Help talk:Maintenance template removal

Template removal after conclusion of an RFC

Criteria for removing the template include:

2. Upon determining that the issue has been resolved.
4. When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue.

This text is potentially unclear when an RFC concludes as no consensus to change the existing text. On one hand there is no consensus that any problem exists, and it has been resolved that we address the issue by retaining the current text. On the other hand those who dislike the result of no consensus are still unhappy with the article text. There can be disagreement over adding/removing a maintenance template after an RFC concludes.

When RFC concludes, there is no maintenance work to be done. Maintenance templates should be removed if there's nothing to do. The template also contains a "call to action" for people to go to the talk page, however it is disruptive to call people in to continue arguing immediately after an RFC has concluded. Closers sometimes write "no consensus for the proposal" as a less confrontational equivalent of "consensus against the proposal". No-consensus for a requested change is very often the permanent endpoint of many disputes. We don't want to leave leave the template in place indefinitely.

It seems the sole purpose of leaving the template in place after an RFC concludes, by those who dislike the RFC result, is to direct the tag towards readers. The only purpose is as a badge of shame.

I suggest we more explicitly address this case. I suggest criteria #4 be revised as:

When an RFC has concluded or there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue.

Alsee (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I propose to not change the text per WP:KISS. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Alsee I would like you clarify. A RFC can conclude in many ways. It would be inappropriate for this instruction page to (effectively) say "no matter how an RFC concludes, remove tags". This stuff is much better handled by... the people involved in the RFC. Or am I misunderstanding you? (I suspect you have a specific article in mind - perhaps you need to bring your grievance up there instead? What I mean by this is that we don't want to make site-wide decisions based on individual cases.) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the language on tag removal was ambiguous because there was edit warring to add/remove the NPOV tag at White_Helmets_(Syrian_Civil_War), after this RFC closure of no consensus for anything wrong with current text. The story in a nutshell: Countless Reliable Sources across the globe describe the White Helmets as a humanitarian rescue organisation. However Russia Times, along with a bunch of blogs and conspiracy theory sites, spin wild and contradictory stories that White Helmets are terrorists. Russia Times is a government controlled "news" organisation. Our article on it says RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation by news reporters, including some former RT reporters. At ReliableSourceNoticeboard, Russia Times has repeatedly been said to be not Reliable. According to countless Reliable Sources across the globe, Russia Times has been running a disinformation campaign to paint the White Helmets as terrorists. We keep getting bombarded with conspiracy-theory types arguing that all Reliable Sources are part of a "Western Media conspiracy" to suppress WP:The Truth. The only purpose for the NPOV tag is because conspiracy theorists want to direct it at readers, despite the fact that there are zero reliable sources disputing the current article text.

I made exactly one edit removing the tag, and so far no one has disputed it. But the ambiguous language here is bad. Even if the warring has ended at this article, we don't want warring on some other article when one side is unhappy with the result of an RFC. Alsee (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, won't touch a flamingly sensitive issue like that with a ten foot pole. Oppose any changes originating from hotspot subjects like that. CapnZapp (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concern. However I'd like to note that the tag was added three times by a single editor,[1][2][3] and removed by three different editors.[4][5][6] I'd also note that my rationale seems to have been successful in bringing the dispute to an end. There has been no conflict over the tag in the week since I posted this edit summary: Removing maintence template. An RFC on the issue just concluded. We have a result: The current text is to be kept. There is no maintenance work to do here, directing people to the talk page to continue debate immediately after an RFC has closed is disruptive, and tags are not permitted to be directed at readers to shame the article just because someone dislikes the result of the RFC. Alsee (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

2. Upon determining that the issue has been resolved. 4. When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. When an RFC has concluded or there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue. Kenitkecik (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

i have presently the direct acces to referred page, so i should be included as the one who can edit because oyher than the reliable sources and links from the internet, original files could be uploaded. also have to work on its hindi pade as रमणिका गुप्ता . there would be no need to cry out for help if some of the wiki admins there would have acted in more responsible and apprehensive manner. i am here writing thanks to the that. i have provided ample links to qualify as such. its very easy to search and mention them, but still feel haunted by tsome who work hard on discred all that. plz drop a word of support पंकज इंकलाबी (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Maintenance template removal. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sports Note

Also When It's Offical

Wiki comment

Here's a talk section for you to use for your grievances against my edits., User:Debresser. Enjoy. Now stop reverting my edits with no discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The edit you refer to is your addition, at the beginning and end of the header for this talkpage, of the following text:

<!--- Why is this box here? See Help_talk:Maintenance_template_removal/Archive_1#Actual_policy? --->

If that is an issue you want to raise, then the way to do that is not by adding comments, but by opening a discussion on this talkpage. Which I hereby invite you to do. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You were the one that reverted me, with the edit summary 1. If you have this question, raise it on the talkpage, don't through comment on the page. 2. I don't understand the point. So first and foremost, don't revert what you don't understand. Instead ask.

That said, thank you for finally engaging in discussion. Now that you have "invited" me to answer the question, I will: I am not asking a question. I have no issues. Have you heard of rhetorical questions, Debresser?

What I did was simply to add a link into the talk archive for those wondering why the tbox was there. It is a non-standard box, and some editor that hasn't read the background (as explained in the talk archive) might be tempted to remove it. So I thought would be helpful to pre-emptively add a wiki editor comment to stave off any such attempts - or rather, add the ability to ask said editor "didn't you read the talk discussion linked to by the wiki comment before deleting?"

So, in all: I have no questions. Nothing is unclear to me. So I did not feel any particular need to discuss, so I didn't start any talk discussion. Adding wiki comments directed at our fellow editors isn't a new practice - I've seen it on plenty of articles. (So far you haven't contested the usage, but I felt I should clarify that I do know what I'm doing).

In the future, don't force others to start talk page discussions about subjects you don't understand, please. We can't be expected to spend time explaining everything we do. And no, asking in an edit summary isn't good enough - that places the burden of setting up the discussion (which is the only good option, since answering with an edit summary of one's own is **not** a good alternative) on someone else. You have a question, you start a talk discussion. Simple.

In fact, for the future I suggest you start to assume a little more good faith. Try politely asking why a particular edit in question was made. And asking while reverting is not polite, by the way. You might find you get much better results from your time here on Wikipedia :)

Now then. Now you hopefully know my intent for the wiki comment and if not, just ask further. Feel free to further improve it. Perhaps you want to rephrase to avoid the question? Just as long as you don't simply negate my intent I will probably appreciate your improvement.

Have a nice day, CapnZapp (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for the comment. Talkpages often have all kind of boxes at their beginning. Accordingly, i removed it again.

Why should I assume good faith when an editor is being disruptive and insists on restoring his edit time after time, despite apparent opposition. This in clear disregard of the rules of the game as outlines in [WP:BRD]]? Debresser (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No, Debresser - reverting without more reason than "I don't understand it" is not enough, as you did the first time, setting off this cycle of reverts. You need to actually explain your reasons for opposing an edit. Assuming the other editor made a mistake is one thing, but you're not helping by simply reverting what you think are mistakes. You mistook my edit for a misplaced talk question, remember.

Moving on - I'm sure you agree "no need" is not reason enough for this to go away. Please be more specific. What harm does the comment do? I added it to help other editors. If you believe it doesn't then explain how so we can constructively move forward. CapnZapp (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, there we disagree. I don't need to understand your point to know that you made it in the wrong place.

We have already constructively moved forwards and removed the comment. You have stated that you have no issue. So I think we're done here, no? Debresser (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting the negation of my work is constructive or that I don't have an issue with your reverts are bad faith arguments which I need you to stop doing right now. Understand that I was making no "point". I am adding a helpful editor pointer into the archive. I placed it right where I wanted it: where it is supposed to go. Your disagreement is not enough of an argument, especially since you show little sign of actually understanding my intentions here. Since you reverted my effort, I ask that you either explain how I can improve my contribution or come up with an acceptable suggestion yourself. CapnZapp (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand you very well, thank you. Do not make the mistake of confusing my disagreement for misunderstanding.

You comment in not needed. Not to mention that it is ambiguous (unclear). I therefore see no reason to make any suggestions whatsoever. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the first time you have even approached addressing the issue. You are noted for having wasted my time until now. You have been consistently unhelpful and generally negative, so if you would like to change tack and actually provide constructive feedback that would be much appreciated. Finally you have something to say about my actual contribution - you say it is "ambiguous (unclear)". In what way? What can I do to improve it?

PS. I have never claimed the comment was needed. I am claiming it is helpful. You not liking it is not reason enough for me to abandon my effort to be helpful. CapnZapp (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The comment is neither needed, nor helpful, nor is it customary to have comments for templates. I would seriously advise to simply drop the whole idea.

And please drop the personal attacks as well. I have not been negative: I have disagreed with you, and I have had to deal with an editor (you), who ignored good editing rules and tried to restore his comment some four or five times (!) before finally taking it to this talkpage. Sorry if you feel disagreeing with you is being negative, and sorry if you feel my assessment of you as disruptive is unjustified. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

What's at stake here is you opposing the idea sufficiently to revert my addition. I do not agree my addition is unhelpful. I have never claimed it is needed. I have already stated editor comments do appear once in a while (see for instance the comments on this page.

Now, for the umpteenth time I ask that you seriously engage in constructive consensus-building. Argue why the quality of this talk page would drop by linking editors to the talk page discussion pertinent to the non-standard tbox. Either do that or I would seriously advise you to simply drop your unjustified opposition to what was meant to be a very quick and small edit.

Once you have dropped your stonewalling revert-only attitude, I would invite you to suggest improvements to how to best phrase said comment or otherwise implement my intent. CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have seen such an editor before, who insists I stop stonewalling and explain myself, all the while completely ignoring that I am not stonewalling rather disagreeing and that I have already explained my wo reasons to oppose your edit. Since there are no other editors here who feel in need of further explanations, or discussions for that matter, I draw the conclusion that it is you who has to bare the burden of proof, and has not done so. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Burden of proof - what does that even mean? You say you have explained your reasons, but you really haven't. You're saying it is not "needed" as if helpful instructions must be necessary before they're added. So that's no reason. You're saying it is not helpful, but you aren't explaining yourself in a way that allows me to improve my addition. So that's no reason. Finally you said you didn't understand it. But your reaction haven't been to ask for help. Instead you revert what you don't understand. I still have no idea how to further my idea in a way that is mutually agreeable to both of us. So no Debresser, offering proof to someone who essentially is just saying they don't like it, is a fool's errand and I won't have it.

I made a small (tiny even) addition I thought helpful. I will be adding it once more. I trust you will leave it be now that I have emphatically stated you have no case and no arguments. Before you revert me, consider that I have given you every opportunity to justify this reversion. You have had many chances to actually demonstrate how the addition is hurting the page or its quality. You have had your chance of arguing in good faith, by being specific and by being constructive. You have squandered them all. CapnZapp (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have explained the reasons for my revert. You have failed to point out the necessity of the comment. A contested recent edit for which no support can be shown, must go. I ask you to stop being disruptive. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to prove to you an edit is necessary. No wiki comment can ever be necessary. They're just comments. They have no impact on the page and aren't even seen by readers. I have no hopes of ever convincing you of the worth of this edit, since you have consistently shown zero interest in actually engaging in constructive dialog. CapnZapp (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

3O Response: If there is a question of whether the text box at the top of this talk page is appropriate, it is reasonable to discuss the question here. There is no reason to pose the question in a wiki comment as it makes more sense to have the discussion on the talk page itself, since that is what the page is designed for. Wiki comments aren't good places to have discussions. Although it might be reasonable to pose a question in a wiki comment where it is meant rhetorically for some editor to consider in context, it should be expected that any dispute over the original text box or the wiki comment pertaining to the text box should be discussed here in the talk page. In short, don't edit war over this. Leave the wiki comment out of the text box simply because the appropriateness of the comment itself is disputed. The question should be discussed here. I'm not saying such as comment is necessarily wrong. It doesn't matter if it's wrong. Maybe there is not right or wrong here. The point is that disputes should be handled in the talk page. In my opinion, with respect, this debate is not very productive. I would suggest both editors here disengage. Delete the comment. Stop the discussion. Move on to something else that's more important. I'm not being snarky. With all sincerity, I don't believe this discussion is worth continuing - I would just part as, well, fellow wiki editors, and move on. That's the best advice I can give you. (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It has been suggested that my previous response was less than helpful. Let me try again. First and foremost I recommend editors focus on content and not behavior. It's unproductive to spar, and it's hard for third parties to follow the disagreement when most of the discussion is about behavior instead of the issue at hand. Second, I believe this issue is about whether to include the wiki comment pertaining to the notice on this talk page. Please see guidance at MOS:COMMENT. There is a tradeoff between helping other editors with warnings vs. cluttering the source for other editors. In this case I weigh on the side of removing the comment as unnecessary clutter. It seems this is intended as a preventative measure instead of a remedial one. If in the future, it appears that editors are making changes contrary to prior consensus, a wiki comment explaining this might be helpful. For now, I'd just leave it out. Coastside (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I find your comments (first and second) clear and helpful, and am happy to note that they coincide with my take on this issue. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)