Wookieepedia:Don't disrupt Wookieepedia to prove a point

Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of dispute resolution. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work. Neither should users vandalize like there's no tommorrow just because they feel offended by the community.

Gaming the system
Gaming the system is the use of Wookieepedia rules to thwart Wookieepedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption.

A simple example would be obstinately reverting an edit exactly 3 times a day, and then "innocently" maintaining that no rules are being violated. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement to revert, and doing so is regarded as a disruption of Wookieepedia operations. In fact, gaming the system in this way, over a prolonged period of time, is likely to lead to sanctions, and, in extreme cases, a permanent ban.

Examples

 * If you think that votes are not a good method of dispute resolution because they do not accurately reflect the consensus...
 * do point out that it is entirely possible for Wookieepedians to create sock puppets and vote more than once.
 * don't create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you.


 * If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Votes for deletion...
 * do make your case clearly on VfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying.
 * don't create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on VfD.


 * If someone lists one of your favourite articles on VfD and calls it trivial or non-notable, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles...
 * do state your case on VfD in favour of the article, pointing out that it is no more trivial or non-notable than many other articles, and listing one or two examples.
 * don't list dozens of non-deletable articles on VfD in one day, calling them all trivial or non-notable.


 * If an article you've nominated for deletion on VfD is not deleted...
 * do reconsider whether your nomination was justified.
 * don't frivolously nominate the same article for featured article status.


 * If someone deletes information about a character or event 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.
 * don't delete all the information about randomly selected characters or events from the article, calling it unimportant.


 * If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...
 * do set up a WP:CT page and try to establish consensus
 * don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion


 * If you feel that a particular faction should not be called "evil", and someone reverts your edits...
 * do argue on the article's talk page that the term "evil" is POV and should be removed.
 * don't add the word "evil" to articles on dozens of other factions, which only some people believe are "evil".


 * If someone deletes information you added, calling it non-canon...
 * do point out canonical sources supporting your claim.
 * don't insert that same information into dozens of other articles, nor vandalize your opponents' talk pages urging them to support your claim.