Wikipedia talk:You have a right to remain silent

good essay

Good job! And wise advice Andre🚐 23:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Objection to this article

@Coretheapple:

This essay seems to treat the right to silence as absolute with no subsection on caveats: when it is, if not required for problem/conflict resolution for wiki matters (and helping to avoid leading to sanctions), is recommended as a good practice.

Even if the premise that you can be silent at any time holds in a vacuum, it should not apply when coupled with wiki-editing actions that continue an ongoing problem. If editors are requesting some discussion for an editing contention and the user is persistently refusing all communication (intentionally or not) while continuing to make contentious edits, or if problematic behaviors (even the relatively smaller ones like absence of edit summaries) are pointed out repeatedly and the user never responds to the user's talk pages or the relevant article talk pages while continuing to act this way, then "Communication is required" should apply. This especially goes when repeated formal warnings are ignored, as actually replying by the user to those warnings and messages can help resolve the problem.

Indeed, "failure to communicate" has been used as an actual rationale to block users (sometimes indefinitely), if only provisionally to get the user to comply, because the user's participation in communication is essential to handle the issue (without just excluding the user with blocks). 172.56.233.104 (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Not to speak for Core, but I don't think that is the point of the essay. Obviously, if you're being threatened with a block, or being asked on some kind of drama board to show contrition for foolish mistakes or a trouting is in order, you should answer or explain yourself. The point of the essay is that, particularly in hot disputes, you can WP:DROPTHESTICK now and again, and WP:COOL (or WP:KEEPCOOL) and live to discuss another day. You don't need to "be right" and you don't need the last word or to protect posterity through your explanations. Sometimes, that can be very wise advice. Andre🚐 19:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It should still have a section on something along the lines of "When is communication a good idea?" in terms of what I described above, to avoid giving the impression that editors can get away with completely refusing to say anything when their participation is essential, and to explain that if the user somehow never visits talk pages at all and never notices any communication, provisional blocking would be justified. 172.56.233.104 (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe that's a different essay. Andre🚐 19:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Essays (this is not an article) provide specific points of view, but in this case you're objecting to something the essay doesn't say. It doesn't say never respond under any circumstances, but rather it points out why not responding is often the best thing to do under certain circumstances. It's very specific in that regard. The idea is to curb needless repetitious discussions, or responses to trolling. In the external links is an essay that makes the opposite point, and that essay is highlighted. That essay does not make this essay's point, nor should it, and vice versa. A link in that essay's EL section sufficed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)