Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts WP:WL WP:LAWYER WP:LAWYERING WP:LETTER WP:PETTIFOG

This page in a nutshell: Using a portion of the rules in a literal manner that goes against the rule's intended message (usually with the intent to "win" an editing dispute) is frowned upon by the Wikipedia community.

Wikilawyering is a critical term which describes various practices to be avoided in Wikipedia. Editors who "Wikilawyer" apply a portion of a policy or guideline with the motive to achieve an objective that goes against the intended message of that policy or guideline, particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm. They abide by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles. Sometimes they assert that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express. Wikilawyers can also willfully misinterpret policy or rely on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions, or weaponize policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than to resolve a problem.

The term may also be used in other cases, e.g., when a person superficially judges other editors and their actions by jumping to conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution.

Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help with dispute resolution. Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning. It can serve to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution. 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.

As another example, 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 can thus be sanctioned for edit warring.