 | 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. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Don't just look at individual policies, but the interaction between them. |
It is important to consider the interaction between policies when considering complex situations. This page contains a couple of different fictional examples where multiple policies are interacting, and then moves on to real-world examples, including some WP:ARBCOM cases.
Fictional examples[edit]
- Say Alice is trying to stop COI editing, and starts to search up information. Her investigation leads to her getting employee details, and she then posts those details on the WP:COIN noticeboard. Her information is seen as WP:OUTING the editor by Bob, and Bob asks Alice to take the information down. Who is right, and what should be done in this situation?
- Answer: whatever the answer really is, it should include the mandate to NOT post any such information publicly. Bob is right about the posting, regardless of whether Alice may have been right. Alice should contact an administrator or, better yet, ArbCom privately, via email. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Real-world examples[edit]
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it.
Arbcom cases
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing - This case involved the interaction of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV.
Conclusion[edit]
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it.