 | This is an essay on the conduct policy. 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: Search engines exist for a reason, and it is not other editors' job to use one for you. |
Avoid pestering other editors to retrieve information for you that you can get by yourself in seconds from any Internet search engine (or Wikipedia's internal advanced search). Such demands may be interpreted as annoying, unreasonable, and lazy. You are not more important than all the other volunteers on this project; they are not here to service you.
(However, it's perfectly understandable for an editor to sometimes need help finding information which is in another language, which requires specialist terminological knowledge to identify, or which needs complex search strings to isolate. It's also quite proper to expect that claims made in an article be sourceable, as a matter of WP:Verifiability policy. Noticeboards also typically require diffs as evidence.)
Especially avoid a perception of "gaming the system" in consensus discussions by using repetitive or disingenuous demands ("sealioning") for sources, definitions, and other material already at your own fingertips. This is likely to be perceived as a petty form of disruptive editing. This includes using it for:
- Filibustering dispute resolution
- Bludgeoning RfCs and other discussions
- Stalling with an "I just don't get it, I still need more information" routine
- Pretending that a claim made in a discussion is dubious or unsourceable when it is self-evident, already explained, or even a small child can prove the statement with 30 seconds at a search engine.
- Using lack of others' response to one's own lame dispute attempt as an excuse to make changes that simply reflect one's own familiarity or credulity.
A common sign this may be occurring is an archly, sarcastically, or snidely worded request for such instantly-findable information. An observable habit of making such pointless "show me" demands across many talk and process pages is a red flag. So is repeatedly demanding the same "help" when the editor has already been told how to find it. It does not require dramatic antics for an editor to be engaged in disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; simple obstructionism like any of the above also qualifies.
A related behavior is pretending that consensus discussions on talk pages are subject to the same core content policies as our article text. It isn't true, and it won't fool anyone.