Wikipedia talk:Wikilawyering

Offensiveness, again
As an openly-admitted lawyer (see my user page), and in part to Laurent's assertion that real lawyers might not feel offended, I have to at least weigh in and say that I do, in fact, find the term offensive. The arguments made, above, for why lawyers shouldn't feel offended by it are themselves contrived and, frankly, Wiki(substitute N-word)rigged.

Would you have been offended by that term, had I spelled it out? Why? It just refers to the practice of shoddily constructing something. Everyone knows what it really means, it's not really a reference to African-Americans, and African-Americans shouldn't therefore be offended by its use. I could go on with references to Wiki(I-word)giving and Wiki(J-word)ing and Wiki(B-word)ery, but I won't because my intent is not to disrupt WP to make my point.

Appeals to bush lawyer, barrack lawyer, and ruleslawyer are of no benefit, they're just as offensive as wikilawyer. Frankly, the foregoing comments of DVdm as much prove my point as not, and he's not the first editor who I've encountered who has expressed or implied the idea that if lawyers cannot set aside their lawyerly habits that they simply shouldn't be editing WP at all. Indeed, the first subparagraph of the Wikilawyering section comes very close, indeed, to saying just that in a damning-by-faint-praise manner. (And it's interesting to note that when that subparagraph was in 2006 that the Association of Member's Advocates was still in its heyday and was in fact playing a disruptive, er..., active role at ArbCom and other fora. Now the Association is gone (and it went away a few months before I began editing here), that subparagraph can even more strongly be read to say that lawyers need not participate.)

I must, however, say that Wikifinagling is not an adequate substitute, nor is Wikipettifoggery nor a prior at WikiCaviling. Rather than come up with a substitute term, I would advocate for eliminating its use altogether. Perhaps others can come up with examples of where it was properly used in its exact meaning to describe what someone was actually doing, but I strongly suspect that it is rarely, if ever, used other than as an unfounded accusation and, as such, is just a form of name-calling. Let's give it up. Shorthand terms are convenient, but when they're offensive we can take the time to say what we mean — emphasizing the letter of policy over its intent — rather than offending. Though I grew up in a time, place, and culture where the use of racial epithets for African-Americans and Latinos were part of everyday parlance, I don't use them. Not out of political correctness or fear of getting in trouble but simply because they might offend. Why should we prohibit the use of "racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets" (and to those who would say that the ones which are prohibited are the ones that one cannot choose, such as race, age, or sex, I would point out the inclusion of "religious" and "political" in that list), but yet allow this one? If we're going to foster a culture of collegiality and consensus, why should we encourage the use of terms that can offend?

Full disclosure: I have, and do, on occasion use the term, but I ordinarily do so in a jocular way to refer to my own positions and arguments, not to refer to the activities of others. Since coming to Wikipedia in 2007 I've been trying, probably not always successfully, to use my skills as an attorney to benefit the encyclopedia and to change the term wikilawyer from a negative one to a positive one, so I've not avoided its use.

Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "wikilawyer" refers to misguided attempts to look for loopholes in procedures, in order to excuse unhelpful behavior at Wikipedia. There is no reason for a lawyer to find the term offensive since the "lawyer" part of the term is not used in any disparaging manner. As a website, Wikipedia is fundamentally different from Real Life, and wikilawyers are editors who mistakenly imagine that RL approaches to rules are useful here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The essay says, "It may refer to certain quasi-legal practices ... In other words a 'wikilawyer' is an image drawn from a lawyer" (it said "poor lawyer" until in February, but I've not reverted it because, frankly I'm not sure which one is more offensive), so that's the most WikiPolish (i.e. stupid) argument I've recently encountered. Oh, that usage shouldn't be offensive to Polish people since I'm only really referring to the Poles who are actually stupid, not all of them, just as Wikilawyer only refers to the lawyers who misguidedly practice law in an irresponsible manner. And by tacking "Wiki" on the front I'm clearly limiting its use to here at WP and not making any reference to Real Life. The fact is both those terms refer to an implied and false stereotype and are patently offensive. (And I apologize to my Polish family, friends, and relatives for using the term even for purposes of illustration.) There is certainly a reason for lawyers to be offended by the term and, indeed, I am offended. I must admit, moreover, that I may have been wrong in one of the things that I said above, in particular, the observation that the behavior currently described by the term wikilawyering may not really occur often enough here to justify any term to describe it. Your argument could not be a clearer example of "4. [R]elying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lawyer" is a chosen profession, not an unchangeable accident of birth. What about WP:POLICE? Offensive to cops? Needs to be changed? What if somehow there was an essay WP:PUMPINGAS? I can just hear the cries of  "that's offensive to gas station attendants!" Not the same thing as using slurs against someone's ethnicity or race. Not even close. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Religion and political affiliation, both of which are personal choices, are protected by WP:NPA. I'm not suggesting, however, that professions ought to be added to that list, but only that this essay ought to be revised not to use the term "wikilawyering" and to state that the use of the term is discouraged; in other words, I'm not saying that the use of the term ought to be banned, but only that the encouragement of the use of the term ought to be discontinued. As such, the use of wikilawyer would become much like the use of profanity on WP: tolerated but not favored. It should be noted that in addition to the categories banned by WP:NPA, and notwithstanding WP:PROFANE, WP is not insensitive to mere offensiveness: we block usernames for offensiveness as mild as "poo" (block log, 13:46, 25 July 2011) and "bastard" (block log, 14:40, 1 August 2011). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's true that username policy enforcement has become absurdly prudish. That doesn't seem particularly relevant to the naming of this essay. I also don't see any personal attack, so NPA is not really relevant either. This is dead horse, I suggest you let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And, indeed, I have dropped the stick insofar as I never intended to do anything more than, first, register my objections here and, second, to hope, without much real hope of success, that the community would listen. I do reserve the right, however, to continue to respond to comments made here (or elsewhere, if a discussion about the appropriateness of the term should come up), but I haven't gone around, and don't intend to go around, being a disruption and objecting or raising the issue every time I come onto the term being used outside this discussion and, indeed, wouldn't have said anything more here had you not commented. (And that's not intended to be criticism: I welcome your, or anyone else's civil, good faith remarks on the subject and, though I disagree with what you've said, would like to thank you for making your comments.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We regularly use "police" and "cop" in the same manner ("No one needs you play wikicop around here", etc.). Real police officers might be a bit twinged by that.  But I submit that they knew what they were getting into.  Everyone who goes to law school or police academy knows that some people do not hold every single aspect of their profession, or more to the point, every single behavior pattern by every member of their profession, in high regard.  Any reasonable Wikipedian will also understand that the overall behavior patterns of these professions – to argue technicalities to win for one side even if the end result isn't the overall best outcome collectively, in the case of lawyers, and to enforce a law-and-order pattern under a strict code, in the case of police – are not very constructive approaches here.  PS: Comparing racist epithets to criticism of lawyers is about the worst false equivalence case I've encountered here in years. [Yes, I'm "necroposting" on purpose; this is the first post people see on this page, and we're not archiving it for some reason.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

commonsensical? really?
''Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsensical way "

A small point, but is "commonsensical" a real word? I've certainly never seen the term "common sense" turned into a compound word before but maybe I'm just behindthetimesensical. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it . Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Commonsensible" would make more sense, but that's not a word, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course commonsensical is a real word.  Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This article has an unusual structure, and lack of coverage of main points in the body of the article
While the lead usually summarizes the article, in this case the lead is the only coverage of the main points of the article and the body of it just contains specialized sidebar notes. I IMHO long term more in-depth coverage of the main concepts introduced in the lead would be good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Misleading
In addition to being highly offensive, this essay is also misleading in that it encourages people to think that on Wikipedia we may do without law, lawfulness, and lawyers. None of this is true. Hyacinth (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not written with sufficient precision and narrow operative clauses to be used as law.   And the most common persistent problems in Wikipedia are MISUSE of policies and guidelines while using claims of "enforcing the rules" as cover. Highlighting this problem and giving it a name (as this does) is a much-needed small step towards resolving or minimizing this. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments above which explain what this term means, and why it is not at all offensive. Johnuniq (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this an April Fool's post, or not? I can never tell what I should take seriously on Wikipedia today.  I'll note in passing that by far the most respected and trusted member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is a real-life lawyer&mdash;something the community is entirely untroubled by.  (Indeed, the more editors like Newyorkbrad that we can have, the better.)  This essay isn't aimed at lawyers; it's aimed at the people who try to act like the fake lawyers they see in television melodramas: the ones who use perceived loopholes in written rules to generate pointless drama. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, really? I believe I've more than adequately demonstrated in my posts of May 12, 2011, and August 1, 2011, above just how it is offensive and, I repeat, that as an attorney I do, in fact, find it offensive. TenOfAllTrades, if it's not aimed at lawyers then its name is misleading: simply rename it and the problem is solved. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 19:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * One more word, @North8000, if "Wikilawyer" means all those who "MISUSE ... policies and guidelines while using claims of 'enforcing the rules' as cover" then it implies that all lawyers misuse the law in the name of enforcing it. That implication is exactly what is offensive about the term. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 19:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There are several fatal logical flaws in what you just said. But rather than dissect that, I'll go right to what I think is the heart of it.  A portion of the profession IS influencing the outcome of some things by working the technicalities of something, and yes, sometimes that does include going against the clear intent of the law/contract etc..  A parallel situation does exist in Wikipedia,  and I think that the term is named after that particular type of action, not the profession as a whole. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See my post of May 12, above, which directly addresses that argument. Naming a whole group for the actions of a few is stereotyping. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I now see what you are saying. It's not about the actual practice in Wikipedia, it's that it is using the name of a profession in a way that implies that the profession is negative.  Do you have a better idea on a name to use for this behavior? North8000 (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm heading towards 12,000 edits here and about all I do here at WP is dispute resolution. I'm the third most active editor at Third Opinion, the second most active at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and one of the coordinators at the (currently on hold) Mediation Cabal. I don't say this to brag but to only demonstrate that I have seen, or jumped into the middle of, a very large number of the most bitter content disputes that go on here at WP, and that brings me to my point: I don't think there is such a behavior, or at least not such a wide-spread one as to necessitate a name for it. What I have seen, time and again, is it being used pejoratively and/or as an attempt to shout down rather than really answer a bona fide (if occasionally incorrect or clumsy) appeal to policy. Indeed, I can only recall one instance in which I've actually seen the behavior the term is intended to describe (and even in that case it was not absolutely clear whether that was the actual purpose or whether the editor just didn't know what s/he was talking about). Thus I'm not at all sure we need a term at all and, if we do, then the behavior can simply be described rather than be named. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it seems overwhelmingly obvious that the most persistent problems are not violation of policies, but mis-use of policies to conduct warfare, mostly along the lines of the behaviors called wikilawyering. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've not seen that, except perhaps once. Please don't take this to be a challenge or a gauntlet-toss, it's just an expression of curiosity: Could you point me to some examples of what you've seen? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * These two came to mind just due to the quantity of examples (maybe 50) in one place of mis-using policies to conduct warfare. These are non-typical in two ways: POV is not the motivation for the warfare, and the degree of cleverness in obscuring that it is such.  At Machine vision, just about everything in editing and talk from  10/28/2010-10/11/2011 and on 5/13/12.  At Feast of the Hunters' Moon  just about everything in the last 2 years. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have had similar feelings, and have just tried to edit the essay accordingly. Perhaps I was over bold so revert if you like. Otherwise, what I just did was only intended as a beginning to address these issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that yours and my feeling are in opposite directions. IMHO, using policies for purposes other than for the good of Wikipedia (e.g. to conduct warfare, POV an article) is a widespread and severe problem, and giving it a pejorative name is a good tool to try to fix it.  But it's unfortunate that the pejorative name includes the the name of a profession in it.   Your good faith effort & edit (thanks you for your efforts) goes the other way, and also in a conversational tone. I did not revert, but those are my thoughts.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking first. I think you are referring to my first edit which I don't feel that strongly about and intended mainly as a peace offering based on some of the other remarks here.  The edit I do really care about elaborates on one way the term is often misused.  Do you like or dislike the latter? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just clarifying, I don't feel strongly enough to revert and didn't plan to.  But it does have that conversational wording issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that TransporterMan thinks wikilawyering isn't real because his experience at WP:DR process pages is amongst editors actually trying in good faith to resolve disputes. These are the least likely places to find actual wikilawyers. They are mostly trying to  DR processes, and rely on haughty (but wrong or wrong-headed) proclamations about policy to get their way without having to go through something that mediatorial. As for the term being offensive, it shouldn't be.  If acting like a psychiatrist and giving out bogus, incompetent, and bad-faith-motivated diagnoses were a real problem, we'd call these people "wikishrinks", with the same implication: The wiki- prefix in such a context indicates on-wiki wannabe behavior, much like "armchair-" or "barroom-" would indicate similar sorts of poorly qualified and self-important pontificating).  Actually, wikishrinks  a problem. I think I should write that essay. I can't even estimate the number of times I've seen someone on here trying to make a mental diagnosis of another editor; it's one of our most common forms of incivility. Anyway, picture it in a different context. If this were a role-playing game, and someone were trying to bluster all the time about the rules, we'd call them gamelawyers.  Because real-life lawyers are in fact often trying, in order to best represent the interests of their clients, to exploit loopholes and evade common-sense judicial findings by extreme literal interpretation of a law or regulation, it's just a real-world fact that lawyers as a profession have a reputation for this, and that it will be used metaphorically. Too bad, so sad. It's not even lawyers' fault, but that of the legal system being adversarial, and legal ethics (of defense attorneys, and civil litigators) being grounded in what's best for the client, not what's best for the community. (Prosecutors are supposed to focus on the latter, though they tend to focus in reality on what is best for political perception of their effectiveness in the role.) So, yet a third way of looking at this: WP is not a legal system; wikilawyering is the bringing of a lawyerlike approach to dispute resolution (particularly one dominated by WP:WINNING, "proof by verbosity", nit-picking at technicalities, and other techniques common to that style of argument, into a community in which that is inappropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a discussion somewhere on the culture of Wikipedia becoming too legalistic?
I'm worried that Wikipedia is being encumbered by people who legalistically wield an arsenal of policies and guidelines to push for changes they would like that are of questionable value. Anyone who does not have a detailed command of the policies and guidelines will be at a disadvantage in such an encounter, even if their basic argument is sound. This is not simply frustrating for the newbie or the editor who never got around to reading all of the guidelines; in my opinion it is bad for Wikipedia and creates a situation where committed activities activists are able to park on pages and prevent a balanced presentation of various viewpoints. I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. Is there a thread somewhere where this topic is being discussed? Many thanks in advance for any leads. modify 02:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There are 19 pages of sporadic discussion about that topic at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules. I don't know any place where there is active, ongoing discussion about it, but let me give you my take on it. But before I do I should tell you that this is one of the oldest, most fundamental arguments at Wikipedia. So much so, as a matter of fact, that the various sides on it are included in the Wikimedian philosophies at Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. Here's the problem: Without rules, we end up wasting vast amounts of time repeating the same arguments over and over and over again. Moreover, due to the size of this place, many of those arguments are going to come to opposite results, causing inconsistency. What rules do is to set basic principles; or as the consensus policy puts it, policy is the recorded consensus of the community. The problem with that is that broad rules don't always give clear guidance in particular situations and sometimes cause the wrong outcome in some particular situations, so the broad rules are modified to become more complex and new rules are adopted. And the more complex the overall system is, the more complex the rules then become. That then causes the very problems that you raise above (and is the reason that lawyers, like me, exist in the real world): the system becomes so complex that it is difficult for the average person to comprehend and deal with. Moreover, as you point out, it allows people with a good knowledge of the rules to misuse the rules to obtain results which are not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. That's wikilawyering (a term which I dislike for reasons I've stated earlier on this talk page), which is what this article is about. One of the reasons that dispute resolution (DR) exists at Wikipedia, however, is to provide a pool of neutral editors who can help newcomers and others who are less experienced with the rules against editors who misuse them. However, I have to end by saying that I work at all levels of DR and I very rarely encounter situations in which I believe that an experienced editor is intentionally wikilawyering. I see it far more often in encounters between a slightly-experienced editor versus a truly inexperienced editor, and even then it is more often due to a careless misunderstanding of the rules than a fully-considered and intentional misuse of them. Finally, if you are in a conflict in which you feel that you may be being wikilawyered, consider asking for a Third Opinion or filing a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or asking for a clarification of the rules at Editor Assistance or one of the specialized noticeboards such as Reliable Sources Noticeboard (there's at least a partial list here). If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to try to answer them. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the very informative reply. I've seen problems arise in various contexts over the years; the one that brings me here is an AfD request which I think is being made for reasons other than the stated intent; it appears to be part of someone's crusade against pseudoscience, and he does not appear to care about whether the article is informative or not or whether the information can be verified. Which if any of those lines of action do you suggest I pursue in this instance? modify 03:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually none of them. AfD is kind of a dispute resolution venue in itself because an experienced user, usually an administrator, will evaluate the arguments and decide whether there is consensus to delete or retain the article. Note "evaluate"; if there is wikilawyering going on, it will be immediately apparent to the experienced closer. On the other hand, users who merely feel that they are at a disadvantage because of other users' familiarity with policy have time to bone up on the policies being asserted to see if they apply and make counterarguments. Moreover, there is an "appeal" via WP:DELREV if anyone feels that the closing editor misinterpreted consensus either way. For that reason, the regular content dispute resolution processes do not accept filings in regard to matters pending at AfD. I've looked through the discussion there and I see nothing that obviously appears to be wikilawyering; at the same time, however, your argument made there that the article is generally valuable and should be kept only for that reason is very unlikely to be persuasive because it flies against the verifiability principle which is one of the three most fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia frequently excludes information which is unquestionably true and vitally important merely because sources cannot be found which meet Wikipedia's standards. Your concern expressed just above about "whether the information can be verified" should be carefully evaluated by the closer, however. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A side-band problem is that WP:DR does not cover anything that is not a mainspace content dispute. An enormous shipload of wikilawyering goes on outside of articles and their talk pages, and there seems to be no recourse of any kind other than a full-blown ArbCom case. If you take it to AN*, what almost inevitably happens is that whichever party is more popular with the pool of editors and admins paying attention that day will get their way, no matter what the underlying facts are. And they noticeboards are stacked with drama-mongers and vigilantes, not with those interested in dispute, just disputation punishment.  Often, whoever of the conflicting parties simply posts the shorter responses wins. I've seen this result so many times I generally don't bother with admin noticeboards for anything any longer.  If you don't have an entourage, and you actually try to explain your "case", instead of just relying on dismissive but catchy one-liner arguments to emotion, you're fucked. WP very badly needs a WP:DR process that will mediate disputes about the editing of policies and guidelines, templates and modules, Help: and Mediawiki: pages, user talk, etc., etc., not just article content.  ANI in particular is a ridiculous farce. It simply isn't true that "if there is wikilawyering going on, it will be immediately apparent to the experienced"; it might be if they'd bother looking but they generally don't. Closers of noticeboard disputes in particular are often looking to punish someone for allegedly "disrupting" the noticeboard itself or the forum from when came the dispute, with zero interest in the details of the dispute.  Someone engaging in shameless OR, even source falsification, can get away scott-free if the filer of a noticeboard action against is seen as not quite polite enough about it. The typical result at noticeboards is that the argument is skimmed, the diffs ignored, and whoever is liked better will get what they want, while anyone who irritated anyone else (even years ago) will get railroaded, no matter how in-the-right they actually are with regard to the matter under dispute. If you have a previous block (no matter for what, no matter whether it was valid or not), and the opposing party does does, you lose. Master "wikipoliticians" can manipulate these effect, and do so frequently, but that's really a different form of WP:GAMING from wikilawyering.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Unclear
I hear "wikilawyering" a lot around Wikipedia but this essay doesn't make it any clearer. It seems to say that wikilawyering is following too strictly to the rules but that doesn't seem like it would be that big of a Wiki crime.

When I hear the term, what I THINK it means is editors/Admins who answer questions by replying with rules (like WP:DEADHORSE, WP:HOUND, WP:NOTHERE) instead of actually providing answers or responses. They just quote policy instead of addressing the details of a dispute.

Would this be a valid interpretation? Liz Let's Talk 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No. Depending on the degree to which it is done and to whom, that's just either a bit of discourtesy or newcomer biting. Wikilawyering is using a rule in a false or misleading way to try to achieve an outcome other than what was actually intended by the rule (a concept which has its own set of problems, since under the policy policy, which is not a typographical error, rules here are supposed to be written to say what was intended) or, more controversially, it means to intentionally use the rule as it is intended to achieve a result which is in strict compliance with the rule but which is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. As I've noted above, my personal opinion is that real wikilawyering (a term I dislike for reasons also stated above) is very rare and the term is more often used as shorthand for "I know that rule applies, but I don't like it because it won't let me do what I want to do" than for it's real meaning. On another level, there is a long-term dispute between what might be called the Wiki-idealists and the Wiki-bureaucrats in which the idealists say that the rules should be nothing more than general guidelines and should never be considered to be binding except in the most general sort of way and in which the bureaucrats say that the rules are there to help prevent constant disagreements over what should be done and should be followed except when there is a very good reason and consensus not to follow them. To an idealist, the bureaucrats' position can be seen as wikilawyering. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Re Liz's comment about DEADHORSE et al, I also see a lot of out-of-content misuse of NOTCENSORED and RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Skookum1 (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re TransporterMan's comments, those bureaucrats and their kind persistently ignore the Fifth Pillar when claiming that guidelines are policy or rules. But WP:There are no rules is very, very, very clear, and they are wrong.  Another one is using BLUDGEON when it is the person who is accused of that (simply for being long-winded as in my case, and staying on point persistently despite ongoing dismissals of same), when in fact the person wielding that essay - surely not a guideline? - is the one bludgeoning the person so criticized.  If you do not have TLRD syndrome, you are welcome to read the long new passage at the bottom of my own talkpage about that, and also in the last quarrels of the CfD on Feb 19 for "Squamish".  It's just a way to tell someone to shut up, and wielding an essay as if it were a policy...which is is not.  To me, the bureaucracy around here is getting stronger and stronger, and more obsessed with its own priorities than with content or actual encyclopedism, and guidelines are being used monodimensionally without WP:COMMONSENSE; WP:GOODJUDGMENT would use an essay too, though maybe COMMONSENSE covers that.  Wisdom is in short supply lately, very different from Wikipedia's early days IMO, and what we have instead is a lot of behind-the-scenes jockeying for control by people who want guidelines to be hard and fast....and who often revel in, and abuse, or misuse, their powers.  But if they actually weren't quoting and applying them out of context, would disprove their own positions; pointing that out has had me slapped with DEADHORSE and BLUDGEON and worse.Skookum1 (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

another lawyer's technique that should be added to the existing three
"There should be a new line added to the wikilawyering use of legal techniques; discrediting a proponent through attacks on their credibility and ability and even sanity as a way of having to avoid talking about the issues."

Word that how you like it, it's rife. Word it how you want in more strict terms, but it's definitely part of the wikilawyer milieu.Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've always seen this essay as relating specifically to how we cite procedure, etc, in word or deed. Real life lawyers have an endless bag of tricks beyond that sort of thing, and you are describing the run-of-the-mill "ad hominem".  There is no need to make a redundant entry in this essay because it is already covered in policy at No personal attacks.  See also, WP:ADHOM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in light of what I've said previously here, I'd scream like a panther and throw my shoes over the People's Bank building if that were added. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * re NewsAndEventsGuy's reply about NPA and ADHOM, that may be true, but these fall closely next to tub-thumping a guideline out of context or cherrypicking only one part of it; though NPA and ADHOM maybe are already linked in this article/guideline/essay/whatever-it-is, this particular tactic does fall in what I have seen (too much of) in wikilawyering-type activity. Often at the same time as the three techniques listed so far.Skookum1 (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Another lawyer-type action is launching procedural motions or objections in order to shut down or delay a discussion you do not want to take place, especially if you know that it will explore issues that will hurt your own case or undermine your own agenda.Skookum1 (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of these are already covered elsewhere. For the first, see WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NOT, etc. For the second, see WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:NOT, WP:FORUMSHOP, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect
I would like to retarget WP:LAWYER so that it redirects to Notability (law). I think that is a far more likely target than this essay, which is obviously a controversial target. James500 (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since no one has objected, I am going to put my plan into effect. James500 (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. James500 (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That got reverted immediately, on the grounds of link breakage. A 2017 RfD concluded with consensus to retain WP:LAWYER as a shortcut to this essay and WP:LAWYERS as a shortcut to the notability guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely I would fusion/delete it or shift "wikilawyering" by simply "Do not judge others unnecessarily"
Reasons:

1. It avoids fancy words and does not create unnecessary jargon. KISS.

2. People will catch quite better the meaning instead of omitting the true term and mixing two concepts which are actually distinct.

3. Sometimes on the wikitext it looks as if it had a wikishadow intention to spread out a wikicliche instead of advising about wikiethics.

4. Some of the more contributive editors on at least five of the largest Wikipedias (EN/ES/DE/FR/PT) have been actually lawyers.

5. New editors who are or were lawyers could find this despective and it promotes a bullying culture across the community against this segment.

6. This is depraving the word lawyer identifying its labor with a cultural habit that many people have, even if they did not become a lawyer. Likewise new forms such as Computational lawyering has nothing in common with this.

7. Using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community is what Wikipedia is not about winning and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point already means.

If you are reading this, you agreed, and you are the author or a sysop, please consider to shift "Wikilawyering" by "Do not judge other unnecessarily", fusion or simply delete it for being reiterated content and potentionally offensive or uncivil terminology. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Unsigned 04:34, 23 jun 2016 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by Unsigned (talk· contribs) actually added by 89.129.151.8 (talk·contribs)

3RR example
I reverted the edit because, contrary to the edit summary by user, this paragraph tells that reverting 3 times is actually not a good idea. Is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The text in dispute reads
 * As another example, the Three-Revert Rule is a measure of protection against edit warring. An editor who intentionally reverts the same article three times every day is not breaching the letter of this rule, but violates the principle of the rule – and can thus be sanctioned for revert warring. (underline added)
 * The underlined part is based on the faulty premise that 3RR is the rule instead of a means of measuring violations of the rule.  The rule itself is "thou shalt not edit war" and regulars at the edit war noticeboard frequently have to explain to people that the first re-revert without discussion breaks the letter of the rule even if the objective measuring stick known as 3RR has not yet been breached.   Better text here would replace the refernce to 3RR with a reference to the overall edit war policy, and change the example from three daily reverts to just one per day.  If we can get agreement in principle we can discuss draft text to implement it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see what other contributors will tell about this. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll tickle the 3RR boards, but meanwhile you're the ed who wanted to keep this text. Do you have any thoughts about my argument above? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that I understand NAEG's concern, but a simple improvement in the wording should be sufficient to preserve and clarify the meaning of the text. Something like "the Three-Revert Rule is intended to prevent edit-warring. An editor who reverts the same article three times day after day is violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule, and an editor who does this may be sanctioned for edit-warring." or something similar. I don't think that NAEG's much less specific proposal is helpful. Also if N is proposing to go to the 3RR board before there's any discussion here, that strikes me as kinda wikilawyering.  SPECIFICO  talk
 * Chill specifico, the TPG encourages the use of pointer diffs to let eds know of discussions. I explicitly do not want to delve into the matter at any other venue than this one.  See WP:MULTI.  I left just enough of the situation to try to interest eds to come here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * CORRECTION, Come to think of it, I don't like my suggestion either, for the reason that reverting just 1x daily without discussion still arguably violates both the letter and spirit of the rule. In fact, we have such HUGE difficulty explaining the letter of the edit war policy that we had to invent the objective measuring stick 3RR.   But whether 3RR is broken or not is about the objective measuring stick, not the "letter" of the rule itself.   Given the mushiness of the "letter" of the edit war rule it may not be amenable for use as an example here.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not familiar with that usage of "tickle" -- notice on the talk page is certainly constructive. Meanwhile, however, what do you think of the language I proposed, or something similar? SPECIFICO  talk  19:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a misunderstanding, I guess, very good.  As stated in my prior comment, we have a very very hard time telling people the letter of the rule "thou shalt not edit war", and I now think that the EW policy does not lend itself to an easy letter vs spirit example -- no matter what text we use NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen at 3RR, the board uses that as a bright line test and the vast majority of violations result in a block. Complaints that demonstrate insistent reinsertion of content without formal violation seem to get a mixed and unpredictable response -- typical of all the noticeboards. There also seem to be some users including Admins who do not accept the definition of revert that's given at WP:3RR and WP:1RR.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we went wrong when we focussed on the revert behavior instead of the DISCUSSION behavior. The letter of the WP:CONSENSUS policy says (in the nutshell bubble) that disputes must be resolved "by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors" and the WP:EDITWAR policy (in the nutshell bubble) says that "disagreements should be resolved through discussion"  So our example could be based on an ed complying with the letter of the policy by simply appearing at the talk page, but violating the spirit of the rule by not making substantive comments about any "legitimate concerns". (e.g., "It's wrong" or "Its not encyclopedic")     NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I admire your cogent approach. I find that POV editors have any number of ways to plow the furrows of disruption. First off, many are genuinely ignorant of the content and they have WP:COMPETENCE deficits of one kind or another such that they're unable to understand what is a "legitimate" concern, and also what's a substantive response. Also many disruptive editors are 24/7 internet geek online gamer types who don't understand that the discussion cycle for most editors is days or weeks, not minutes or hours.  E.g. they'll edit war over the course of one day with the comment "per talk" when it just means they tagged up on the talk page to check the box.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, which arrives when the wikitank was getting a bit low. I'm not sure how to tie it in, but this concept touches on various instruction pages such as the italicized text at WP:NOTVOTE and paragraph 3 at Closing_discussions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Mvbw that 3RR is a very important example to be included here. The wording certainly can be improved. Additionally I would consider about half of the lede should not be in the lede, but split with a heading or moved down into other sections. --SI 01:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. Actually, this is probably the most common situation/example that must remain on the page. I reverted this only because the removal was so obviously wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , so far you've both said versions of "I like" or "it's important" or "it's wrong". Do you plan to make a substantive reply to my criticism of that text?   If my reasoning is wrong, please articulate a basis for your opinion.  Alternatively, please propose a different edit that you think we might all agree on.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think both SPECIFICO and Schmarrnintelligenz made pretty good and specific suggestion how to improve it. I trust them with making these changes. If not, one of us can fix it later, but obviously, the consensus here is to keep and possibly modify this text. My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how I understood the prior exchange here....
 * could you please clarify your current thinking here? Thanks.
 * As for Schmarrnintelligenz, those specific suggestions had to do with the rest of the lead.  All they said about the quoted text above is that "it's important".
 * Meanwhile, MVBW, see the italicized text at WP:NOTVOTE.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider "the Three-Revert Rule is intended to prevent edit-warring. An editor who reverts the same article three times day after day is violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule, and an editor who does this may be sanctioned for edit-warring." and propose any improvements to that.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. I fixed it as you suggested. Welcome to improve this further if anyone wants. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow that was fast. Thanks.   That's an acceptable compromise for now, though it would be better, in my view, to illustrate letter vs spirit of rules with clearcut examples.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you call an editor who argues policy effectively?
If the concept of 'Wikilawyer' is modeled after a bad lawyer, what term can we use to describe someone who studies the policies and endeavors always to use them effectively and accurately, for the benefit of the encyclopedia? I found myself recently wanting to raise a point of 'Wikilaw' regarding another user's conduct, and am not sure how else to describe myself. I felt that the other user's conduct was not fully defensible, and at the same time it was being described unfairly. I felt like a defense attorney for someone who had stolen a candy bar, and who was being accused of murder. JerryRussell (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How about not calling any editor by any of these labels and instead make your outstanding RS based arguments shine all by themselves?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I still want a shorthand term of endearment for myself when others might accuse me of Wikilegalisms. Wikicounsel for the defense? JerryRussell (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If others talk about your behavior, a better approach is to just ignore it, and instead Focus on content. If you just can't stand it and you just gotta defend yourself, then (re-)read WP:Don't take the bait. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good advice there. I hadn't seen that essay. JerryRussell (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What NewsAndEventsGuy said. Jokingly, however, I've referred to editors experienced in WP policy analysis as "wiki-paralegals" because we do all the policy work with little credit, and don't spend time grandstanding and trying to WP:WIN.  >;-)   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

WIKILAWYER/GAMING tweak to USERPAGE
Please see: Wikipedia talk:User pages, which is relevant to this essay's application to guideline wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

WIKILAWYER/GAMING tweak to WP:NOT
Please see: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, on application of this essay's premise to some policy wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Three birds with one stone / evolve towards the common meaning?
This essay defines the term as a strongly pejorative one. I also think that it covers a lot of things that are not the common meaning of the term. In earlier talk here, dismay was expressed of creating a strongly pejorative term which is named after a profession. Also, I think that this essay spends a lot of words on things that the term is seldom or never applied to. Finally, the common meanings of the term are behaviors to be avoided, but which are far more common and less serious than this essay implies.

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are written in a manner that usually is more fuzzy and open to interpretation than laws are. They create certain rules and principles which are applicable in many situations but are not a "how to write a good article" instruction, nor do they replace good decision making. So, the "rules" and guidelines are just a part of the decision making process, and there is usually latitude on how they are interpreted or to what degree they influence a broader decision. Also, without even getting into secondary sets of rules there are about 73 official policy pages and about 280 official guideline pages, many that are obscure, unknown, overlapping, or wording that is not carefully written. So, whatever you are trying to do (such as win a debate or battle) you can probably find or interpret rules to help you win the battle though enforcing that rule is not per se the concern of yours. So, your object isn't to enforce the rule, your objective is to use the rule to achieve a different purpose. In short, you are using technicalities to achieve a different objective. While not a good thing, this is not some horrible rare behavior, it is a common practice and the most common meaning of "wikilawyering"

Unlike Wikipedia, the legal world is 90% about technicalities, and it is a lawyer's job to achieve a result using technicalities. So "wikilawyering" merely means taking a practice that is a good idea in the legal world and moving it into Wikipedia where it is a bad idea. Giving it a slightly negative name in order to try to get less of it is a good idea. Giving it a name that is defined as so strongly pejorative that it can seldom be used is not. Perhaps evolving this essay based on the above would solve or help solve and resolve many issues. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I plan to work on a slow careful evolution towards that. North8000 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been doing that. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose explicitly describing any wikilawyering as "mild". On the other hand, when people make apt, succinct, and relevant analysis we shoudld explicitly deny that is "wikilawyering".  Quite the opposite that is the Wikipedia way.  So I tried to make a tweak to the essay to cover these ideas.   Basically I would not teach kids that a little dishonest chicanery and a little meanness is "mild" so let's not do that here, where part of our goal is to build community and collaboration. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm with you 200% but you may be working against your / our objectives. IMO there is indeed mild wikilawyering (for example working to POV an article by knocking out credible and credibly sourced material by using unusually strict interpretations of policies, contrary to their objectives).   I also think that Wikipedia is a very vicious place due to weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards etc. to conduct warfare against editors  which is also Wikilawyering. And none of this is recognized because it all goes under the guise of "just trying to follow policies & guidelines."  IMO the best realistic hope is to bring recognition that that guise is just a guise.  And one realistic place to help get that recognition is this essay.   But the use of this essay has been somewhat paralyzed.  One secondary cause of that has been that in essence said that somebody being like a lawyer is a pejorative, thus insulting an entire widespread profession.  Some of the work I've done reconciles that, explaining that such is really not the case. A second problem is that the essay was heavily diverted into nearly-non-existent or not-relevant-here problems....using outside-world legalisms in everyday Wikipedia matters, and so I've evolving it away from that diversion. Most importantly the core of all of large amount of problems is misuse of policies and guidelines and so getting a bright light shined on that aspect is of importance here. Finally, since the essay previously treated it as a flat-out-pejorative, such nearly-prohibited the practice of using the term to bring out out misuse of policies and guidelines.    So the evolution to saying that there are milder forms and "that ain't necessarily so" starts to  remove that third rail so that this essay and the term can be used to shine a light on those problems and thus help resolve them.   So, again, I am with you 200% and would very much like to team up with you here, and perhaps this explanation might present a few ideas. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well first, Bless You, my son!! It's a noble undertaking you're doing.   Personally, I view this essay as a great example of CREEP, and its primary usefulness is toxic... constructive editors have little use for this essay but it does serve the purposes of the lazy or the nefarious.
 * Constructive eds -- Feeling inspired or compelled to engage someone else's misuse of P&G, constructive editors will do the sweat labor to assemble DIFFS and analysis that show how the other ed misused the P&G. As this is a mere essay there is never any real need to cite it.
 * Lazy eds -- Instead of doing that sweat labor, lazy eds will just cite this essay to give their WP:VAGUEWAVE at the P&G a patina of credibility.
 * Nefarious eds -- Love to wield this essay when engaging someone who is easily baited.
 * In my mind the essay would be much more useful if its name were changed to WP:The devil can quote scripture, and really I wish it were boiled down to a paragraph added to the relevant proceural guideline, i.e., WP:Policies and guidelines. Alas, the sensible ship has sailed. Building consensus for such changes is likely a lost cause, since we have already gathered together a great diversity of dogs, and some of them LOVE to pee on fire hydrants.  No amount of labor on our part will take away their fun in doing that.  If you're game for trying, then I applaud your efforts and will get out your way.  I withdraw my objection, feel free to revert and carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool.   I think that your addition was good.   And my work there an imperfect evolution. I mostly wanted to get the above info on the table in the talk page.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "working to POV an article by knocking out credible and credibly sourced material by using unusually strict interpretations of policies" does not strike me as "mild" in any way, but one of the most poisonous forms, a constant problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:PETTIFOG" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:PETTIFOG and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FMecha (to talk&#124;to see log) 16:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

technicalities
As background, I think this is a helpful essay with useful guidance about constructive discussion and conflict resolution. I have a suggestion for a revision to this part: "Unlike Wikipedia, the legal world is 90% about technicalities, and a part of a lawyer's job to achieve a result using technicalities. So "wikilawyering" merely means taking a practice that is a good idea in the legal world and moving it into Wikipedia where it is a bad idea."

As a possible revision, I suggest: "In the legal field, lawyers may use technicalities to win a case. "Wikilawyering" can refer to emulating legal practices that may win a court case, but are likely not helpful for resolving disputes on Wikipedia, which is not a bureaucracy."

I also suggest moving the revised text into the lead after "It can serve to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution." Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem with Wikipedia is the dislike of formal lawyering. Instead of developing a coherent and consistent system of rules that is applied uniformly, the preferred route is a kangaroo court system, with vague principles that are interpreted on the fly. The website would be benefit if its admin were trained in more rigorous legal methods, and decision making was more structured. But that would require proper skill. The dislike of lawyering is at the heart of its dysfunction Jagmanst (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That fifth bullet point is more of WP:GAMING matter. Merge it to there?
Is it just me, or does it seem like Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem doesn't actually fit the rest of the material? I think this probably should move to WP:GAMING, since that line item is about bad-faith abuse of process as a battlegrounding tactic, GAMING is about bad-faith abuse of process (including bad-faith forms of wikilawyering, for that matter), and nothing else in WP:LAWYER is dependent on bad-faith intent. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)