Wikipedia talk:Wikilawyering/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Upgrading Wikilawyering to a guideline

I have seen far too much abuse of the system by the unscrupulous. I vote to upgrade this essay to the level of a guideline. Any seconds?--Pravknight 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The phenomenon is frequently seen and we should encourage people not to do that. There are some concerns above to the name of this page; I have no objection to renaming it. >Radiant< 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh the irony. Considering you're racing around from policy to policy [1] trying to create loopholes allowing you dodge the issues outlined at your ongoing user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight, your suggestion here smacks of wikilawyering itself. FeloniousMonk 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, then he's only painting himself into the corner, and he can be troutwhacked for violating his "own" guideline. >Radiant< 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we should mention somewhere on this page how likely accusing someone of Wikilawyering is to be an effective dispute resolution technique... -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Pasting from thread above:

• Given all the above (and, it seems to me, the continued possibility of confusion, misinterpretation, etc) I suggest any name using the term "lawyer" within it is avoided. In lieu of any other promising suggestions, "Pettifogging" (or, if a "wiki-particular" name is needed, "Wikifogging") seems sufficient...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Rule-warring"? "Policy-gaming"? -Will Beback 07:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that kind of label... Anyone else (still) watching this thread...?  David (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that other than wikilawyering, the related term that is actually in use is "gaming the system" (which IIRC redirects to WP:POINT but it could be a page on its own). >Radiant< 09:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Gaming" (to game) might be (North) American English...?  Only trying to pre-empt, David (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong opposition. Too open to abuse as an essay as is, no need to open the floodgates by giving it any actual cache. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And might I ask if you have any evidence of this alleged abuse? (Radiant) 14:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No specific diffs at the moment, of course, since I don't keep tabs on every time someone's uncivil, but any time anyone cites our policies in a tenuous situation, someone's likely to come out with the accusation of wikilawyering. It's unhelpful, and will only serve to be a problem if it ever becomes legitimately actionable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

In other words, you're handwaving again. Thanks for clearing that up, have a nice day. (Radiant) 14:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm merely stating what occurs. Check the AN/I archives for plenty of evidence if you can be bothered, otherwise, sorry if you're struggling with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Jeff's comment, I'm surprised if any experienced editor hasn't seen examples of this being misused. In my experience, if someone is going against policy, they very often respond by accusing their critics of wikilawyering. That said, I would support this being a guideline. Editors who attempt to silence criticism by accusations of wikilawyering could reasonably be challenged to be more specific. Addhoc 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've seen it misused, but it's neither more nor less abusable than anything else on Wikipedia. If misuse stems from a misinterpretation of the term, then it would serve the 'pedia to make a guideline to more accurately define that term. (Radiant) 10:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Boldly upgraded without even seeing this thread. It's cited in RFAr, it's less controversial than other guidelines, and it's important, so there, guideline. -- Chris is me 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there sufficient enthusiasm to hold a straw poll? Addhoc 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Boldly reverted, it's quite controversial in use, and I'm hardly convinced of its importance on a personal level. Get some consensus, do some discussing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I support making this essay and anything opposing the concept of "gaming the system" to be a guideline. --Serge 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of that, why not just make set laws, and if anything appears that the laws don't seem to do justice to, have people discuss and vote on changing them? We need a general election, all wikipedia users voting, for a set of specific rules, since nothing changes otherwise. The current consensus system doesn't work, since its always just a handful of people around at the time, who vote to eliminate articles they don't like, for whatever reason. Dream Focus (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Guideline strawpoll

This discussion is closed. Please do not modify it

Do you support upgrading this pages status to guideline, and why do you think so?

---

Support:

1. This essay is an important concept, so that people don't assume that tiny exceptions in policy pages can be used as a rationale for their action. Some people naturally lawyer, and this guideline would help those users realize what is wrong with the concept. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 01:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Brad has got a good point about "wikilawyering" being overused (and many times unfairly). It seems like anyone that takes the time to point out the logical fallacies in an argument or point to a conflict with a policy page is accused of wiki-lawyering. Overall, I think this page has serious POV issues that should be address before we even think of elevating it. There needs to be more attention to the "abuses" of wiki-lawyer accusations. 205.157.110.11 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. No need to give people any more ammunition in the fight against those who look for even the simplest process to be followed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose I wrote the original essay. Essentially it consists of a guide to effective advocacy using negative examples. In no way is it policy. Fred Bauder 15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Other:

1. The essay does raise an important concept, but in my experience, the term "Wikilawyering" is overused, and I am concerned that raising the matter to Guideline status at this time would encourage more of that. Newyorkbrad 02:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are not created by voting upon them; see WP:HCP. People shouldn't wikilawyer, but by the very nature of wikilawyering it is impossible to make actual rules against that - they'll just say "well, I wasn't wikilawyering because the rules say such-and-such". >Radiant< 10:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just using this strawpoll to determine if I should post on VP and see if the community has a consensus (other than readers of this talk page. This poll, as all polls should be, is non-binding.

Er, no one likes the idea, so no more poll. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point

I shan't copy the full text of the guideline here, but briefly, if you do something that A: is according to the letter of (some/the) guidelines but B: Against the spirit of those guidelines, or is disruptive to wikipedia in general with C: The specific intent to show that the rules are broken .... is WP:POINT.

So I've removed the section about WP:POINT here.

Hmm, on the other hand, being POINTy does involve wikilawyering, though that's the other way around. <scratches head>

--Kim Bruning 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Added nutshell

Not sure if it was entirely allowed, but added the nutshell to the page as a step towards guidelinehood:

CaveatLector^Talk 12:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a complete and concise summary of this essay. It certainly has validity, however I think the current wording is kinda ambiguous and doesn't encompass the entire point of the essay. Anyone else have opinions? /Blaxthos 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember a site I was on once whose rules stated, amongst other things, that "anything we don't like is illegal". I would word the nutshell in a matter somewhat like this: .211.30.134.111 03:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat Confusing Example

"For example, while it is often impossible to definitely establish the actual user behind a set of sockpuppets, it is not a defense that all the sockpuppets which emerge were not named in the request for arbitration."

I'm not sure this is all that clear. The second example (that repeatedly reverting the same article 3 times a day is still illegal) is much better. I think we should perhaps delete the first one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.134.111 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed! I find it really confusing, to be honest, not just somewhat confusing. I am not even sure if I got the idea. Ok I am not an english native, but I think the ideas should be presented in a way that everyone can understand — not only those who have raised their english skill to the "state of the art" level. "it is not a defense" – for who? "which emerge" – when/where/how do they emerge? "were not named in the request..." – named for what? for defending the clone owner? named as clones? Sorry, what are you talking about? You mean, someone might ask for his clones to be named to express opinions about who is right or wrong? Well even in that case, if no one knows the sockpuppets are sockpuppets, then the defendant can have a point. In the end, you can't say to a guy: "dude, there is no use to tell me that X,Y and Z have the same opinion with you — We KNOW they are clones". Maybe what I say now starts to sound like real wikilawyering but my point is:

1. The statement is too vague / poorly made (in my view)
2. If I got the point, then even the point of the statement is not very good: You can't dismiss someone saying "your supporters are clones anyways"

And yes, the 2nd example is so much better – and all theese are just opinions by the way Ark25 (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I got no idea what the first example means either, but after reading your interpretation, I think I now understand it as: It is not a defense if 4 other people (that were actually you) were blocked (or whatever else that is to be done to them) without the proper... arbitration process? Actually I still don't get it, but at least I can comprehend the concept that it's discussing the issue of dealing with substitutes that all belong to a single user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.153.53 (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

assign vs. appoint

I don't understand the following phrase and suspect that "assigns" should have been "appoints":

 "when a person assigns themselves a mediator"

Incidentally, I prefer "himself" to "themselves" in this context. To infer that "himself" implies the male gender is simply erroneous, and no justification for brutalizing our language. Unfree (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletionist question

Is the point of the wikipedia policies to suggest how things should be done? Or are they absolute rules that must be followed in every situation? You have people referring to themselves as deletionist who believe in deleting every article they can, for no other reason, other than they not meeting the current notability guidelines exactly. I see bestselling novels being nominated for deletion at times, because the sales figures do not make something notable under the current rules. Since the media doesn't always review every type of book there is out there, it can get no coverage at all from what are considered notable review sources. Would this be considered Wikilawyering? What about manga that have been published in Shonen Jump, the most influential magazine in the manga industry? In the Japanese wikipedia this makes it automatically notable, but in the English wikipedia, it does not. The number of people reading the magazine should make it notable, I believe. A number of such articles were recently deleted. Some argue that even if something has been translated into many languages, made into an anime, and has a large fan base, it isn't technically notable under the current notable policies, and should be deleted. Examples of this can be found on the manga delete page for AFD. Reading over the wikilawyering page, I'm thinking that type of action is what wikilawyering is. What does everyone think? Dream Focus (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Offensive Title

(continued below, in April 2010)

This is an offensively named page. By its very nature, it uses "lawyer" as a pejoritive term. It is inappropriate to insult an entire profession in order to caricature some behaviour you don't like. It's completely inappropriate to throw around "lawyer" as a term of abuse. Find another name for this or delete the entire page (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, no? Regardless of the origin of the term, I think the name makes the concept instantly clear. Do you have a suggested alternative? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why "making a concept clear" in any way justifies an inappropriate, insulting name (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)).

The alternative title of "pettifoggery" or "wikipettifoggery" might be appropriate. "Wikilawyering" is terribly offensive. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

The perjorative use of "lawyer" is so well established in Australian English, as in bush lawyer for example, that IMO we do the profession no insult by using it here. But I guess it would be politically correct to avoid it. Andrewa (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That a pejoritive use of a profession is well-established makes it no less offensive or inappropriate. It just means people have gotten used to it, which is actually worse (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)).

I can see how you might make that moral judgement. But Wikipedia is not the place to promote these views, commendable as they may be. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that Wikipedia is the place to promote and encourage the stereotype that lawyers are, by definition, unscrupulous cavilers and pettifoggers? That is what we're currently doing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support GTB! I've deliberately used the language of "offensive" and "inappropriate". The term is an offensive violation of civility and an inappropriate violation of pov. It is an offensive violation of civility because it is insulting people on the basis of their profession. It is an inappropriate violation of pov, because saying that lawyering is caviling and pettifogging is just as pov on the wikilawyer page as it would be on the lawyer page (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)).

Ah, but we do quite rightly allow much more latitude in what is said in project pages, as distinct to articles, and still more latitude in talk pages. It's not a blank cheque of course. Andrewa (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, and I do not agree that we're doing it here. But nor is it the place to campaign against his stereotype. It's a fine line sometimes.

But it's a rather long bow to say that a lawyer would be offended by this page IMO. Creatures with such thin skins are unlikely to be lawyers.

And that's not a put-down of lawyers either. I was an auditor, an arguably more misunderstood profession than the law. And I'm still a drummer. But at least I never suffered things like what I once read in a women's magazine: Would you go out with an undertaker? Maybe not. I mean, you couldn't help wondering where those hands have been... Now that's cruel. Andrewa (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, this was discussed in the past. Wikipedia talk:Wikilawyering/Archive 1#Pejorative? and Wikipedia talk:Wikilawyering/Archive 1#pejorative term, if not elsewhere too.   Will Beback  talk  05:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of those are about using the term as a pejorative against another editor. I'm talking about its use being offensive to the profession that it is using as an insult. If one goes around "accusing" people of acting like lawyers, it isn't just offensive to them, it's offensive to lawyers. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)).

It is inappropriate to act like a museum guard when one is on a bus. If one were doing that, I might tell them to stop "museum guarding". That's nothing against museum guards, it's just not the right context for the behavior. If someone were in court, acting like an encyclopedist, when I had hired them to represent me in a trial, then I might ask them to stop "encyclopedist-ing". That's nothing against encyclopedists, it's just not the right context for the behavior.

That's how I see "wikilawyering". Lawyering is great, in court. It's inappropriate on the wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying only applies to the first of the four characteristics, using legal terms inappropriately out of context. The other three are:

2 Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;

3 Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;

4 Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

Saying that this is "lawyering" is an offensive caricature of lawyers, implying somehow that being a lawyer is about misusing the letter of the law against its spirit or deliberately misinterpreting the law. Your museum guard analogy is inappropriate, because it's not that lawyering would be inappropriate on the wiki, but that what this policy claims to be equivalent to lawyering in an insulting charicature (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)).

Hmm... I understand what you're saying. In my opinion, telling another editor that you think they're lawyering is a pretty bad idea no matter what we call it, because it doesn't tend to advance the discussion, but rather to trigger defensiveness and polarization. However, it is a useful concept to keep in mind, because one wishes to avoid doing it oneself. I think the correct verb is probably "caviling", but I don't think that one is very well known.

You're right, I think. It's not a good use of language. It's based on a negative caricature of what lawyers do. This issue has come up before, and I suspect it would be very difficult to get the community to agree to a name change. This name is pretty well ingrained. I suspect that it's difficult to convince people that it's an important issue, probably because we don't see lawyers as suffering due to perceptions of pettiness, over-technicality, etc., etc.

It can be difficult to change policies and guidelines around here. Simply putting a question to a vote doesn't tend to be effective at bringing about change, because it forces a fast polarization of the issue, before the reasons behind it have been properly drawn out for all to see, and new ideas tend to get voted down quickly.

A more successful model of policy change is to write an essay, point people to it in relevant contexts, and gradually drum up support in that way. When the essay seems to be catching on, and you see other people citing it regularly, then it might be in a position that it can be changed to a guideline, at which point more and more editors will start to take notice, without having the knee-jerk reaction that would otherwise occur. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that this is "lawyering" is an offensive caricature of lawyers, implying somehow that being a lawyer is about misusing the letter of the law against its spirit or deliberately misinterpreting the law. - It's not? Perhaps if there weren't so very very very very very many lawyers that do just that, this page would have a different name. But the current name is both accurate and correct. Raul654 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This comment is an insult to all of the good lawyers who do things like defend your rights, Raul654. I'm quite happy that history is filled with lawyers who went ahead and made the world better. You seem to write them off the page.

I think the comment you made is beneath you, Raul. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying all lawyers are like the ones I just described. (FWIW, I'm a dues-paying member of the EFF, and my brother and his fiance are both taking the bar exam next month) But to imply, as Smallvillefanatic did, that it's a "caricature" without a strong basis in reality is to live in a fantasy world. Raul654 (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the question is whether it has a strong basis in reality. The question is whether or not it's offensive, and I can understand why it can easily be taken that way. I can understand that using the word helps maintain and propagate the (yes, reality-based) stereotype. I don't think that's something we need to be doing, if we can reasonably use a less likely-to-offend term. I realize that's a significant "if", which I think is apparent in my comment above. However, I feel it is inappropriate to simply write the question off as "well, lawyers are unscrupulous cavilers, so why use the word 'lawyer' to mean unscrupulous caviler?"

A lot of Romani people ripped a lot of people off over the years, so why not use the word "gyp" to mean rip off? A lot of African Americans are in jail for possession of crack cocaine, so should we call people who smoke crack "darkies"? Social conditions have assured those two stereotypes a solid basis in reality, so let's play, right?

A reading of Smallville's statement that takes his words to imply that the caricature is not reality-based... is certainly not the only reading, nor to my mind the likely one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point, Raul (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)).

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 1#Wikipedia:Pettifoggery → Wikipedia:WikiLawyering, another discussion.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• CONTINUED (April 2010): I have finally created redirect WP:Wikifinagle, so the term can be called "wikifinagling" as in finagle, even bending rules in ways not used in a courtroom. The term wikifinagle avoids "lawyer" while also being a short word, and highly intuitive. This change follows the prior renaming of "wiki-stalking" as WP:Wikihounding, to avoid mistaking the criminal tone of "stalking" a person on the street. The renaming has been requested for a year. -Wikid77 23:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Move WP:Wikilawyering to WP:Wikifinagling

(revised) We can rename the concept of "Wikilawyering" as "Wikifinagling" (now a different essay) and move the essay to that new title, automatically changing name "WP:Wikilawyering" into a redirect. Many people have noted the offensive nature of the term "Wikilawyering" as a troubling slur against lawyers, just as a negative term of "Wiki-student" (as an bumbling, inept newcomer) could be predicted to offend students, especially, some graduate students who would reject the notion they were instantly inept. See discussion from June 2009, #Offensive Title (above). The intended view of "wikifinagling" is as a broad term (not just with lawyers) while also tied to "pettifoggery" plus, the term "wikifinagle" can hint at any type of non-court activity which bends the rules. This renaming follows the prior renaming of "wiki-stalking" as WP:Wikihounding, to avoid legal term "stalking".

To re-route the other redirect links, the following would need to be changed (after the move/rename of WP:Wikilawyering to WP:Wikifinagling):

• Change redirect WP:LAWYER to "Wikifinagling".
• Change redirect WP:WL to "Wikifinagling".

Currently, the name "WP:Wikifinagle" can be used immediately to discuss wikifinagling in talk-pages where lawyers are likely to be most offended. I apologize it took so long to define the term as "wikifinagle" but the volunteers have little time, and there are 3 million articles to edit, so everyone got distracted about the offensive implications. -Wikid77 08:28, 18 April 2010 (revised 10:44, 22 April 2010)

Sounds like a much needed improvement. I agree that the use of the term Wikilawyering as a pejorative term is unneccesarily offensive to lawyers, who, after all, provide valuable services to society and are crucial to the upholding of our Constitutions. Thank you Wikid77 for taking the time to correct this unintended slight against lawyers. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have changed the recommendation, as now, to rename Wikilawyering as "Wikifinagling" with the same insinuations of devious forms of behavior, and without treating the term "lawyer" as being synonymous. -Wikid77 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal, for the simple reason that 'wikilawyering' is much easier to understand without having to read the page - I don't think I've ever heard the word 'finagling' before, and if I saw it mentioned I'd have to read the page to understand what it was about. We should keep titles simple wherever possible. And for the record, I am currently studying to be a lawyer, and the current name doesn't offend me one bit. Robofish (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Even if the term were offensive (and there are good arguments above to explain that it is not), there is no possibility of any individual having a reason to feel offended, so no harm is done by using the term. Lawyers are expected to follow up every nuance of law in order to achieve their desired outcome, and that behavior is fine in a court of law. However, such behavior is not fine here, hence the term "wikilawyer" which means to apply a noble profession (being a lawyer) to the building of an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose again, commonly used terminology derived from ruleslawyering. We can revisit the debate when that article has been renamed to a more lawyer-friendly title. —Кузьма^討論 08:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - although the tendency among laypeople to blame lawyers for using rules for their intended purpose or otherwise is most lamentable (and often used in service of promoting emotional responses, pure advocacy, or naked aggression over principle-based decisions), the essay title correctly reflects the sentiment behind it, for better or worse. When people accuse each other of wikilawyering they are accusing each other of over-attention to formal rule, presumably in service of a hidden goal. Finagling means something different, and implies cheating and deceitful bargaining.[2] - Wikidemon (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikilawyering is the perfect term for what it describes. Wikilawyers are actual or would-be real-life lawyers who confuse Wikipedia with the real world. These people should constantly be reminded that this is not the place for their hobby. It is entirely normal that wikilawyers find the term offensive, but that is their problem. DVdm (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The phrase "Monday-morning quarterback" is not a slur on real quarterbacks; it instead highlights the absurdity of the underqualified and inept attempting to don the mantle of one with genuine skills, abilities, and responsibilities. The parallel with the extant question ought to be obvious. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose because Wikilawyering is much clearer than Wikifinagling, and I'm not convinced real lawyers would actually be offended by this term. Laurent (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Proposal to rename withdrawn. After 41 days of discussion, there was considerable opposition, including by several admins, so I have withdrawn the proposal, for lack of consensus to rename. In any future discussions which might offend some lawyer(s), the related term "WP:Wikifinagle" can be linked to provide a similar concept, of misusing or bypassing the rules (without mentioning the word "lawyer" in that misuse). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this rule or another rule discourage excessive complaining?

If editor X incessantly seeks administrative action against editor Y, and those requests are denied, what policy or guideline is editor X violating?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but there are often no precise rules for situations like that (and no, this page is not relevant). Next time you see such a thing, ask this question wherever the discussion is taking place. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, the interaction between X and Y may be occurring at a dozen different places, instead of one single place. C'est la Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2