law, because the laws aren't perfect." But if the government breaks the Constitution, and you bring this up, they'll say that it would be impractical to follow the Constitution to the letter. For example, there are two parts of the Constitution that say that the trial of "all crimes" or "all criminal prosecutions" shall be by jury, but in misdemeanor cases, it's routine, and the default, for the case to be heard by a judge instead.

So, those in authority, or in the majority, cite the importance of the rule of law when it suits them, saying that without it, we'd have anarchy, tyranny, etc. Yet, when it doesn't suit them, they cite the need for flexibility, practicality, etc. St. claires fire (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This doctrine is used for nothing more than people with power (mods, admins etc) over other pages, groups or users to get away with hypocrisy and ride roughshod over any opposition by labelling their other side as disruptive'. It's a shortcut cheat to develop their own consensus by banning their opponents from the discussion. It really should be deleted and sent into oblivion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

this Vs. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

This article basically seems like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but without the handy note that using the "other stuff" argument that that argument should actually be taken serious if applicable (though many "professional" editors might still use that argument to dismiss what the page they themselves link to assesses), anyhow these pages are so similar that they could be merged, or at-least this page could become a mere paragraph, the WP:RULES should not become too repetitive.

--42.112.158.223 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The first rationale

"If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion... do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion. do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale. "

Why is this unacceptable behavior. If an article doesn't meet some kind of community established guideline. Shouldn't you take action to police said guidelines if another article doesn't meet them.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A tad late, but to any future readers, this would hardly be an insane response. In fact, it's functionally what we actually use as a rebuttal to Other Stuff Exists. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I don't understand, are you saying that you should nominate other categories to prove a point?--Prisencolin (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No @Prisencolin: - if you're nominating other articles (or categories etc) to make a point on your AfD then that would be concerning, however if you felt your article would be notable because it was very similar to another, and it got deleted, that could well be a strong indication that the other article is also not notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that this example is a bad one. The key point here should be do not nominate an article that you do not think should be deleted; it's entirely appropriate to say "oh, oops, is that the threshold? We should delete these as well, then", provided you genuinely now think they should be deleted. "If that's the standard then we ought to enforce it fairly and remove this as well" is not WP:POINTy behavior provided the opinion is genuinely felt. Of course, in some cases it might be WP:HOUNDing or retaliatory, but for content within an article it is particularly important that editors realize it is sometimes appropriate to respond to a deletion by saying "oh, if that's the standard then we should delete this other thing from another perspective", because WP:DUE weight is relative. --Aquillion (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Downgrading POINT to an essay

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to downgrade Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point to an essay. As part of this close I combined the two sections, as they are on the same topic, and some did not return to offer an opinion on the same question. There wasn't a whole lot of participation, and as it's a decision on the status of something as a guideline or a policy, there's not really a strong policy position on either side that could serve as the master stroke to tip the 6-5 split one way or another, and both supports and opposes make strong points concerning coverage in existing guidelines, and prolific use by the community. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Point making is disruptive editing, which means that it is already covered by WP:DE - it's a WP:CREEP issue to have a separate policy telling us that this form of disruptive editing is also forbidden.

This policy also causes issues, as it is commonly misunderstood; it generally only applies if an editor is editors are making edits with which they do not actually agree with, but it is often cited in other situations, such as when WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST arguments backfire by causing an editor to also nominate the example articles for deletion.

I think both of these can be solved by downgrading this policy to an essay, and copying the line As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Point-illustrating. BilledMammal (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

(from ANI) I never realized this was a guideline in the first place. Support for simplicity sake, we should have one conduct policy (WP:CIV), and maybe two or three guidelines for the most important community values, like WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but not POINT. Levivich 18:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Still support essay, but per Leijurv, a supplement would be OK too. Levivich 16:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. (from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Point-illustrating) I think it might be confusing to add the suggested phrase (edits with which they do not actually agree) alongside this. A (small) rewrite might be needed, because in one's view, applying it consistently indicates a degree of good faith application of the rule and doesn't imply (to my eyes) any editing with surreptitious motives, while really the problem is making edits with which they do not actually agree. Adding this sentence over there is a good idea, but what's already there will need slight tweaks to make sense in context. The change would definitely be for the better though! Leijurv (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leijurv: I'm not sure how to reword it; do you have a suggestion? BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The phrase that most comes to mind is "malicious compliance" (or maybe "malicious overcompliance"), but that might be my reddit showing through. The linked sidebar reads Malicious compliance is the act of intentionally inflicting harm by strictly following orders or rules, knowing that compliance with the orders or rules will not have the intended result. The term usually implies the following of an order in such a way that ignores the order or rules's intent but follows its letter. It is usually done to injure or harm while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.

This might be a bit wordy, driving its point home with excessive clarity, but just a thought: it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof, through malicious compliance, such as by uncharitable, overly literal, and/or bad faith applications to other areas. I concede this is a bit much, but I do think that "in one's view, applying it consistently" is a bit misleading in how it could sound charitable and good faith, while really what's prohibited is the opposite. Leijurv (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I think it would be fine to downgrade this page to Template:Supplement even as-is, so, Support, but it would be even better if the section it is supplementing was slightly enhanced in return. Leijurv (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:POINT is a very commonly cited page, I think it might be worth getting more opinions by mentioning this discussion at WP:VPP or starting a RFC. Leijurv (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support The nutshell is "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only." This is nonsense because there are plenty of other ways of making a point. Creating an essay for example! As this page is not clearly explained and is often misunderstood, it should be put on the proliferating pile of pontification as just another essay. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this isn't a "policy" it's a guideline. As such it's just fine to co-exist with other policies and guidelines. All the blather and self-promotion preceding this is just purely symptomatic of why we should keep it in place. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - there isn't a problem with emphasizing one particularly disruptive behaviour pattern via this guideline. However, emphasizing the line about edits with which they do not actually agree might still be a good idea. Newimpartial (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Status of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Should Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point be downgraded from a behavioural guideline to an essay? 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich, Leijurv, Andrew Davidson, The Rambling Man, and Newimpartial: Ping editors who contributed to a previous discussion on this topic. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support, as nom. The behaviour is already described as disruptive at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Point-illustrating and a second guideline that copies most of the text from there is unnecessary WP:CREEP.

Further, the current text leads to widespread misunderstandings; the issue the guideline attempts to address is the disruption caused when an editor tried to discredit a policy or guideline that they disagree with by applying it in an unpopular manner, but POINT is often cited in reference to other, usually non-disruptive, behaviour. The more concise text at WP:DE, that makes it clear that someone can legitimately make a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, should help in addressing some of that misuse. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as discussed above. As a typical example of misuse, see Talk:House of Habsburg#Emperor of Mexico where the guideline is cited in a discussion of the extent of the family. That seems to be a regular content dispute and the guideline is misused in a weaponised, Wikilawyering way of trying to intimidate and silence an opposing editor.

And here's a fresh example of a different sort. When I went back to my watchlist just now, I saw it flooded by edits by user:Ser Amantio di Nicolao. These were made by AWB and seem to be the addition of talk pages and project templates to files that I uploaded such as this. I consider these to be quite annoying and my point is that the user appears to be making these edits just to boost his edit count rather than because they are useful or productive. Is this a case of WP:POINT? Does this guideline have any effect in deterring such behaviour? And what if I were to revert all these vexatious additions? Would that be a case of WP:POINT? It doesn't seem that the guideline is any help in resolving such issues. It's just clutter and complication for its own sake. Just like all those project templates.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. (Summoned by bot). Without intending offense to the OP, who I presume operates from a goodfaith intention here, this proposal nevertheless looks very much like a solution in search of a problem. The overlap/redundancies between the WP:DE guidance and this guideline is a handful of short, straightforward sentences, and it is not by any means uncommon (nor is it necessarily undesirable) for a WP:PAG principle to be summarized in one policy, but detailed more completely in a discrete guideline. WP:CREEP is an essay itself and concerns a highly subjective call, especially as it is presented, but even with an extremely generous analysis, this isn't what I'd characterize as the type of situation your average veteran editor is likely to recognize as "rule creep": this guideline has been around for more than thirteen years, has been cited in community discussions nearly 10,000 times (click warning: large page load), and has been viewed over 302,000 times by community members just in the seven years we have data for. Clearly the page has non-trivial, longstanding, consistent, and ongoing utility to the community at large.

Nor are the additions here (that are lacking in the DE snippet) superfluous or un-useful: the examples highlight particular areas where this variety of disruption has classically occurred, allowing similar behavior to be cited as unambiguously problematic under existing community consensus. This kind of behaviour still occurs at a far from trivial rate, especially with newer and WP:NOTHERE editors, so reducing the prominence of this principle--both in terms of 1) moving it from this page where it has stably and un-problematically resided for a long while, and 2) in significantly reducing the guidance associated with discussing the behaviour, despite the fact that it has established community consensus behind it--has pretty clear downsides, while really offering no advantages other than "six sentences will no longer exist on two different policy pages". Which again, really isn't a problem in any noteworthy respect. On the balance, I don't see how downgrading the guideline would simplify, expedite, or otherwise enhance community efforts to deal with point-making disruption. Indeed, I can't see how it would do anything but quite the opposite. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The page has been widely used but part of the issue is that has been widely used incorrectly. Andrew Davidson gave an example above, another example can be found in the ANI discussion that prompted this proposal, and looking through examples of what links here it appears that most are incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, if the last example that stuck in Andrew's mind is from 2014, I wouldn't suggest that's evidence that this is a major problem. Nor was the incidence of the reference in the ANI thread you've linked there the nexus of any major disruption or anything more than a mostly incidental reference. In any event, every single policy this community has ever promulgated is occasionally mis-referenced or misinterpreted, and I've never known the community to decide that the rational solution is to exorcise a policy itself, just because some users may make bad arguments (or leaps in logic) out of it. How could we ever maintain our body of policy as a record of community consensus if that were the standard? The legitimate purpose for the guideline remains, so I can't see how wrestling with the genuine and not uncommon situation the guideline's actual wording addresses would be in any way improved by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As with any other poor argument or misrepresentation of community consensus, the tonic in situations where the guideline is misapplied is to simply point out the error in logic to the confused or bad faith party. And indeed, users clearly misapplying the rule will lose (rather than gain) support on the whole, with such tactics.

Regardless, the proposed solution is clearly an example of curing the disease by killing the patient: we don't like the fact that otherwise legitimate policy language is occasionally misapplied (and I disagree with you about the regularity of that misapplication relative to overall utility, based on my own random sampling review of the WLH), so we just torch the guideline, and lose all of its additional functionality? Actually, when I think about it, that metaphor is actually too generous, because the proposed solution wouldn't even solve the problem you have an issue with, because people can still make the same faulty argument you are annoyed with while referring back to WP:DE just as easily as when using WP:POINT. So indeed, more like killing the patient and failing to eradicate the disease. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's the first item on Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; I think they found it there. In addition, as Andrew points out, it is not only used in ANI threads, but also in threads where the issues with its use aren't pointed out and instead intimidates less experienced editors. You're right that this change won't solve the problem by itself but I believe it will help, as I describe in my response to the proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• BilledMammal is correct – I used What links here to find a random example. I have expanded my entry to add a fresh example where people might use WP:POINT but where its lack of a bright-line test would make usage subjective and capricious. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I just don't see how your proposed solution does that. I think it clearly would accomplish the exact opposite. Your proposed solution wouldn't do a single thing to stop someone from advancing the exact same erroneous arguments, by simply citing the DE section rather than this guideline. The only difference would be that the precise policy language that clarifies what actual point-making disruption is (and is not) will be reduced in scope and clarity. Which far from solving the underlying problem, will only counter-productively complicate the effort to call out any misapplications that do occur. I can recognize that your efforts here are genuinely directed at something that you perceive to be a problem. But even if I and every other repsondent agreed on the scale of that problem, I would still have to tell you that you really need to rethink your proposed solution, because it doesn't (in even a small way) eliminate the problem that is so aggravating to you: it would actually directly augment that problem, with no upside. Plus introduce additional confusion about just what the current policy on the matter is, and how to cite to it, since most experienced community members expect the relevant policy language to be found here, where it has been policy since 2009. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that changing the status from guideline to essay would achieve little. Many or most editors would not notice or care and so there would be no effect in practice. There are numerous essays which are wielded as weapons in discussion and their lack of status does not seem to matter, no matter how many times it is pointed out. Merger with WP:DISRUPTIVE might be better to rationalise and simply the number of pages. But so long as WP:POINT remains a shortcut, it will be used and abused in the same way. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• I came to this expecting to oppose, but I have to say I'm not sure this page adds all that much to WP:DE. That said, what is the practical effect of downgrading it? What would change? Apart from gestures at "creep", which isn't really a good argument unto itself, I haven't seen all that much? Also, downgraded to what kind of essay? To an {{essay}}? Maybe most appropriate, if it were to be reclassified, would be to make it a {{Supplement}} of WP:DE. Most of the page is a list of examples, after all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  The primary difference is that I believe the content at WP:DE is both clearer and more concise; an inexperienced editor inappropriately accused of WP:POINT is more likely to realize that they are being inappropriately accused of it. This won't solve the issue of incorrect use, but it will help. In addition, it will be simpler to find and implement a complete solution if we only need to change one guideline rather than current two.

  As for the specific type of essay, I think making it a supplement is a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  an inexperienced editor inappropriately accused of WP:POINT is more likely to realize that they are being inappropriately accused of it - an inexperienced editor accused of WP:POINT isn't going to be familiar with how we talk about essays vs. guidelines, so I can't really imagine any difference from their point of view. If the problem is confusing language, reclassifying won't change anything, either. The only fix is to, well, fix the confusing language (and I agree the language is a bit confusing in both places, but this page at least provides examples). It sounds like what you may be suggesting is retargeting the shortcut, which isn't covered by this RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my comments in the thread above - here's a practical benefit of this proposal: it'll shorten our list of guidelines by 1. This is an improvement, so I support. (Either an essay or a supplement would be an improvement.) We already have enough civility-related guidelines and policies; this one doesn't add anything so important it's worth having it as (yet another of very many) guidelines. And I'd support demoting other guidelines as well. And frankly, I've always thought having a guideline called "point" was pointy. Levivich^[block] 14:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support - it is simply an essay illustrating some ways of doing disruptive editing and so should be at best a supplement to WP:DE. There's enough guidelines for the people who think they need to read them all without including unnecessary ones. NadVolum (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Template:Supplement would be better I think. I also think that the link to this page (the {{main|Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point}}) should not be removed from WP:DE. I think these examples are good and deserving of being linked to. And I think WP:NOTPOINTy is important - perhaps bolstering that is a similarly relevant idea to downgrading WP:POINT. Leijurv (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not seeing a strong case for policy change here, and IMO downgrading a page that has been either a guideline or policy or "semi-policy" since at least sometime in 2005 should require a very strong case. "Sometimes people misuse it" is not even a weak case. In any event, I don't think the proposal would be an improvement. Maybe it's just a matter of cognitive style, but if I were accused of violating that abstract, example-free section of WP:DE, I would have no idea what my accuser was on about. A policy shouldn't need to send people to an essay just to have some idea of what it means. And while I am generally favorable to arguments from CREEP, this page is older than WP:DE, which merely summarizes it, as it should. I won't say that the current situation is ideal. (Were I king of Wikipedia policy, we would have a general guideline against pointless consistency, and at that point "don't be consistent without good reason, but especially not for bad reasons" would scarcely even need saying.) But as things stand this seems to fill an important niche in the Wikipedia policy ecosystem, and I would need some explanation of what has changed to make this guideline no longer applicable before I would think it appropriate to demote it. -- Visviva (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, the arguments presented here make a decent case that it was perhaps not necessary to make this a guideline in the first place, but I'm not seeing a compelling case for demoting it now that we're here. If there's a case to be made that the specifics have fallen out of favor with the community, then there'd be a case for demotion to essay status. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It is important to underline the fact that it is the disruption, not the act of making a point (or even taking an action to illustrate a point) that is the problem. Treating this as the relevant guideline leads to confusion when people accuse each other of being disruptive simply for non-disruptively making a point; when you want to make the argument that someone has done something disruptive, you should focus on WP:DISRUPTIVE instead. I also agree with the people above who have said that the name and shortcut itself are part of the problem, in the sense that they focus on the wrong thing; I'd support moving / renaming, but I expect that would be a harder sell. More generally, my impression and experience is that this page describes behavior that is much less common than you would think given how frequently it is cited - it happens, but mostly by editors whose contributions are on the verge of being straightforward vandalism in the first place. Part of the problem is having a snappy memorable link that doesn't really summarize the most important aspect of it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:POINT and removals for due weight

One particular situation I've seen come up with POINT a lot is situations where a first editor adds something to an article that they perceive as biased, intending to balance existing text out; a second editor reverts them, and the first editor responds with something along the lines of "well, if that's the standard then we need to remove this" and cuts out the part they were trying to balance instead. I think it's important to underline that that isn't WP:POINTy and can even, sometimes, be the best way to deal with WP:DUE issues - since one of the ways due weight is assessed is the quantity of text in the article, it is at least partially a relative measure, so an undue focus on one area can be addressed either by adding more about other views or by trimming the amount of text on the view that's being given too much focus. And the overall amount of weight to give all aspects is something that has to be decided on an article-by-article basis, so "if that's where we're drawing the line for this article, then we have to remove this for balance" is at least a reasonable tack to take. Obviously such removals are not always correct - you have to look at the actual sourcing and coverage and its overarching balance - but I feel that it's a frequent enough point of confusion that it might deserve a sentence or two here, noting that there are valid reasons for someone to tack between adding and removing text in an article in order to try and find a compromise that balances it out. --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This could be added to the end:

As well, it might be legitimate to remove content in response to the removal of other content. A genuine attempt to balance or clean up an article is not disruption to illustrate a point, even if it was precipitated by something the editor did not initially agree with. When there is any doubt, assume that someone is trying to improve the content and not illustrating a point.

200.17.137.40 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Could be added to the end of what? EEng 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The end of the "Important note" section, to address Aquillon's concern. 200.17.137.40 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion from Belteshazzar, see [2] Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

perhaps we could add No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to the see also section, seeing as both articles have similar points Batmilk 🦇 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That page is reddit tier cringe... Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of "important point" section

Seems like it is made redundant by the first sentence of the guideline itself. Not every possible misinterpretation of a guideline needs to be addressed within it. Remsense诉 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Bears repeating. EEng 02:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  You would know better than I: my intuition is that it wouldn't be an exceedingly common misinterpretation, but please tell me I'm wrong. Remsense诉 02:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Take it from me, people say stuff like that all the time. EEng 02:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, then. Remsense诉 02:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)