Excellent page. How's it working in real use? pschemp | talk 07:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some complaints about me removing things "unilateraly," but in practice I've used this only for the most egregious misuses of the reference desk, and I think people realize that the edits I've made are good. In the long term, hopefully folks will come to understand that sometimes a "unilateral" action is just an experienced user cutting through red tape in order to enact community consensus. For the short-to-medium term, it probably still hasn't fully sunk in that I'm serious; hopefully there won't be further conflict once it does sink in, but all I know is that I've done all I can to explain what I'm doing... and now all I can do is what I said I would.

Thanks for your feedback; I'd tell you you're welcome to borrow the text for your own use, but of course you already know it's licensed under GFDL. -- SCZenz 07:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat's comments[edit]

I don't know how you want us to comment on all that, so I copied it here. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?[edit]

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.

I agree that it should be treated as a talk page with a back and forth dialog, like this real case (paraphrased):

What kind of penguin appears on X coat of arms ?

I don't know, but here's a pic of the coat of arms: [some_site.com].

That looks like a Y penguin to me.

Could be, but notice the yellow spot by the ears, I think that means it's a Z penguin, although our article's pic doesn't really show the spot.

Here's another pic with the spot clearly visible, does that look like the penguin: [some_other site.com] ?

Yea, that's definitely it.

I agree.

Are penguins related at all to seagulls?--Light current 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons following from the talk page guidelines[edit]

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.

This seems very wrong to me. You really can't say anything on a talk page without a reference ? How stupid. The first part of an answer is often "I think it's X, but I can't find our article" with a later follow up by another responder saying "That info is in the Y article". The no original research guideline is also stupid. For example, I answered a question about a USB port on a computer only working part of the time with a flash drive. I advised that I had the same prob, which was caused by the weight of the flash drive putting too much tension on the connector and causing it to sag partially out, thus losing connection. The cure was to use a short extension cable. This is all "original research", so would be banned by such an idiotic policy, even though it solved the user's problem. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

That should depend on how "irrelevant". The common example I give on this is the person asking for advice on how to kill themself. Many responded with advice on getting help from suicide prevention hotlines, etc., which is not a direct answer to the question asked, but still what the user needed to hear. Many other posters ask a question based on a false assumption, so it's necessary to explain the error. Also, questions sometimes spawn other questions. I like to add those as a subsection, especially if the answer is somewhat related to the answer to the original question. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Disagree. The OP should get the benefit of many opinions, then decide which is most appropriate for their case. For example, a recent question on how to dispose of a couch with a tubular metal frame elicited responses on sawing it and using a torch. The OP was then able to decide which approach suited their case best. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Agree, to a certain extent. This asking for sources often gets out of hand. A source should only be required on suspect info, not all info. Often info is so common that asking for a source is absurd, like "Who was the President of the US during the Civil War ?". Info lacking a source should never be removed from the Ref Desk. If a source can be found that actually proves it is wrong, then that should be added. In other words, the same burden of proof should apply both to the supporters and detractors of statement: If you feel a statement is wrong, then you prove it is wrong, don't take the lack of sources as proof that it is wrong. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The comments may be off-topic for the particular question, but still on-topic for the Ref Desk (as we handle pretty much any topic). Thus, rather than removal of the material, it typically should be made into a separate question or a subsection. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons following from common sense[edit]

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.

Agree, but note the critical word egregious. Pointing out a spelling error in the OP's question, especially one that may prevent them from finding the info they seek in a dictionary or encyclopedia, is not an egregious violation of WP:BITE, for example. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What gives me the authority to remove talk page comments?[edit]

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.

Perhaps, in extreme cases, removal of comments is justified. However, that doesn't justify you blocking users who disagree with you and restore their deleted material. The 3RR policy should apply here. Thus, if you revert their comment, they reinstate, then you revert, and they reinstate again, you should not revert a third time. If the case is really egregious, then somebody else will revert it the third time. This is an important check and balance, preventing any one User (or Admin) from having total power to delete anything they want. This is the purpose of the 3RR policy, and why it should apply to the Ref Desk. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There can be NO!! excuse whatsoever for violating the 3RR without punishment(except obvious vandalism)--Light current 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you have no authority beyond removing comments that violate accepted WP policy and guidelines 8-)--Light current 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're censoring me![edit]

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.

This policy applies to article pages, not talk pages like the Ref Desk. That is, only egregious violations of policy should be addressed by removal on a talk page, whereas anything can be removed from an article, as long as it's removal improves the article. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are censoring me! Therefore I can censor you?--Light current 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limits to what I remove[edit]

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.

You seem to be going well beyond the "egregious examples", to me. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

How do you define 'useful' ? Useful to you personally? How do you know with certainty what is useful to anyone else?--Light current 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You should contact them and discuss each case. And, you should actually listen to their POV on the matter, not just ignore whatever they say, as you often appear to do. And, the goal should be compromise, not confrontation. If the responder is willing to modify their statement to make it more appropriate, this should be allowed. An inappropriate comment, like "Learn how to spell", should be replaced by an appropriate one, like "You might have more luck finding the info you seek using the correct spelling, which is ...". StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it appears you do!--Light current 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May you re-add your comments?[edit]

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.

No ! This is saying your judgment is always right and everyone else is always wrong. You should follow the 3RR guidelines discussed above. You aren't perfect, any more than anyone else is, so should not unilaterally have the final say on every deletion. You've appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner here. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of re-adding, I encourage you to:

Bring the removal up with me on my talk page.

I see no evidence that you ever reconsider any decision you make, no matter what evidence or argument is provided. As such, discussing things with you seems rather pointless. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You seem unwilling to do the same, and instituted this deletion policy of yours without consensus. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, if you believe I have, or am threatening to, misuse my administrator powers

Asking other heavy-handed Admins to police a heavy-handed Admin is not likely to get results. StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, my biggest objection to your whole policy is the lack of a sense of balance. That is, even if a comment is less than ideal, does it's removal, threatening to block the user who made the comment if they restore it, then actually blocking them, actually improve Wikipedia ? In many cases, the "cure" you want to implement is far worse than the problem. You should apply a version of the Hippocratic oath: "First, do no harm". StuRat 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need rules and procedures, we need common sense.

Hmm Wonder who said that?--Light current 05:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

You removed some of my comments once, and rightly so. However, I feel that you are heavy-handed and unilateral with removals from the RD to the point that you frequently make mistakes in judgment and removal material that should not be removed. The people who contribute to the RD regularly have also asked me to remove comments once, and I did, and didn't feel bad about it a bit, because the request came from my peers, and was not imposed on me from on high. I believe you should take what StuRat and Light current are telling you under serious consideration. -THB 07:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. So far the list of people who think SCZenz is acting in a heavy-handed manner with respect to the Ref Desk includes:

This is starting to be a rather substantial list. (If I've misrepresented any person's views, I apologize, this is the best I could do by trying to interpret pages and pages of comments.) There are likely others who agree, but are afraid to publicly say so, possibly because they fear becoming a target if they do so.

StuRat 07:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objections?[edit]

It seems to me like the strenuous objections by a very vocal few here all have one thing in common: they're objections to the wiki process. But, the wiki process is how we do things here. If someone posts irrelevant junk to an article talk page, other editors can and do remove the offending section when they feel it's best to do so. This is standard, accepted practice, and has been all along, as far as I can tell. There's nothing new about applying this concept to the RD, other than that perhaps a few RD regulars want to own their edits a bit too much. Friday (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That list above is more than just a "few". The additional problem with removals from the Ref Desk is that they get buried in the thousands of other edits each day, making it almost impossible for the author to track down why, and by whom, their edit was removed. Thus, deletions should be extremely rare, and with consensus, unless the removed material is highly abusive. The author should be notified, in any case. StuRat 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]