 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
A work in progress
Sometimes an editor, perhaps with the best intentions, will post a long monologue on a talk page which seems to just repeat what they have said previously, things that have been answered already and there seems no point in just repeating the answer. Worse, more often than not, such posts are in the form of large paragraphs and/or full of bolding, all-caps text and similar attention-getting devices that make it even harder to read.
This is sometimes called the "wall of text" approach, and it can be abusive but is not easily sanctioned.
The problem is, it's easy when wading through such posts to miss out on valid points hidden among the noise. This:
- Delays resolution... you can't answer a point you don't even notice.
- Allows them to later say "as I already told you" or words to that effect and perhaps even provide a diff to show that they did... sort of...
- Wastes a large amount of the reader's time if it happens continually, particularly if as often happens the long posts are written with careless abandon while the reader tries to be thorough.
The first time this happens, it's probably best to sort through the post and reply to any relevant points made, quietly ignoring the rest. The problem may go away of itself, and that's the best solution. But on occasions this may just inflame the debate, as the poster rants "Why don't you reply to the points I've made?" and worse. This isn't allowed of course, but don't hold your breath waiting for quick action against such tactics. And meantime, others may be mislead into thinking you concede the points to which you haven't replied, which is probably just what the poster is hoping of course.
One possible solution for repeat offenders and/or those who are already behaving aggressively, but to be used with care and discretion, is to link to this page, perhaps through the shortcut WP:MOTS (mots is French for words, implying that there's nothing else there).
But before linking to this page at the very least you should:
- Read the first sentence (or the first two lines of it if it goes beyond that... yes no fooling, they often do). This should introduce the topic of the post. Is there a clear and relevant topic? If not, you can give up there and just reply MOTS with a suitable link.
- If the topic is clear and relevant (for example, it addresses the question that the post is indented to answer), then read the next sentence (or two lines) and the last sentence (or two lines). Do they relate to the topic in any sensible fashion? If not, again MOTS.
- If the topic and first and last sentences are not a problem, then it's probably not a MOTS problem. Have a quick look at the middle, to see whether it's relevant and new, but it probably will be if the top and tail are. So you've now got to either just dip out of the discussion or read the lot and try to understand and perhaps answer the points raised.
If you do decide it's a MOTS situation and link here, then you've at least warned the other participants in the conversation (and notably the author of the post) that you have not bothered to read the whole lot of it. It's not a good outcome at all, it carries a great risk of inflaming the situation, but anything you say carries a high risk of this in an abusive "wall-of-text" situation and it may be the best of a bad lot of options.