Discussion
edit- The edit summary is claiming both boldness and (user) talk page consensus. You really can't have it both ways.
- If one can put oneself in the perspective of a non-Wikipedian normal human being ... voting support in a section labeled "Non-voting" is fairly lame. See WP:OFCOURSE. See also this very Talk Page Guidelines, which suggest Be welcoming to newcomers
The existing
- Removing or striking through "support" or "oppose" comments of editors subsequently blocked as socks. Comments with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. Striking through with a short explanation immediately after the stricken text is done when other editors have replied to the comments. e.g.
Supportper nom. (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)
is much better than
- Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived.
because the former uses less words and is succinct, and doesn't use equivocal language like The is not typically a need ... Remember,
- Active Wikipedians know the rules -- actually they know existing practices which the written rules typically lag.
- Newcomers who are trying to the write thing are better helped by simple direct statements.
- Any ambiguity in policy pages becomes fodder to be argued on community discussion boards like WP:ANI