Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Iwane Matsui/1

Curtis, keeping your own comment uncollapsed but not allowing a fair summary of our responses to be included in their collapse is not helpful. Insisting that readers read your interpretation of the events ("no misrepresentation was found") but ignore our responses is highly disruptive. Uncollapsing in order to make this page unreadable and force out outside commentary (I'm sure this was not your intent, but it has had and will continue to have that effect) is equally disruptive. Please stop now. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * According to talk page policies, collapsing of comments "should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." This is quite unambiguous. It was obvious that I would object to you hiding my comments underneath such a clearly inaccurate summary. You are an involved party, and therefore in accordance with Wikipedia policies, you are not allowed to collapse any comments if another user objects, and I did object.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "ending a discussion over the objections of other editors" very clearly was not my intention. I stated this intention (keeping the page from becoming another TLDR mess), so your reading a more sinister motivation in is a gross AGF-violation. Every discussion I have had with you (and many discussions other users have had with you) have quickly become TLDR messes, scaring away all further contribution from outside. If you truly believe this article is of GA quality, then you should be welcoming outside voices to join you in saying so; knowingly engaging in actions that you know will force such voices out doesn't speak well of your intentions. You and Sturmgewehr88 are free to continue your discussion within the collapsed section, or on your user talk pages; I do not wish to be part of such a discussion, though. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hiding comments does far more to discourage discussion than allowing comments to be freely viewed. The point is that an involved user may not collapse any comments if another user objects. The rules are not ambiguous on this matter. We should be welcoming more participation, though it's hard to see how hiding comments in clear violation of talk page guidelines will foster that goal.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not the rule. You quoted the rule. My collapsing the comments with the intention of ending discussion would have been inappropriate. If that had been my intent, though, I would not have given you the last word, and I would not have explicitly stated that you are free to keep discussing whatever you want. But actions that WP:BLUDGEON this discussion into another unreadable wall of text in order to force out outside input and turn this into yet another Hijiri-Sturmgewehr/Curtis-TH1980 brawl will not be tolerated. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the rule. Collapsing comments is only to be performed when the discussion is off topic and is only to be performed by an uninvolved user. In this case, neither was true, and at any rate the inaccurate summary which was used as the title of the box would have been inappropriate in any context. There should at very least be consensus before this is undertaken.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've requested input from the other user concerned, because I don't have the energy to deal with you at the moment. The summary I provided was not inaccurate. Both Sturmgewehr88 and I commented that your comment was inaccurate (it was) and you provided a non-response that basically said you disagree. What in my summary was inaccurate? Don't answer that. Wait for Sturmgewehr88. I'm signing out for the evening. Merry Christmas! Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unclear whether or not the discussion was off topic, which is the only situation when collapsing comments (by uninvolved users) is acceptable. If we do decide to box the comments though, I think we should consider spending some time discussing a possible title for the box. Why not just something like "Response to above comments by various users"?CurtisNaito (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally disagree with the policy, since the box actually makes the comments more visible (unlike truly hiding something with ) and all it takes to see them is to move your lazy finger over the "show" button and click. On top of that, just because it's been put in a box doesn't mean that the discussion magically ends. We could go on for days and bytes after it's been put in a box. The box changes nothing. But I digress.
 * I think the discussion was technically on-topic, as it speaks to why we're here at GAR in the first place. However I also agree that it'll just drag on endlessly with no better outcome. I'm neutral on the box issue; it makes little difference to me either way. But "response to above comments by various users" is too vague if you're going to pick a title. "IDHT/sourcing discussion" is what I'd probably name it.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 12:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And just so we're clear, the "policies" and "rules" CurtisNaito keeps citing and misquoting are guidelines, not policies. They are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive; it is perfectly acceptable to collapse comments that make the discussion hard to read. Everyone does it -- in fact in my experience it is far more common than collapsing "off-topic" discussion, which should be hatted and closed, or removed outright. If I had collapsed only Curtis's comments and left my own, that would have been inappropriate; but I deliberately left CurtisNaito's comment open. What Curtis is doing now is what's called wikilawyering: he wants to manipulate policies and guidelines in order to force a stalemate on this GAR so the article will neither be improved to legit GA status (something he doesn't want) nor demoted (something he wants even less). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what you did do. You left your own inaccurate comments in the form of a non-neutral summary plainly visible while hiding everyone else's comments. It's not conducive to discussion to leave visible only comments which one personally agrees with while hiding all commentary that one personally disagrees with. Procedurally, the collapsing was not appropriate, and if we do it again in the future we will need to discuss a neutral title to avoid this problem again.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Curtis, if no outside reviewers examine this case and the GAR defaults, you will be expected to answer for it, not me. I have already told you that this will be the result of your actions; whether you meant for this to be the result of your actions the whole time will have to determined at a later date. And I didn't hide your comments; I hid everyone's comments except your initial one, including several of my own. And nothing in my summary was either inaccurate or non-neutral. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 18:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why other reviewers can't insert their comments below. Saying that my rebuttals of a flawed premise are "non-responses" was clearly a non-neutral manner of covering up other users' commentary. I think doing things like that does far more to discourage other users than simply engaging in normal discussion. As I said, we should be encouraging discussion, not actively discouraging it.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)