Wikipedia talk:Avoiding talk-page disruption

Comments

Comment 1

There are a number of issues with the core points it makes. In detail.

Interfering with consensus - this seems to fundamentally misunderstand the use of policy in a discussion. When an editor uses e.g. WP:OR it has many benefits. It saves both the person writing it and reading it time: the writer no longer has to write out a detailed explanation of the policy, while anyone seeing that shortcut knows what it refers to and understands what they mean (they can of course follow the link if they need to). So there no need to supply a detailed explanation if the policy is being used properly. Shortcuts are especially useful in edit summaries and straw polls but can be used in any discussion between editors.

Compare e.g. when someone says they are taking the Fifth. Even as a non-American I know what that means: it implies not only the act (of not self-incriminating) but that it is a constitutional right. I would not for a moment compare the policies of Wikipedia to the US Constitution but the effect of the shortcut is the same, to let the reader know what's meant and to let them know or remind them that it's an official policy.

Further, in the case of original research it is the person proposing or supporting an addition that needs to supply sources if challenged. The same applies to WP:SYN and in different ways to the other policies (though I suspect WP:V not WP:VS is intended): the weight that is given to something in an article depends on it's appearance in sources, so WP:UNDUE can also be used to challenge changes that place to much emphasis on one aspect or viewpoint, asking the person proposing the change to justify it from sources.

Failure to get the point – This whole section is implying that editors frequently ignore others contributions, "fail[ing] to listen carefully", "summarily dismiss[ing]" and "reject[ing] off-the-cuff" contributions. I'm sorry, but this does not happen, at least not with the frequency implied. Even very long discussions are followed by the editors involved. If editors stop following they usually leave. New editors joining will usually read the whole discussion before contributing. This does not mean every editor replies to every point: editors only have a finite amount of time to contribute so will only contribute where they feel they have something to write. If all they have to write is covered by policy they may use a shortcut to that instead, to save themselves and other editors time. They will also often not write something if it just repeats what another editor has written.

While we should not scare off newcomers and should treat all editors with respect there is no need for "sensitivity" towards the efforts of editors, who do not own their contributions and need to justify them from sources if challenged. And again, "careful presentations of the reasons for rejection" are not needed if there are straightforward policy reasons for it. Policies might be explained to new editors but experienced ones can be expected to know the policies, or where to find them if they need reminding.

Avoiding consensus building – It's unclear what this is saying as it seems to be rehashing the first section, so again has the process for dealing with original research the wrong way round. There's usually no need to say in detail which bits need sourcing, as they will be the bits without refs (ideally inline) to reliable secondary sources, so it is normally obvious. Editors can reasonably disagree over whether sources are reliable or secondary, but often this is so obvious, or sources are simply missing, that no discussion is needed.

It also mischaracterises the policy on primary and secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to establish simple facts, but to make a point on anything a secondary source is needed. This especially covers issues of undue weight and how to cover fringe topics which must be determined from reliable secondary sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

John, your comment on primary sources requires some revision; I'll look into that.

Your comments on the use of WP:OR are worrisome. You describe exactly the cavalier attitude that takes WP:OR as self-explanatory. Of course the policy is spelled out at WP:OR. But it can be misapplied. An explanation of policy does not help a contributor understand what exactly is assailed as OR, nor does it explain why it is assailed as OR. What is obvious and simple to one man is another man's OR. One man's impeccable sourcing is another man's misinterpretation. Of course, sometimes OR is pretty clear, and an explanation may be very simple. But sometimes WP:OR is applied like a bumper sticker to avoid explanation in pursuit of hasty dismissal, ignoring the perplexity and heated environment that this causes. Avoiding that insensitive behavior and keeping Talk pages open and calm is what this proposal is about. Brews ohare (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

But WP:OR is self-explanitory, or at least that's its intention. Of course there may be times when an editor does not understand it, or questions particular aspects of it, but those can be addressed as necessary. There may be other times when it's better to explain the issue: when a new editor posts unsourced content it's more usual to explain the policies to them briefly than refer to the policy. But if an experienced editor posts unsourced content linking to the relevant policy saves everyone time, and keeps the discussion calm as editors base their discussion on the neutrally worded policies, not their own personal interpretation of them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a valid point that policies are neutral, while interpretations are personal. However, the statement of a policy is not an explanation of why it is applicable, nor just what aspect of a contribution is questionable. Why and what are not policy matters, but judgment calls, they are personal appraisals, and the contributor deserves (and expects) an explanation of these claims. Failure to live up to this expectation leads to hostile encounters. Brews ohare (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No editor 'deserves' anything. As Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, which I linked to above, says "if you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them."

If someone is easily upset by their ideas, interests or writing style being challenged by other editors they should not be on Wikipedia, where such challenges are part of building consensus. They may get valuable feedback with a challenge or they may not. They may just get pointed to the relevant policy. Most editors are here to make an encyclopaedia and may have no time to write lengthy replies, especially when the reasons are given in more than enough detail on policy pages.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

John, many of your edits are supported by one-line comments, and concern corrections that clearly don't require much elaboration. That is not the context here. Maybe such cases require elaboration? Some discussion of when an in-line summary is appropriate? Brews ohare (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a bit about this topic. Brews ohare (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really like any of this, to be honest. You're advising established editors to reduce the amount of explanation they should feel required to provide, and I don't think that's a good thing. Merely stating policy is not really an argument in many cases (if not most), and it should therefore be considered on a case-by-case basis. Established editors who can see a problem as clear as day should be encouraged to spell it out regardless, especially to newcomers. A good argument should include a policy as well as an explanation of how that policy applies "here" specifically. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:41, 15 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Okay it looks like I totally misunderstood what's going on here. I thought the proposal was John's comment above. I'll have to go read Brews' actual proposal and come back. My comment above is directed at John. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:47, 15 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Equazcion, your above comment states what I intend this proposal to accomplish: "A good argument should include a policy as well as an explanation of how that policy applies "here" specifically." Brews ohare (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all of that, and cover much of it in my comments: I agree it should be up to the person challenging an edit what form the reply takes, considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account in particular the experience of the person they are writing for. Which is what I think the current approach is. Hence my objection to this guideline's insistence that all such replies "should include detailed explanation".--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 2

After having read the correct proposal, I don't think it belongs within WP:Disruptive editing, though it might make a good standalone essay that could eventually be elevated to guideline, with some work. The proposal seems to advise on dealing with article newcomers and those who may dissent with a previous consensus, as well as advising on how to be a conscientious dissenter -- these are indeed areas where Wikipedia could use more guidance.

DE is one of the many places where a defender of the status quo of an article might look to deal with a dissenter, but I think it's already specific enough in detailing what is actually disruption so as to avoid misuse. Taking its section titles alone, they do seem harsh and easily misinterpreted ("failure to get the point" etc), but the prose do seem to clarify the intent adequately, ie. "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted." (emphasis added). DE seems to focus on recognizing disruption based on a user's editing, rather than on their discussion, which is appropriate -- though maybe it needs to spell out that distinction more clearly. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:56, 16 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Equazcion: You seem to think that WP:Disruptive is OK as is, although Blackburne has underlined an attitude that he feels is consonant with this guideline but seems worrisome to me. Could you take the trouble to suggest what changes would make this proposal more acceptable as a guideline? Brews ohare (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a nutshell at the outset that I feel confident is completely opposed to Blackburne's position. Brews ohare (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I do disagree with a lot of John's (Blackburne's) points, but I don't think his statements are necessarily rooted in, or imply any problem with, WP:DE -- he just doesn't like your proposal (as is my understanding).

I understand the purpose of the proposal -- You do describe things that tend to happen when WP/article newcomers clash with veterans, and again I think there is a bit of a vacuum in Wikipedia's coverage of those situations. It wouldn't necessarily be good, though, to try to pinpoint "the" offending policy and patch it up so as to avoid problems in the future. I don't think that fact that these things happen is any indicator of a problem in the policies. We may be able to help smooth them by providing guidance on dealing with those situations, though.

I don't have any specific changes in mind but once it were in mainspace I'd be interested in editing it. For now I think it should be renamed, tagged an essay, and moved into WP space to see how it evolves. Many (most?) guidelines start out that way, and then someone nominates it for promotion. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:00, 16 Mar 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear what you disagree with in my comments: I noted earlier that I agree with your summary of the issue. My comments were grounded in my understanding of the current policy, so I was primarily trying to highlight how this proposal was at odds with those guidelines. I recognise the concerns raised in this proposal but I don't think the solutions are the right ones. I'm not convinced there are better solutions than we have now, or at least ones that don't cause more problems than they solve, such as requiring editors to spend far more time explaining uncontroversial changes because every editor deserves a "detailed explanation". The side effect of such a rule would be far more disruption as editors who now deal with it would have far less time to do so because they would spend far more time writing such explanations.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I do think established editors should be encouraged to supply more explanation than merely linking to a policy.

"fail[ing] to listen carefully", "summarily dismiss[ing]" and "reject[ing] off-the-cuff" contributions. I'm sorry, but this does not happen, at least not with the frequency implied. Even very long discussions are followed by the editors involved. -- I think this happens more often than you might think. Though everyone who cares about the article will follow the discussion, veteran editors of an article can be pretty resistant to change and yes, summarily dismiss ideas that seem 'too different' from the status quo they've gotten used to defending. It wouldn't hurt to put some guidance out there reminding editors to remain open-minded about changing articles they've come to care for. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:33, 16 Mar 2012 (UTC)

John, uncontroversial changes, by definition, do not require "detailed explanation", and would not be impacted. Your personal definition of "non-controversial" may need a narrower focus. Brews ohare (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In particular, the one-line edit summary should suffice for a non-controversial change. If that doesn't work, maybe the change is controversial after all? Brews ohare (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be as it is now, at the editor's discretion how much explanation they give. If they think the reason is clear and uncontroversial then just give the policy and/or a few words. If the editor then queries this they can offer a further explanation. I find I do this most often on my own talk page as editors after I've reverted their change query it. I've no problem doing this when needed, but to do it by default on the assumption that all editors need or deserve a detailed explanation would be a massive waste of my time.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

John, I am unclear why you feel this proposed guideline would force you into new behavior. First, it is directed at Talk-page discussion, and hardly would impact your common one-line edit summaries. The main provision that simple links to policies and guidelines should be supplemented by chapter and verse applies on Talk pages. If you can get away with a one-line edit summary that consists of simply WP:OR or WP:Fringe, the suggestion is that instead you say: "Thought to be WP:OR; if you differ, please go to Talk page". The idea is to avoid irritation so far as possible. You seem to see more in this than I do? Brews ohare (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you object to explaining the use of (say) WP:OR in a Talk-page rejection of a proposed contribution? Brews ohare (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Again the replying editor should use their judgement whether they need to give a detailed explanation, a short one, or simply a link to one or more policy pages where a very full and detailed explanation can be found. There is no point giving a detailed explanation if it simply repeats what's on a policy page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

John, as you know, a policy or guideline description on its own page is not an explanation about how an editor thinks that policy or guideline applies to a particular text. The refusing editor and the contributor will not always agree about these matters, or necessarily understand what each other are talking about. Reference to a policy page is just a non-response.

You seem to hope that the refusing editor can patch things up after the rejection. Sometimes that will work. But an adrenaline rush doesn't start things off on a good footing. Its better to begin with the responsibility of working toward a common goal, and to avoid the two parties digging in. Digging in is more likely when the rejecting editor feels under no obligation to elaborate, that it is at their discretion, or takes the view that the policy page suffices, and the rejected party only has to read the policy for the light to dawn.

This guideline makes clear the duties of both parties for clear explanation. Brews ohare (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A concrete example: suppose someone posts a 'new' one-page proof for Fermat's Last Theorem (say). When it's removed as unsourced OR they rework it and post it on the talk page, perhaps with a link to their blog where they've also written it up. But again it's simply unsourced OR. An editor could write a long, detailed explanation but it's far better to point to the policy which explains it clearly and saves everyone time.

The polices have many uses but one use is they are required reading for all editors who at some point need to familiarise themselves with core content rules in particular on sourcing. It's very tempting to add your own research and discoveries to articles but the policies almost always prevent this for very good reason. Post an explanation (no matter how detailed) and the editor posting OR may think it's a difference of opinion and try to debate the point. Point instead to the guideline and it's clear that it's a policy, one supported by the consensus of editors. And if the policy expresses it clearly why repeat it in a detailed explanation?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

John: You have shown in your first paragraph how to handle these two iterations of the "novel proof" of Fermat's last theorem: (i) point out that like the article already present on Fermat's theorem (or some other theorem, if the article doesn't yet exist), it needs a source, and iteration (ii) point out that the user's blog is not a recognized source. These things are not really a problem, are they? You might say that the contributor should recognize these requirements themselves if they knew the policy, and maybe that is so. But the explanation in simple cases is not prolonged and in complex cases should be a requirement.

The real issue is digging in behind knee-jerk refusals with further refusals to explain why the cited policies apply and, instead of a failure in the justification of its use, suggesting as you do here that the fault is with the victim's unfamiliarity with policy. Brews ohare (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So it should be up to the replying editor whether they give a detailed explanation, based on the complexity of the issue. Which is what it is now. It's also worth noting that if an editor's reply seems short for whatever reason (most likely they do not have time as they would rather be writing the encyclopaedia) another editor can and often will provide a more full reply. The relative verboseness of different editors replies is not a problem needing to be solved, it's just human nature.

If no editor gives a detailed explanation the editor proposing new content should reconsider their contributions. They may think their complex new proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is correct and so keep asking for the other editors to disprove it with detailed mathematical arguments. But to the other editors it's simply original research and the sooner the person proposing it understands that that the better. The best explanation for that is at WP:OR so the replies consist mostly of suggestions to read that policy.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

John, this simple example is no problem, and doesn't address the purpose of this proposed guideline at all. Its purpose is to require rejections be supported by more than links to policy, and not allow them to hide behind a victim's supposed ignorance of policy. Even great familiarity with policy cannot explain a judgment about its applicability. The urgency of "writing the encyclopedia" is no excuse for hasty judgment or refusal to explain. And it is unsatisfactory to rely on possible encounters with a good Samaritan to patch up the effects of hasty rejection made by others "too busy" to bother. Clearly, John, you like things the way they are. Your tie has been chosen, and the rest of the outfit better fit. Brews ohare (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But the proposed guideline says "rejection based upon guidelines and policies such as WP:OR, WP:Syn, WP:VS, WP:Fringe, WP:Undue and so forth should include detailed explanation". So which is it? Always a detailed explanation ? Or only if the editor replying thinks it's needed ?

Another serious problem with the proposal is the very pejorative language it uses. Replying editors are "blinkered", give "knee-jerk" replies, have "such a mindset" to reject proposals, "frequently fail" to listen then "summarily dismiss" contributions, citing tl;dr, give "off-the-cuff" rejections, etc. It is always best to assume good faith and so not pre-judge the motives or the mindset of editors doing their best to improve the encyclopaedia with only a finite amount of time to do so.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

John: Perhaps some elaboration of what constitutes a "detailed" explanation would help? My conception of this is (i) identification of the applied policy with its link; (ii) identification of the portion of proposed text to which the policy is applied (supposing the supplied text isn't just a word or two) (iii) a statement of how the selected text fails to satisfy the policy requirements. Would that addition help matters?Brews ohare (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten this portion to be clearer. Brews ohare (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The language that offends you is not stated to apply as matter of course to rejections, but to describe hazards that may be fallen into. It is not descriptive but cautionary. Brews ohare (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

'Some elaboration' would make it even more prescriptive, so even worse. It should be up to editors how detailed their reply is, based on their own common sense. As for the language it reads as a description of editors' attitudes and approach. After all if no editors were "blinkered", "incendiary", "cavalier" why would this proposal be needed? It's also not "disruptive" or "pejorative" to apply policies in good faith. The policies are there to be applied. The shortcuts are there to be used. It's not an accident that they're easy to remember and quick to type. If an editor posting is clearly ignorant of the policies then the best thing is to advise them to them, with a link so they can immediately read the policy for themselves, where they will also find the best explanation possible.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

John, contrast these two rejections of a contribution:

WP:OR

or,

The statement "so-and-so" appears to be non-obvious: please provide a source as required by WP:OR.

The first may appear unmotivated by the contributor and raise their blood pressure. The second indicates what is thought to be a problem, and what to do about it.

The first is rather likely to escalate; the second, less so. The first violates the proposed guideline; the second follows the guideline. Brews ohare (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the second is detailed or an explanation, and it's inappropriate as 'non-obvious' is not a good criteria. WP:OR disallows even obvious deductions if they are unsourced. The problem is obviousness is entirely subjective: what's obvious to one editor will be non-obvious to another. Asserting that something is non-obvious may cause another editor to dispute it as obvious to them. This comes up fairly regularly in maths as editors post new proofs and identities, asserting it's good content as all the steps used to derive it are 'obvious', and challenging other editors to disprove their mathematics. But WP doesn't work like that.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

John, you are imagining a WP:SYN situation. Here's another example:

WP:SYN

contrasted with,

The statement "so-and-so" appears to go beyond the statement "thus-and-thus" provided by the source x: please provide additional sourcing as required by WP:SYN. Brews ohare (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The second of those is fine, though there's no need to go through someone's contribution statement by statement and work out how they've got to it by comparing it with sources. But again, this should be up to an editor. If they think the policy page offers the best explanation they can post a link to it, usually with a few words to make it a sentence. There's no need for a policy to tell them what to write, it has to be down to their judgement.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

John, explain why "there's no need to go through someone's contribution" to point out what is at fault. Can you not imagine that the contributor thinks the contribution is fine, and is just bewildered that the rejecting editor finds fault? Why would the contributor's reading the policy over again help to identify what is in the rejector's mind, and how the rejector reached their conclusion about this specific contribution? Won't the rejector try harder to exhibit some empathy if they follow this proposed guideline? Won't peace be more likely to prevail? I think so. Brews ohare (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If their contribution cannot be used because of Wikipedia's policies and they are unfamiliar with the policies then they need to read the policies, where the reasons for not including it are explained. That's why we have policies. Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus, so in theory every article could be written by editors based only on discussions on the talk page. But to save everyone time some decisions that have broad support over many articles have been codified into policies and guidelines, which every editor should be familiar with. The alternative, of asking editors to explain decisions in detail even when the decision is covered by policy, would as noted below, just lead to more wikilawyering and disruption from inexperienced editors demanding editors justify straightforward policy-based decisions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

John, you want to direct matters to familiarity with the policies and devote much space to them. But you spend no time considering the issue: a policy must be judged to apply, and that judgment has to be explained, both as to how the offending text can be seen to be an example of what the policy deals with, and also an identification of just what part of the text constitutes that example. Your view of the situation is like that of a traffic cop catching a motorist: the cop just points out the speed limit sign and says "you were speeding". The situation is more like being accosted for vagrancy when in fact you were window shopping (or so you thought). Brews ohare (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to be there when a traffic cop stops a car, says "you were speeding" and tickets the motorist, then the motorist refuses to let the officer go until the officer gives him a detailed explanation of the law and why it has been applied to him. The rules are rules and apply to all editors. Of course all editors start not knowing the rules, and we should do our best to help newcomers until they are familiar with our practices. But there is a guideline on precisely that, WP:BITE, and it applies only to new editors. We do not need to treat experienced editors the same way, as if they don't know the rules and need treating with 'sensitivity'.

I would also note that the section on using edit summaries is rather ironic: the rule is that all mainspace edits should be accompanied with a summary of the edit and the reasons for it. It is a rule you continue to ignore despite being previously warned about it, even in your mainspace edits today. The rule on edit summaries is not one you should ignore, and certainly not one you can advise other editors on if you pay no attention to it yourself.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My two cents - I find your cop metaphor rather ironic by itself, given that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not the law; a more apt metaphor would be a warning by a "neighbourhood watch" member who carries no official authority. I tend to side with Brews in this; "creating a policy" and "applying a policy to a discussion" are separate steps of consensus building so they both require their own justifications.

Even if there are situations when a detailed explanation is not needed (a discussion amongst only veterans could work on a "link to policy, provide detailed explanations as requested" basis), providing it on a regular basis at talk pages should be considered a good practice to be encouraged and normally followed. The "detail" doesn't need to be really extended - simply explaining in the wikilink how the linked policy is relevant would be enough. Diego (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That to me is neither detailed or an explanation. WP:OR is a detailed explanation, which is why people link to it, rather than to e.g. WP:5P which has just summaries. But asking editors even to write as much as on that page would be excessive. The proposal goes further in asking that not only should the replying editor give a detailed explanation of their reasoning on the whole contribution, they should "Identify what part of the disputed content is not compliant with the relevant policy, providing quotes of the offending material". Presumably they should do this for every policy it violates, and for every section that has problems.

The cop was not my example, but in a way the policies are the law. Editors don't get handed driving bans but they can be blocked and banned from editing. Some actions result in immediate bans, some cumulatively lead to bans, very like driving laws. The biggest difference perhaps is our processes are more lightweight and less formal, and can be overridden by consensus (though maybe you could liken that to the jury system). But our rules are clear and repeated violation including disruptively challenging the rules will get you blocked or banned.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The turn of this discussion toward banning and blocking is alarming. The predilection toward a belligerent refusal to explain the reasons for action, claiming policies are self-explanatory and nothing more than a link to policy is necessary, followed by an attempted enforcement action through AN/I claiming a contributor is "challenging the rules" by a refusal to learn policy, is not a great approach. However, it is a methodology employed by some. This guideline is intended to promote better sense. Brews ohare (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 3

Excerpt from above comment

I understand the purpose of the proposal -- You do describe things that tend to happen when WP/article newcomers clash with veterans, and again I think there is a bit of a vacuum in Wikipedia's coverage of those situations. It wouldn't necessarily be good, though, to try to pinpoint "the" offending policy and patch it up so as to avoid problems in the future. I don't think that fact that these things happen is any indicator of a problem in the policies. We may be able to help smooth them by providing guidance on dealing with those situations, though. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:00, 16 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Equazcion, as you note, this proposed guideline is intended to smooth out the application of WP:Disruption and the use of unsupported links to WP:OR, WP:Syn and so forth; to refocus upon their use as aids to better content and aids to better behavior, rather than having them turn up mainly as support for litigation. It may be that this and some similar guidelines could reduce the incidence of AN/I and ArbCom actions. Brews ohare (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm attempting to support this proposal in a way, but you're inflating my comments beyond that. Yes, I think the motivation behind this proposal is sound; but I note specifically that I don't think your targeting of WP:Disruption specifically (or any other policy) is appropriate. This is written from the perspective that existing policies need elaboration, and I don't think they do. Policies will be misused no matter how elaborate they are, and sometimes making them more elaborate is bad. If this proposal were re-written as a standalone guide to dealing with and being a conscientious dissenter with a previous consensus, I think it would be very beneficial. In its current state I'm not so sure. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:58, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Can you make some specific suggestions for changes? You might notice that no suggestions are made for changing any policies, the suggestions are about supporting the use of these policies with direct illustrations from contributed text that show the need for attention. Brews ohare (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have modified the intro in the hope of addressing your concerns. Brews ohare (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would remove the opening that ties this to WP:DE, as if this page were an expansion of it. I would begin instead with a description of the common occurrence where one editor, or a minority of editors, want to change an article that has an established consensus. I'd make it clear that this is not necessarily a bad thing, if done correctly, and go on to summarize (and then detail in the sections) the do's and dont's of both attempting such a change and dealing with those making the attempt. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:29, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

OK,I've changed the intro along those lines. How do things look now? Brews ohare (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The intro is a little complicated. I'd not start with the explicit description, "this is intended to..." but go with "Oftentimes, [describe the scenario we're dealing with]." Equazcion ^(talk) 14:56, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I've made a second attempt. How's that? Brews ohare (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 4

The proposal is not suitable as a guideline as its main effect would be to encourage wikilawyering by those defending unsuitable text. The page may be ok if recast as an essay asserting that collaboration and civility are essential, and encouraging those who remove new contributions to explain their reasoning, but collaboration is a two-way street: while those who remove unsuitable text should do so in a collaborative fashion, it is even more important for the long-term health of the encyclopedia and its community that passionate purveyors of new ideas are also collaborative—if they see a WP:V link, they need to study the V text and ask (perhaps at WP:HELPDESK) if they cannot see the relevance. Disruption occurs when someone with new ideas won't accept what they are told, and won't try to understand how they might go about learning what the problem with their contribution is. The proposed lead seems to strike the wrong balance. Where is it established that "A goal of WP is to provide a conciliatory environment for contributors."? Wikipedia is not a feel-good exercise—it's an encyclopedia built using certain policies. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq: As an attempt to restate your view in my own words: you are saying that this proposed guideline increases the likelihood that a Talk-page exchange about a reversion will devolve into useless bickering? Is that it in a nutshell? Brews ohare (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Assuming the above fits your remarks, perhaps you might elaborate upon why a Talk page discussion of a rejection guided by this proposal is more likely to be counterproductive than one without it? Brews ohare (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed the wording "conciliatory environment for contributors" to a quote from the fourth pillar of WP: "respectful and civil". Brews ohare (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That "nutshell" interpretation is not really my view; "Disruption occurs when someone with new ideas won't accept what they are told, and won't try to understand how they might go about learning what the problem with their contribution is" is closer. The real point is that while some people have infinite time, patience and enthusiasm, others don't. The encyclopedia should not be owned by the former group—there has to be a limit on back-and-forth, and if someone won't/can't get it, they should be referred to WP:CIR or WP:NOTTHERAPY. This is an encyclopedia, not a feel-good group: common sense and experience tells us that not everyone will be satisfied—there is nothing we can do about that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq: You haven't answered my basic uncertainty about your viewpoint: How would following this guideline result in the "owning" of WP by those that won't try to understand? The guideline merely requests an initial explanation of the judgment call made by the refusing editor. There is no suggestion for unending back and forth. Maybe you can help me formulate this better? Brews ohare (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 5

I agree to a large extent with the overall premise and goals of the essay, but haven't read it in detail; it suffers from Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. It should be reformatted so that each section provides a few "calls to action" in the form of a few bullet-point list. For example "Critiquing with guidelines and policies" could be summarized to these suggestions or similar:

• Don't just link to a policy; policies are complex and contain many details and cases. Mention what part of the policy is relevant to the discussion.
• Identify what part of the disputed content is not compliant with the relevant policy, providing quotes of the offending material.
• Take extreme care with links to WP:OR, WP:Syn, WP:RS, WP:POV fork, WP:Fringe, WP:Undue, since these policies can be seen as a pejorative judgement and a personal opinion by the editor raising the concern.

This way readers can get the point quickly, and read the elaborate rationale for the proposed actions only when they disagree or don't understand one of the recommendations. Diego (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Diego: Thanks for the suggestions. I have reformatted to identify bullet points, using your suggestions. Te text is not shorter, but it does emphasize the recommendations. If you have further suggestions, I'd like to know about them. Brews ohare (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it works better this way. Diego (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 6

The recently added summary currently reads

A refusal to explain reasons for rejection, claiming policies are self-explanatory and that a link to policy is all that is necessary, and following attempted defense by going to AN/I with the claim that a contributor is "challenging the rules" by a refusal to learn policy, is a poor approach. However, it is a methodology employed by some. This guideline is intended to promote real discussion instead.

It would be enlightening to have some examples of this behaviour, i.e. to point out where this has happened. Editors' initial replies can terse, especially when contained in an edit summary, and sometimes they do not follow up with a more detailed reply. But I've never come across an editor taking another to AN/I without explanation or warning because they challenged such an edit. I really believe this simply does not happen as described. This has been something I've raised already: I don't think there's a problem here that needs to be solved, at least not like the one described in this paragraph, and so (as this is the summary) the essay as a whole. It would be useful to have some concrete examples of it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph as it seemed to too narrowly focus the proposal. There was no discussion there of failure to warn of AN/I action, just the idea that a supposedly repeated failure to become informed of policy was an actionable form of "challenging the rules". This paragraph was an outgrowth of your description in Comment 2:

"Of course all editors start not knowing the rules, and we should do our best to help newcomers until they are familiar with our practices. But there is a guideline on precisely that, WP:BITE, and it applies only to new editors. We do not need to treat experienced editors the same way, as if they don't know the rules and need treating with 'sensitivity'."

"our rules are clear and repeated violation including disruptively challenging the rules will get you blocked or banned."

The guideline will help avoid such extreme action without a summary pointing out its role in supporting moderation. Brews ohare (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Still it would be good to have some examples of what behaviour this is meant to address: in my experience it simply doesn't happen as described. On the other hand disruptive editors that repeatedly ignore policies or consensus do exist: we already have many processes and guidelines to deal with them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an example in the article. Maybe you would like to see others? Please explain further. Brews ohare (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, a real example, as in a real editor who has acted this way, with links. If it happens often enough to need a guideline covering it then it should be easy to find examples of the problem this guideline will address.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My appraisal is that getting involved in specific cases with diffs is a digression that will prove very distracting as a rehash of the case may result, whether this-or-that means thus-or-so. It suffices to present the matter in the abstract using possible scenarios. The objective is not to demonstrate occurrence of particular issues, but to avoid entire classes of issues as far as possible. One issue raised, of course, is the use of unsupported links to guidelines and refusal to elaborate beyond "read the policy". That is a recipe guaranteed to produce friction. Brews ohare (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 7

Changes by Equazcion: These changes are helpful. You introduced the sentence:

There are similarly a number of steps a new contributor can take in order to facilitate the serious consideration of their ideas among the community of established editors.

That raises this question: Should more be said in this proposal about this point? Brews ohare (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I added this. Brews ohare (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I followed this up with several edits to formally separate advice to the two parties. Brews ohare (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 8

This proposal is totally without merit, whether is be called an essay, a guideline, an edict from the true deity, or anything else. It is nothing but a continuation of the posturing of an editor banned for tendentious and disruptive behavior, an editor who has never shown the slightest regard for the opinions or consensus of others and insists on presenting himself as a victim.

Tim Shuba (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think someone needed to mention the elephant in the room. I said above that the "proposal is not suitable as a guideline as its main effect would be to encourage wikilawyering by those defending unsuitable text", but that was insufficiently clear. I think the page should be moved to user space as it never will be more than an attempt to rewrite rules to encourage behavior that has been clearly rejected by the community. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've been trying to address the issues in this directly but that has been the back of my mind. It's why I've been asking for examples of problems this is meant to solve, not as I think think they exist (they don't) but as I think they are the flawed recollections of an editor blocked repeatedly for his disruptive editing and still unable to recognise that those blocks were entirely due to his behaviour. So instead he's trying to 'fix' Wikipedia, by creating a guideline which would disrupt the perfectly good processes that got him blocked and banned.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

remark

Well, it may also be worth pointing out that Tim Shuba was rather involved in that dispute; so as much as Brews' history could be said to be coloring his motives here, so could Tim's in his making that characterization.

I usually try to stick to commenting on content rather than editors, unless they give me some reason to do otherwise. This is just an essay with a 'proposed' tag on it, and if it truly has no merit, there's nothing to worry about: live and let die.

It might be wise not to stir up year-old conflicts by following each other around Wikipedia just because there is now the opportunity to do so. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:47, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that note of civility, Equazcion. The edit history of Wikipedia:Avoiding talk-page disruption indicates the adoption of changes in content in response to comment about its subject. The rallying cry by Shuba, Blackburne, and Johnuniq suggests for these three, however, content may not be their primary preoccupation. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not a content issue though, as the proposed document is a proposed behaviour rather than content guideline. It makes sense therefore to ask exactly what behaviour this is meant to address. Not in the abstract but real examples, of users who have been affected by this problem. If none exist, or if they turn out to be editors whose own disruptive behaviour was the real cause of their problems, then there is no need for this guideline.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Asking for examples is fine. I was commenting more on the remarkable lack of judgment that led to the comment that began this section. Note though that it's also perfectly valid to write an essay (or even propose a guideline) on a perceived general issue even if the creator himself can't or doesn't wish to find examples; perhaps someone else might even bring them. Either way, let's reserve judging this based on the guy that started it. Anyone who feels this has no chance and is a waste of time is not required to waste their time on it beyond simply leaving their oppose comment. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:33, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Comment 9

Excerpt from above comment:

It makes sense therefore to ask exactly what behaviour this is meant to address. Not in the abstract but real examples, of users who have been affected by this problem. If none exist, or if they turn out to be editors whose own disruptive behaviour was the real cause of their problems, then there is no need for this guideline.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue of concrete examples involving diffs was brought up before in Comment 6. My assessment of its merits expressed there is that discussion of such instances will prove a distraction as every editor will have their own opinion as to whether a real-life instance is an example of this or an example of that. In contrast, an abstract example, like this one, is stated to be what it is, and one cannot quarrel about that. An abstract example also avoids dragging the personalities involved in a concrete example into a limelight they may not appreciate. Brews ohare (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If editors are being affected by the problems this describes then they should be happy to have them used to help fix the problems. More generally as it says at the bottom of the edit window: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". Apart from deleted content all contributions on Wikipedia are public, free for anyone to use in any way. It is normal and expected in behavioural discussions to provide diffs of editors' contributions, or other pointers to them, precisely so everyone is clear what the issues are. As you did here in a related discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 10

I have converted this page to an essay, as there seems to be no further interest in the community for discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC) As things stand now, Diego and Equazcion support the idea of this proposal for explaining actions in detail and avoiding actions that can be interpreted as cavalier or inhospitable. They have suggested changes that have been implemented. Blackburne and Johnuniq oppose the proposal, and have indicated very clearly that they feel it promotes coddling of contributors and wastes the time of editors who presently reject and revert with little explanation, suggesting that contributors who are perplexed by these curt appraisals go read the relevant WP guidelines and policies. These concerns have led to changes in the proposal, but these editors have not engaged in suggestions themselves. No further discussion has occurred. Brews ohare (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You removed the RfC, so the assumption by me and perhaps others was that you had withdrawn the proposal and were happy for it to stay as an essay, or resigned to it not gaining consensus for promotion. You missed Tim Shuba off the list of those opposing, and I don't see clear statements of support from the other two editors. My comments at the top of the page still mostly apply, and perhaps more significantly my subsequent requests for concrete examples of the problems this is meant to address have not been satisfied. Without any evidence that this is needed there is no case for it becoming a guideline.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Guideline category

That category has continually been removed by multiple users, but restored by the author. The guideline category is for guidelines, not proposed guidelines, so this category should indeed not be here unless the page is actually promoted at some point. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:03, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for removing it properly: I'm used to turning them into links as I come across them on user pages, per WP:USERNOCAT, but there's no need for any such link here. Once it's done as a proposal it can be re-categorised as appropriate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And on a related note it's not a user essay, which is one in user space, as it was before it was moved here. I don't know if anyone wants to move it back: I'm neutral on this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that the "Guidance essay" template auto-adds the guideline essays category, so there's no need to explicitly add an essay category to the end of the page. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:00, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Content removal

I've just undone this edit which removed all the content without explanation. Although there are many issues with this essay it serves no purpose to remove it. The proper way to have this deleted would be via Miscellany for Deletion. Alternately it could be userfied, i.e. moved back into user space (provided no-one objects), after which the owner can do as they wish with it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; this blanking of the page was accidental. Brews ohare (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC upon essay: Avoiding talk-page disruption

Comments are invited concerning the essay Avoiding talk-page disruption intended to reduce controversy on Talk pages over new contributions to existing articles. The essay is found here, and comments are invited on its Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Some previous commentary upon earlier versions of this essay made while it was under consideration as a WP guideline can be found above. Some supported the ideas here, and some objected. The main objections voiced so far appear to be:

1. Present practice is quite adequate: namely, to rebut contributor complaints about rejection by suggesting more diligent study of policies and guidelines.
2. No specific examples employing diffs are provided by the essay to indicate that there is a significant problem with Talk page conduct introduced by reversions with too little explanation, or too little courtesy.
3. The proposed mode of operation coddles contributors at the expense of wasting the time of knowledgeable editors in explaining their rejections.

In my opinion, these objections are themselves illustrations of the need for this essay. Although knowledge of policies is necessary, the application of a policy to a particular contribution can very well require a judgment or evaluation that is not obvious from unguided perusal of a policy or guideline, and deserves explanation.

Comments of all kinds are invited. Brews ohare (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is no harm in having an essay with a few suggestions along these lines. Although it is true that editors know what to do better than any editor, there is some value in a reminder that keeping an open mind takes a certain amount of intellectual energy. However, the essay has too many unstated assumptions that in sum are contrary to policy and practice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Further to my above comments it's not clear what the purpose of this second RfC is: as an essay it simply exists like other essays. Give it time to see if other editors take an interest, by working on it, responding to it e.g. with their own essay, or linking to it in discussions. Over time it will become clear how it is seen by others.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)