|
Who writes policy → Chat policy → Forum policy → You are bound by current policy → Discussion policy → Desktop is definitive → When do local rules prevail? → No personal attacks → Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point |
If you disagree with a policy or guideline, don't edit this wiki so as to prove your point. It's a truism of wiki editing that no rule can ever be written which is completely applicable in every situation. There will always be exceptions to the rules, especially because Doctor Who is a vast topic with 60 years of history.
When we say, as we do at T:HONOURIFICS, that periods should generally not follow "Dr", we know that there are cases where our franchise's main character is rendered "Dr. Who" (and you can of course use the period when discussing the contents of this specific source). This doesn't invalidate T:HONOURIFICS, however, and it definitely doesn't give you licence to start correcting every instance of "Dr" to "Dr." just because you wish we'd swung the other way for the general rule.
Equally:
- Don't create pages about false or frivolous topics. Just because you don't like T:HONOURIFICS doesn't mean we need List of times that Dr. Who appeared in the end credits
- Don't edit articles against your own beliefs — or, more importantly, the facts — just to demonstrate a problem with a rule. So don't start an article at Dr. Who Magazine just to emphasise your disdain for T:HONOURIFICS.
- Don't waste other editors' time by opening up discussions that are materially the same as other, concluded discussions. You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic.
Here are some other examples of how to uphold this policy:
| Case | Do | Do not |
|---|---|---|
| If someone slaps a {{delete}} tag on your favourite article ... | explain on the talk page why you disagree | engage in "an eye for an eye" behaviour by slapping a {{delete}} tag on another article, giving the same rationale |
| If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it... | participate in the discussion, basing your argument our policies | 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 "unimportant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject... | explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion | delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant" |
| If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content... | find a valid source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source | summarily remove from that page or other pages everything which appears to be unsourced |
| If you think that our list of valid sources has unfairly omitted (or included) a particular source ... | start a thread at Forum:Panopticon arguing why that source's status should be changed | use it as a source when you know it is under discussion or fails one of the "four little rules" |
| If someone claims that you're violated our ban against personal attacks... | immediately defuse the situation by apologising, then be extra-cautious with your words in the future | claim that the other person has actually been violating that rule too |
A blockable offence
If you do start making the kinds of edits that this rule argues against, you will be blocked from further editing. Please remember that the administrative staff staff here are not paid — even those who work for Fandom are not generally paid for their work at Tardis — and most of this sort of activity simply creates more work for them to clean up.
Posting in the forums
It should be noted that challenging current policy in a constructive way in a public forum (while using one space for a single issue) should not lead to blocking. This is the community's right and responsibility, per Tardis:Who writes policy.
However, new posts will be closed, potentially without warning, if no new evidence (or important change of circumstances) has been presented which sets this discussion apart from the last time the community mulled this over and reached consensus.
You may not personally have been party to the original discussion, but it is disruptive to the wiki to demand that we retread this old ground, unless you're bringing something new to the table.
(If you repeatedly start new discussions about the same topic, without new information, even after having been warned, you will be blocked from further editing. This disruptive behaviour will not lead to a faster resolution, and will not change the outcome of past decisions.)