When one becomes frustrated with the way apolicy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generallyunpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.
Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highlydisruptive and can lead to ablock orban. If you feel thata policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look intodispute resolution.
Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will thereforenever be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying tosway it with disruptive tactics.
Note that it is possible tomake a point, withoutdisrupting Wikipedia toillustrate your point.
do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic, with hopes that others will make the same arguments for deletion.
If someone deletes from an article information which they call "unimportant" or "irrelevant", which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...
do explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion.
do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant".
If you think someone unfairly removed a reference to aself-published source...
do explain why the use of the source in question was appropriate in that instance, or find abetter source for the information.
do not summarily remove all references to sources which appear to be self-published.
If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content...
do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in questionshouldn't require a cited source.
do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced.
If you think someone addedtoo many or incorrect maintenance tags...
do try to improve the article in any related way, or explain on the talk page why the tags seem inappropriate or unhelpful.
do not overwhelm the article with even more tags, such as stacking banners at the top of each section or spamming{{citation needed}} at the end of every sentence.
If you feel that it is too easy to add misinformation to Wikipedia...
do watchrecent changes and fact-check anything that looks at all suspicious.
Just because someone ismaking a point doesnot mean that they aredisrupting Wikipedia toillustrate that point. 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". Merelydescribing such hypothetical behavior is fine and does not go against this guideline. For example,sayingBy that standard, we ought to remove all the cited sources on this page is okay, butactually doing that just to make a point is not.
