User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals

I have linked to this page to explain reasons I might have removed comments from the reference desk. Here are the answers to the questions you're thinking right now. I have, hopefully, cited specific numbered comments in the summary that led you here, so you can understand the particular issues about the comment in question.

Why did I remove your comment?

Because it was bad for the reference desk, or bad for Wikipedia. Here are the specific reasons, in two sections. The first are justified by treating the RD in analogy with the talk page, which it is similar to in that it has back-and-forth dialogue rather than being a constructed article, and the second by simple common sense about what the Reference Desk is for.

Reasons following from the talk page guidelines

These are rules based on looking at talk page guidelines, and making obvious translations. This seems sensible since the RD is a lot like a talk page, and the reasons for the talk page guidelines in many cases apply equally well.

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Wikipedia policy:

1. The policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research.

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages:

2. Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article [or, in this case, how to answer the given question]. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. [emphasis mine]

3. Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. . . . The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.

4. Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.

Comments that are off-topic, opinion, or argumentative will usually be removed to the reference desk talk page, with a link to the removed section, unless there is a reason not to do this.

Reasons following from common sense

5. Egregious violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE need to be removed, because the reference desk is a very important public page, and very useful for recruiting new users.

What gives me the authority to remove talk page comments?

• The talk page guidelines do encourage some discussion/speculation, but they also clearly state that comments that detract from the functionality of the talk page are subject to removal. The analogy between the RD and the talk page makes it reasonable to believe removing the comments is a good idea here too.
• No explicit policy authorizes the removal of civility violations and newbie-biting, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and it is sometimes necessary to use common sense. The compelling interest to Wikipedia in treating new users well is what justifies the removal, and ultimately the good of the wiki is our most fundamental priority.

You're censoring me!

Wikipedia is not a free speech site. From WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an anarchy, Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. It's a fact that people can edit pages on Wikipedia to improve it, and sometimes that means removing others' work. Since you don't own the Wikipedia servers, you have no right to free speech on them. I don't own the servers either, but I believe I am doing the best thing for Wikipedia within its own rules, and I will listen to consensus that says I am wrong.

Limits to what I remove

• My intention is only to remove the most egregious examples of these problems, when I feel the harm done by leaving them in is particularly problematic.
• I do not remove remarks that may offend people if they do not target specific users and they are useful, but I am more likely to remove them if they are not useful. Giving offense to no purpose is bad.
• I do usually not immediately remove comments unless I have already attempted to have a dialogue with the user making the comments; this does not promise a dialogue for each comment, but rather a dialogue with each user, and it also does not promise that extraordinarily problematic comments won't be removed without warning.

May you re-add your comments?

Please don't. I've removed them because they're clearly bad for Wikipedia, per one or more of the points above. Unless the re-addition of a comment is accompanied by a compelling explanation of why I've made a mistake in terms of my criteria above, I will simply remove the comments again and treat subsequent re-additions as disruption. To be clear, if I believe as an administrator that you are disrupting Wikipedia, I am empowered to use my rollback button or to block you. I will do this if, and only if, I see no other option.

Instead of re-adding, I encourage you to:

• Bring the removal up with me on my talk page.
• Start a discussion of on Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk, and obtain a consensus that I made a mistake and Wikipedia would be improved by re-instating the comment.
• Start a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, if you believe I have, or am threatening to, misuse my administrator powers