Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Discrimination, prejudice, bias etc

There is nothing currently in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments with direct reference to Discrimination, prejudice, bias or similar issues, just mention of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Trolling(Wikipedia:Deny recognition) and Wikipedia:Vandalism.

I recently reviewed a thread that had been totally deleted. I restored the thread and, not knowing what best to do, again deleted the specific posts that I thought to be most offensive. Wikipedia:PREJUDICE currently links to the limited content at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias and prejudice. Any thoughts on how, if at all, content on this issue can be developed? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group. -complete wording from WP:PREJUDICE.

I often see attacks against groups of editors, as defined by gender, gender-preference, nationality, native language and so on. Sometimes with a suggestion that some groups (use of language is the most obvious) are incompetent to edit Wikipedia, or are biased in some way. This sort of behaviour might not directly target a specific editor, but any editor who is a member of these groups is bound to feel the hate.

Even accusations of bias can go too far. Most people are biased towards (and/or against) specific groups, even if it is just the supporters of a given football team. Passions can flare. We need biased editors, who will often go further into a subject and present more points of view from more diverse sources than we would otherwise have if we relied on just mainstream media. So long as the bias doesn't go further into our articles than NPOV allows.

We are a broad church - the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - and have done very well from this, where other, narrower, competitors have fallen short. I support the inclusion of some injunction against prejudice in these guidelines. Gregkaye, would you like to put forward a draft for discussion, something that would have been useful in the incident you mention? --Pete (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Pete, I didn't have anything specific in mind at the time but now think that a bullet section might be put into WP:TPNO even with a section of the text that you quoted:

Without prejudice Editors must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gregkaye! This has been here for two months with no dissenting voices, so it has been added as you suggest. We don't tolerate prejudice or discrimination in our broad church, and on discussion pages it is important that all feel welcome to participate. --Pete (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Pete. Thanks - you're a star. Just to add something further on the topic: I think that there is a place for racial, religious, ethnic differences, quirks and even (when evident) challenges or weaknesses to be mentioned if appropriate support for claims is evident. I don't think we should ever become a bastion of PC bureaucracy but it is clear that definite and citable safeguards against genuine issues of abuse must also be in force. I would be happy for others to propose any suitable modifications to relevant texts to ensure that this balance is achieved and maintained. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The recent edit may need rethinking (that is, removal). The WP:PREJUDICE link is to an Arbcom case where the obvious was stated: "An editor must not engage in...[prejudice]". It is talking about an editor who makes a habit of prejudicial behavior in multiples places. It is not talking about a group of editors discussing an issue connected with an article and which some other editor thinks is prejudicial. Where is an example of an inappropriate discussion which would have needed this addition to the guideline? I have two concerns with the wording: we don't spell out all ways people can be unhelpful because that gives the impression that anything not on the list is ok; and, we don't want to give wikilawyers reasons to disrupt discussions by claiming they are prejudicial—it should be obvious that if they are gratuitously prejudicial they are inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq I agree and think that your comments provide the logical extension to my concerns regarding a PC bureaucracy. I think that a broader issue relates to gaming and the potential development of factions in Wikipedia where editors get support or oppose editors not based on conduct but based on other editorial preferences which may or may not involve prejudice. When I first raised the issue of prejudice above it was by way of making a parallel reference to personal attack. However it is, I think more than just a subset of NPA and, for the mean time I have moved the prejudice content as parallel to and not a part of NPA. Pete has given this some thought and should be given opportunity to comment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• A second move may have done the trick !? Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, moving the text does not allay my concern. The Arbcom finding was that a particular editor had engaged in prejudicial behavior in multiple places. That has been twisted to say that there cannot be a single discussion that some may "reasonably" perceive as promoting a racial or other stereotype. As it happens, I just commented at Talk:String Quartet No. 12 (Dvořák)#Old nickname in a discussion that could greatly expand to explore racial stereotypes. If a sensitive person encountered that, they may attempt to close it down as violating this proposed addition to the guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm against the use of prejudicial discourse aimed at making editors of a particular ethnicity, gender, faith or otherwise feel uncomfortable in discussion. I trust that we all are. I think that it is important to wave that flag here as much as in other places. --Pete (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the redirect for deletion; if we want to have a policy or guideline regarding prejudice it should be written using our existing procedures for creating and expanding these documents. The discussion is here; please discuss there. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Update to "When to condense pages"

I boldly updated the guidance on when to archive. In current practice, 10 threads is a lot to leave - as evidenced by the talk page archival settings on this talk page, as well as the default bot settings at WP:ARCHIVE (both of which use a value of 4). The thread count was last updated in 2010, following the discussion now archived here. Since the actual minimum threads best left is dependent on the nature of the talk page and its activity level, I think is is better to not be prescriptive here. VQuakr (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr I am very dubious about attempts to rapidly archive talk pages. Please particularly rethink your reference to stale discussions. A view as to whether an discussion is stale may be very much a matter of opinion. Resolved discussions can be closed and in many circumstances their contents may still provide relevant reference. Off topic and similar contents can be collapsed.

There are some pages that editors may not visit regularly and some discussions can be started because editors want to raise issues that they would like to be considered by others. There may be need to keep threads up for the reference of irregular visitors. At the other extreme there can be pages that have the same issue being raised again and again on independent occasion with a major reason for this happening because the previous raising of the topic has been archived. We should note that there are talk pages that function well despite having ~20-30 active threads. This typically gives an indication that the topic is of interest.

The text previously mentioned "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". It has been changed to: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has multiple resolved or stale discussions".

I think that provision of bench mark related to a proposed quantity of remaining threads is perfectly acceptable. Personally think that 10 is a more than reasonable number. If anything individual pages should be required to provide a reasoned justification for departure from a Wikipedia norm. In many cases there may be no justification for the rapid archival of content and I think that censorship issues may even come into play.

I also think that the Project page title should be changed from "When to condense pages" to "When to archive or refactor pages". The process of archival is that of removal not condensation.

I don't think that, considering previous disagreement on the topic of talk page archival, that you should have made changes in this way prior to the achievement of consensus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Easy stuff first - condensing or refactoring as an alternative to archival is obsolete, by like eight years. Per your suggestion I updated the section title, and I also removed the obsolete text: [1]. That edit seems pretty straightforward, but of course feel free to boldly improve if it could be phrased better.

10 sections might be a reasonable guideline to tell people when to start archiving a page, but it is being misinterpreted as a recommended setting for the "minthreadstoarchive" setting on auto-archival bots. As I mentioned in my previous post, that is very high, much higher than most archival bots are set. Our guidelines should reflect actual practice. I dislike the use of a section count in the guideline because it gives a false sense of precision - the number of sections at which the talk page started to become less navigable depends on the complexity of each talk section. VQuakr (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Restoring other editors deleted texts as struck texts

An editor may add some level of argumentative, disruptive of derailing content; leave it for some days for it to take effect; let it rise in talk page positioning and away from the area where most current discussion is considered and then, once responses have been elicited, the editor may merely delete or refactor their offending content and walk away looking as sweet as roses. I think that there should be guideline to justify the restoring of other editors deleted texts as struck texts. In these situations I think it should also be good practice to notification on the offending editor's talk page regarding the resurrection of deleted texts. Following this time the offending editor may either leave text struck and perhaps add an explanation or they may unstrike the text so as to leave it in its original condition. In this case it would also be appropriate for other editors to leave brief comment that the text has been refactored and voluntarily restored. It is of importance that editors can stand by their words. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to follow that—are you proposing a change to the guideline? An editor "may" deface an article, but they should not, and inappropriate edits are reverted. No one owns edits, including edits which add a comment. Naturally editors are given plenty of latitude and are able to change their comments, even after others have replied. But they should not. People should be reasonable—if someone goes to a standard talk page where there is not much activity and posts a comment that is a bit wild, they can have second thoughts and come back later and delete the comment. This is not a bureaucracy where we tell editors that comments can never be deleted. However, on the talk page for a contentious topic, editors must collaborate. That means, they should not refactor comments once replies have been made, and they definitely should not remove them. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fine for an editor to alter their own comment after someone has replied to it (I do that often), with or without adding a new time stamp to it, as long as the alteration (which can be anything from fixing a typo or adding a clarification) does not take anyone's comment out of context (as in essentially misrepresenting what another person was replying to); this is per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments, which I think should have stronger emphasis on not taking an editor's reply out of context by changing or removing a comment. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Gregkaye's suggestion seems to be in response to this from the guidelines:

If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead.

So, if a user refactors their original comment which affects how subsequent replies may be interpreted, I would think it is reasonable for another editor to restore the original text (struck out) in order that the replies are read in the proper context. Alternatively, perhaps the relevant original text can be inserted in a quote box (e.g., {{talkquote}}) accompanying the reply. —sroc 💬 01:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

reverted

Reverted [2]. The first part is already in the guideline and the latter unnecessary (see WP:CREEP) NE Ent 02:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed for removal of comments on a user's own talk page

I think clarification is needed, that removal of others' comments at your own Talk page is allowed. I tried revising the guideline in this edit but was reverted. It was User:NewsAndEventsGuy who reverted with edit summary about avoiding instructional creep. Perhaps my wording was too long? NE Ent, or others, could someone suggest a different wording? I came to revise the guideline because it seems to have misdirected a user. --doncram 03:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: I think that section 3 (User Talk Pages) is clear that you can remove comments from your own page. However, based on the conversation you were having that prompted your edit, there is nothing that codifies a users ability to request that someone cease posting on their talk page. I have seen such requests referred to often but there seems to be no policy backing it up. I would propose that Section 3 be amended to read:

While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. To avoid disruption, or for any other reason, a user can ask a person to stop posting on their User Talk page and that desire should be respected.

I have no opinion on the original conversation that brought you here to edit this page I was just lurking about on the noticeboards and some associated user talk pages. If I am off base here feel free to ignore me. JBH (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That an editor should stop posting to another editor's talk page upon request of the other editor might as well be in the guideline, since editors have been reprimanded and/or WP:Blocked for continually posting on someone's talk page against that person's wishes. WP:Administrators and other editors have cited the matter as WP:Harassment (a policy). The only exceptions have been cases noted at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages (meaning Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings) and what Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states about not misrepresenting another editor's comment. Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that. Notices that the guidelines say a user should be informed about should always be allowed, but harassment on user's talk page is unfortunately all too common and user's have to be able to ban other users from posting general comments on their talk page. It is general practice and good and sometimes questioned so it should be in the guideline. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley, to me your suggestion tends to cut off the possibility of future steps (even baby steps) towards renewed collaboration. Better, in my opinion, to refer editors to WP:DROP, WP:HORSEMEAT, WP:DENY, WP:OWNTALK etc. An ed being harrassed doesn't have to read or respond to crap, and can delete it from their talk page without explanation or reason. For egregious cases, filing at ANI citing WP:HARRASS or other applicable policy. Generally, I'm optimistic that bridges can always be initiated and that we should try to create those conditions, but I'm concerned your language would be abused by combatants to just build more walls. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: We can continue this discussion, which I agree is needed, in the section opened below. JBH (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the section "Other's comments" lacked any reference to the section "User talk pages", I agree with Doncram (talk · contribs) that it can be confusing. I've even been on the receiving end of protests when I've deleted harassment on my own talk page. Perhaps this edit will stick? I just copied the key sentence from User Talk pages, to make a bridge showing how the rules work at your OWNTALK vs everywhere else. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43:, In this edit you reverted an addition I made with the edit summary "should be discussed" (paraphrased). Fair enough, but as you can see the discussion is already underway. During my time here, I've been on the receiving end 2-3 times of protests from harrassing editors citing Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. It is the nature of some people to just find some text that supports their point of view, and not read further. True, deleting from your own talk page is mentioned two other times. So? In my opinion, the edit you reverted better supports newish editors faced with harassment, because it eliminates the harassers' selective reading at least two of us in this thread have experienced, and is probably far more common. It boils down to: REDUNDANT vs PREVENTION. Thoughts, anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're going here. I was just looking at the user talk page content and was mainly deleting that because a bridge shouldn't be littered with specific exceptions because we're going into all those specific exceptions further down. This is because there are other things that can be deleted regardless of protest. The somewhat separate problem seems to be the "Cautiously . . ." sentence being used as a hard rule. Wouldn't be better to flesh out WP:OWNTALK instead? Otherwise it seems like we’re unnecessarily complicated the prose or something that can be said much simpler and directly cited. It already says comments can be freely removed, which should normally overrule the very general cautiously sentence for most disputing editors. I prefer just to have a single sentence that can be cited for troublesome editors rather than peppering the idea throughout the guideline, so what if we just changed “Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred.” to include a slight rephrase? I’d say freely should already be a strong enough word, but can that be made stronger? Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"problem seems to be the "Cautiously . . ." sentence being used as a hard rule. Wouldn't be better to flesh out WP:OWNTALK instead?" No, it wouldn't. The OWNTALK text appears in a section at the end of the article, where no disruptive editor will see it or care. Instead, such eds will continue to abuse the "cautiously" sentence, in a different section, much higher in the article. If you can suggest a pithy, unambiguous, consistent and more concise approach to addressing that problem, please post a draft. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, I realize a lot of this is out of frustration with troublesome editors, but I'm a little wary we might be getting a little knee-jerky about this. I definitely hear the frustration though since I've seen some of the same behavior too. Either an editor is going to read the entirety of this guideline and follow it, or they're skimming over parts of it and need to be reminded of a specific part whether that's just good-faith missing a section, or cherry-picking favorite sections to benefit them. When dealing with a troublesome editor in this case, you're not going to go and just tell them to read the talk page guidelines again, you're going to direct them directly to WP:OWNTALK and by very concise about what exactly you are allowed to do. That's why it doesn't really seem to matter where the section is placed on the page in this particular case. If you don't keep it concise/unambiguous and it's a tendentious editor, they're just going to keep cherry-picking again. That's why I like the general format we currently have of discussing guidelines for pages in general, and setting aside specific cases later on in the page. If we word OWNTALK a bit more strongly the general scenario should be this:

1. Editor 1 removes comment by editor 2 from their own talk page.
2. Editor 2 reverts.
3. Editor 1 cites OWNTALK.
4. Done.

Now if editor 2 persists, it's unambiguous the change was allowed, so that's more of an issue for admins/blocking at that point. I realize your approach might be an attempt an prevention rather than treatment, but there comes a point when we're going to deal with tendentious editors no matter how much we try to prevent that behavior. This seems like a case it's better to make a good attempt at being clear where most reasonable people understand the intention like we currently do, and if they don't get it, they need to be brought directly to OWNTALK regardless their reason for missing it is. Basically I'm thinking it's better to get the treatment for the problem editors down first before worrying about the tougher problem to solve of prevention. Does that seem like a decent approach here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to have exceptions in a secondary place without indicating the way to find out about the exception in the main place. This principle is enshrined in WP:POLICY in that if a policy and a guideline contradict each other then the policy takes precedence. For instance in WP:TITLE they are very clear that there may be topic specific guidelines and that the common name guideline for instance might be overridden in specific circumstances. The talk page guidelines which are specific to articles do not in general conflict with the ones which are specific to user talk pages except on this business about deleting messages so I don't think there is any problem about littering with specific exceptions. An alternative would be to have a section which is specifically for talk pages other than user talk pages - then it wouldn't have to mention the user talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by PBS, moved here from a separate section by me, per TPG section WP:MULTINewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• user:Doncram Revision as of 01:44, 9 January 2015 addition "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments, besides at your own User Talk page,is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."
• user:NE Ent Revision as of 02:21, 9 January 2015 revert
• user:NewsAndEventsGuy Revision as of 12:05, 9 January 2015 "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred (see User talk pages, below). Elsewhere, cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."
• user:Kingofaces43 Revision as of 16:02, 9 January 2015 rv
• user:JamesBWatson Revision as of 16:31, 9 January 2015 reinserted user:NewsAndEventsGuy edit
• user:PBS Revision as of 10:26, 10 January 2015 rv

Time to talk -- PBS (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments in the history

• 01:44, 9 January 2015‎ Doncram "Others' comments: modify to add about important exception: removing others posts to your own user talk page, and banning other users, is now generally allowed"
• 02:21, 9 January 2015‎ NE Ent rv "Disagree with creep"
• 12:05, 9 January 2015‎ NewsAndEventsGuy "‎Others' comments: without a bridge between these sections it could be confusing, I agree"
• 16:02, 9 January 2015‎ Kingofaces43 rv "This is otherwise mentioned twice in the article. Current version seems ok, but probably best to discuss at talk at this point."
• 16:31, 9 January 2015‎ JamesBWatson "Yes, mentioned elsewhere, but it's helpful to have a mention in this context: it's unrealistic to expect all readers to read the whole page and mentally collate everything relevant. This also seems consistent with the general line taken in the talk page."
• 10:26, 10 January 2015‎ PBS rv " I don't think this point should be emphasised near the top of this page as deletion is bad practice compared to archiving"

-- PBS (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@user:Doncram your addition does not work because although deleting is allowed editing of another's comment on ones own talk page is not. Also you commented "...is now generally allowed" it was common practice ten years ago before archiving became the norm. I suggest that far from encouraging it we ought to be looking at restricting it to that which is similar for all talk pages and encourage archiving, because some editors delete warnings etc, but keep favourable comments in archives which presents a false image to the world as to their editing behaviour, this in turn forces anyone who wishes to see the edit behaviour of another editor to look through the edit history of the editor's talk page. This is less than helpful because it is so time consuming. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I had not looked for another section on this talk page because I had assumed that as editors were repeatedly inserting and removing text that no discussion was ongoing. Giving that it was why were people still inserting the text while a discussion was under-way? -- PBS (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think a big part of the confusion is that pointing to WP:TPO leads readers to first read "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning..." but then later, if one reads that far, it says that different standards may apply to your personal talk page. What's needed is a new shortcut to a subsection devoted exclusively to the guidelines regarding your personal talk page. I've not set up the actual shortcut, but I did create a new subsection and just copied the existing text for 'Personal talk page cleanup to the new subsection, and proposed a new shortcut name there.[3] If accepted, the duplicate version of "personal talk page cleanup" in the section on edition other's comments can and should be eliminated. I think it's a good idea to have a separate shortcut and section regarding personal talk page guidelines, whether they are the same or different from normal talk page guidelines, just to clarify any confusion regarding these different kinds of talk space.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your change. I presumed you have missed the section WP:OWNTALK. I think there is a problem with the section Talk page guidelines#Others' comments as it is at the moment

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• If you have their permission.
• Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it.

I suggest that the first two bullet points are inverted. and that the anchors to the bullet point are moved down to the section linked to by WP:OWNTALK. I also suggest that the wording for the bullet point is changed to something like:

"Personal talk page cleanup: See § User talk pages for more details.

-- PBS (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this looks like a good approach. The other comments section just needs to be made a bit less ambiguous that permission doesn't apply in all cases, and OWNTALK can handle the heaving lifting on its own scope. This seems like it would at least be a step towards a concise improvement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS, what do you think of moving WP:OWNTALK up to be a subsection of editing comments. Perhaps even the first section of editing comments? The problem, at least in the incident I was involved in, was that the editor deleting my objection on his talk page to the way he was handling deletion of sources.[4]. I objected to his deleting my comment and he cite WP:TPO (not WP:OWNTALK) as his justification for doing so.[5] If he had cited WP:OWNTALK, I would have understood his argument. But going to WP:TPO, the first thing I read was guidelines supporting my view, which I then pointed out to him, reverting his deletion of my comment and cited WP:TPO as my justification [6]. In short, we were both pointing to the same policy but reading different portions of it. So, I was not familiar with the OWNTALK shortcut, nor apparently was Jytdog. Whether or not that policy should allow deleting a record of complaints is important, but a side issue at the moment. The question is how to make the OWNTALK material more prominently part of the Editing Comments section to eliminate the type of confusion Jytdog and I encountered when citing the same policy (TPO) to each other when in fact we were looking at different parts of TPO.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What is TPO short for? -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a shortcut. I'm guessing it is for Talk Page Other.(?) So what do you think? Should we try moving "User Talk Pages" up to the section "editing comments" along with by others and self? —2602:30A:C0F0:290:FDDC:6D1D:F687:96D3 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think it ought to be moved at the moment. Lets try my proposed changes and see if that reduced the confusion. -- PBS (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have made the suggested changes. I agree I think WP:TPO it probably short for "Talk page Other's Comments" as there is also WP:TPOC which seems to mean the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Proposed New Section: Talk Page Restrictions

I would like to add a new section to this policy, concerning restrictions on talk page posting for specific editors. I see three cases. First, an editor may request that another editor not post to their talk page. Although such a request is not binding in the sense that it is not a ban, it should be honored, and ignoring it may be considered harassment. (However, required postings, such as of noticeboard threads, are still required.) Second, if an editor is subject to a topic ban or interaction ban, the ban applies to talk pages. (If editor A is banned from posting on weather, they are banned from posting to Talk: Snow. If editor B and editor C are subject to an interaction ban by the community, the ArbCom, or arbitration enforcement, a post by editor B to editor C's talk page is a violation of the ban.) Third, in special cases, an editor may be subject to a limit on talk page use by the community or the ArbCom. The section should state that such violations may result in blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support, pending text For point 1, I am leery of saying "should be honored" (read "Thou shalt honor thy banning or burn in hell"). Can we preserve the idea that reconciliation/reform is possible by saying "should ordinarily be honored"? For points 2 and 3, initially I was opposed because I did not see any problem being solved. After all, the targets of those restrictions have already been provided with plenty of education about their talk page privileges and adding some other text here won't really tweak their behavior. Upon reflection, I think adding those two points can help educate newish editors who have not run into these things but are suddenly being effected via third parties. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - With respect to User:NewsAndEventsGuy's (legitimate) concern, I would note that 'should' is not the same as 'shall' so there is wiggle room for necessary postings and/or an olive branch. Also, by the time an interaction gets to the point of asking a user to not post on your talk page it is very unlikely that the problem will be solved on that user's talk page. There are many other forums where 'confidence building' interactions can take place and where others can act to buffer the conversation. I am, however, flexible on the specific text but would prefer not to complicate it and instead avoid ambiguity. JBH (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, although I think it is based on the faulty premise that "should" is never understood as shall. See Merriam-Webster defs 2 and 5. Since "should" has both the meaning you describe and a command form (either direct of "softened") the word by itself is ambiguous, and we agree that ambiguity should be avoided. By adding "ordinarily" we can explicitly and unambiguously include that wriggle room we both value. If Ed A then asks Ed B to cease posting at Ed A's talk page and Ed B fails to do so, that begs the question "Where does Ed B's continued posting fall in that "wiggle room", on the OK side of the guideline or crosses over into WP:Harassment? We have that problem whether the wiggle room is implied (your preference to just say "should") or explicit (my preference to add "ordinarily"). We don't need to explore those issues here because its already spelled out in WP:Harassment.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, adding "ordinarily" to soften "should" from its imperative definition sounds good. Would something like: To avoid disturbance, a user can ask a person to stop posting on their User Talk page and that desire ordinarily should be respected. and possibly add a pointer to WP:Harassment like See WP:Harassment for ongoing problems on your User Talk page.? Hopefully the opening clause helps address the issue User:PBS brought up about a user trying to prevent another user from participating in a block discussion on their talk page. JBH (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I take it the proposal is to add some text (yet to be decided) to spell out certain details: (a) an editor can request someone to not post at their talk, except for required notifications; (b) topic bans apply to talk pages unless otherwise specified; (c) a user may be restricted from certain talk-page activities.

  These would not be desirable. Re (a): something clearer at WP:NOBAN might be desirable, but no benefit is likely to come from promoting the idea that it is part of normal procedure to ban other editors from one's talk. Re (b) and (c): these are part of banning policy and advice about them should not be in a talk page guideline because it would either be redundant or wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One should [sic] never use should in guidance as it has been shown over the great "Men's rights movement" debate that different dialects of English use should to mean different things "shall" and "ought" for example. -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a guideline not a policy page and such rules belong on a policy page not in a guideline. I am also opposed to this suggested expansion because it is too loosely drafted (numbering as per the proposal).

1. For example I have recently seen a now blocked user argue that an administrator ought not to post to their talk page because they had requested that they did not do so. This was not a warning but a discussion about whether they ought to be blocked. This wording would support the user's request which is clearly a nonsense.
2. It is not up to this guideline to lay out default meanings for community bans or ArbCom rulings. That is something to be defined in the bans and rulings. To put it here is instruction creep.
3. Likewise this is also instruction creep.

-- PBS (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, the responding eds seem to have read your opening post in different ways. Please clear up the confusion by clarifying whether your opening post contained proposed draft text or was meant to just discuss the issues first on a conceptual level? Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My opening post was not intended as draft language but as a conceptual summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Policy dispute

Okay, I have a major dispute here concerning WP:TPO. I disagree with the prohibition of removing others comments for a number of reasons. First of all, I see especially at deletion discussions and requested moves editors using WP:ATAD arguments. For example, recently I encountered at a move discussion several editors using simply previous unsuccessful move requests as an opposition statement, and nothing else. These were essentially WP:LASTTIME at WP:ATA (yes, I know that is an essay, but it is usually an irrelevant argument). The current request is to move to a title that has not been proposed before. The previous requested titles were contradictory to the WP:COMMONNAME. So it was not a rehash of the same discussions. I attempted to WP:IAR this guideline, and struck the arguments, but got reported to ANI (which accomplished nothing), but after I agreed to stop and had discussed it with the reverting user, upon realising that I had passed three reverts. This is just one of several examples I have encountered (this being the most recent). I've seen lots of other common irrelevant arguments at AfDs, too, including WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:USEFUL, WP:MUST, etc, and the outcome of the AfD is affected by these; if they had not been present, the result of the AfD would have been the entire opposite. (I also think that WP:ATA should be a guideline, as well as the others). I personally think that it should be allowed to remove/strike these !VOTEs (if that's the right term). If someone were to oppose, it would most likely be because the opposer was using an irrelevant reason for opposition, or vice versa, the remover used an invalid argument. The main concern here is that these arguments often influence the outcome of a discussion, even though it's supposed to be based on consensus. This more commonly happens at requested moves (one of the reasons I oppose non-admin closures), but I've seen it at practically every kind of discussion. I'm considering submitting an RfC about this, but I'd like to see what others think about this before I do. Qxukhgiels (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qxukhgiels: On your user page you make reference to having Asperger Syndrome explicitly so others can take that into account when they are interacting with you. Since you seem to have not grasped, and may have difficulty grasping, what people were saying at ANI I will try to explain. Please take this comment with the good will that is intended from a person who sometimes also does not 'get' why others do not see the world my way. :)

What you are doing [and asking to change the rules to allow] by deleting/striking or changing someone else's comments is the same as saying "shut up, your opinion does not matter". This is never socially acceptable in real life or online. I know people are often repetitive and what may be obvious to you is completely missed by them but this is why we have conversations. What you want to do short circuits the consensus making process and pisses people off to boot. Not everyone involved in a given discussion has participated in all of the previous related discussions.

If the rules were changed as you want I (or anyone else) would be able to delete your post here because you were already shouted down over at ANI. You would then get (rightly) angry about the deletion and drama would ensue. This would be repeated thousands of times on thousands of pages as others did the same thing. Better to spend a few seconds reading over repetitive writing, which if irrelevant, a closing admin will ignore, than to spend hours and days arguing about why that opinion should be deleted.

Sometimes, when you see the world differently from others, you just have to accept that in order to participate in the world you must follow certain conventions. Letting others have their say, no matter how stupid, repetitive or irrelevant you think it is is one of those rules. Social rules do not always make sense but they are what humans came up with to keep from knocking each other on the head with rocks. Those conventions of courtesy are more important for productive interaction via computer not less.

For other's reference here is a link to the ANI discussion closed 4 days ago because you agreed to stop refactoring others comments.

JBH (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I should've explained, but just because if users were to get their comments struck doesn't mean they're not welcome to comment again, but only if their opinion matters. Jbhunley, I don't see how you'd be allowed to strike my comment. I don't want the rules to be changed to where any user may strike any comment; just ones that are irrelevant to the purpose of the discussion. The relevance would be agreed by upon consensus, and generally what counts as irrelevant would be noted at WP:TPO.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qxukhgiels: What you are missing is that is not how people communicate with each other. Everyone in a discussion thinks different things are relevant, *you* can not decide what *I* or *anyone else* may think is relevant just as *I* can not decide what is relevant to *you*.

The example I made of me striking your initial comments perfectly demonstrates the problem with what you want to allow. I have read your earlier ANI and found your argument not ​persuasive, the people who commented at your ANI felt your arguments were not persuasive and a consensus formed against your arguments. So by your logic I could delete your post. Now you, of course feel that I am wrong in my opinion, so now the conversation would be derailed into whose opinion matters enough to be part of the discussion and nothing gets resolved on the original issue. Better to let others have their say and depend on having a good argument. If it was good enough before it will be good enough again. Unless of course others have decided that they agree with those irrelevant opinions you wanted to exclude, then consensus changes, as it should.

That was the soft sell here is the hard sell: You have no right to decide whose opinion matters. To say that you want to strike a person's comments because *you* feel they are not relevant and then say they are "...welcome to comment again, but only if their opinion matters." is a perniciously obnoxious attitude and has absolutely no place on Wikipedia or indeed in any civil discourse. If you can not understand that you are bound for disappointment here.

Making a change to [WP:TPO]] does not make the idea any less odious, all it could give is a guideline as to what is relevant and you would still have editors arguing over what should be struck and what should not based upon their various readings of the guidelines. The chaos would be paralyzing to the project. What you propose, no matter how much sense it makes to you, is not only unworkable but anathema to any social or collaborative project. Please understand what you want will never happen here. I have gone into greater detail here than the people at ANI did in a hope to give you some understanding of why that is so and why people responded there as they did at ANI. I hope I have provided some idea of how strongly people would object to what you propose. JBH (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:- first of all, let me just clarify that the comment left by Egsan Bacon (talk · contribs) was off topic. He should have opened a new case and discussed it there. But I'll give you an example of a scenario about what I'm trying to point out. I'll use an AfD about a made-up organisation that is not notable.

• Reason- organisation does not appear to meet WP:ORG, as well as WP:GNG. Nominator (talk) 12:00 13 January 2015

• Delete- fails WP:ORG as well as WP:GNG. User 1 (talk) 12:10 13 January 2015

• Delete- per above. User 2 (talk) 12:50 13 January 2015

• Keep- there's an article about X; this is just as notable. User 3 (talk) 2:00 13 January 2015

• Keep- keep digging around. You'll probably find more reliable sources. User 4 (talk) 3:00 13 January 2015

• Keep- they may not be well known know, but they're sure to make a name for themselves soon. Let's just wait and see. User 5 (talk) 13 January 2015

• Keep- this information is important. People will probably come to Wikipedia looking for information about this organisation User 6 (talk) 13 January 2015 21:00

In this example, the majority just happens to be users who use irrelevant arguments. This is what I'm mostly wanting to show you. In most situations as this, the AfD will get relisted, but if there just happens to be more !votes as this, the article is usually kept/deleted. If someone re-nominates the article, then users turn directly to WP:LASTTIME. I think most would agree that these arguments should not be included in a discussion. If an argument is used per policial evidence, then it is usually included, but if it is not, but is common sense, then it is usually disputed until a consensus is reached. I've seen this before, but the the usual outcome, in a nutshell, is "they voted; they don't matter any more or less than everyone else. They have the right to say their opinion, no matter what it is."Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

But AFD is not a vote. Any admin closing AFD's should have a firm grasp of this concept and weigh comments accordingly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Conflict w NeilN

@Qxukhgiels: I understand exactly what you are saying. However, what you seem unable to grasp is that closers are perfectly capable of deciding what to take note of and that to ignore and to actually delete someoneelse's arguments will cause more disruption than just leaving them alone. I understand your frustration with squishy and un-rigorous thinkers and arguments but they make up a large majority of the population. What I am trying, seeming unsuccessfully, to communicate to you is, if you want to participate in a community you must let people have their say no matter how irrelevant you think it is or how much easier it would be if they behaved as you would like. This is something that you have absolutely no choice in. The only choice you have is whether to participate in the discussion. Just like you must drive on the right (or left depending on where you are) side of the road, stop at stop signs and yield to pedestrians if you want to drive a car, you must allow people to have their say and not erase the their comments if you want to participate in Wikipedia.(Not intended as a threat or anything, just completing the analogy.)

I think, if I have not been able to communicate this to you by now, we have reached the point of talking past one another and it is time for me to disengage. I am sorry if I have been unable to successfully communicate to you what I believe is the consensus of the vast majority of Wikipedians on the issue you have raised. I wish you a productive and enjoyable time here and hope to be able to work on an article with you one day. Best wishes. JBH (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment: Let me dig around and try to find some examples of administrators closing AfDs based on votes, not consensus. It does happen, but not often. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qxukhgiels: Don't bother digging up examples. If they occur, then that is a separate issue that admins are not following WP:!VOTE (or it may be your perception that this is the case). That does not justify deleting or striking out others' comments because you think are "irrelevant". Allowing everyone to do so would waste everyone's time arguing over whether individual comments are "relevant" and little else would get done. If you think an opinion has already been refuted, the best thing you can do is reiterate the counter-argument or link to the earlier discussion. Striking others out of the discussion wouldn't reflect well on you, either. —sroc 💬 22:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Sahitya Sammelan Ghuman

Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Sahitya Sammelan (All India Marathi Literary Conference) is an annual conference for literary discussions by Marathi writers. Marathi is the first language of majority of people from Maharashtra state.Abmssghuman (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)