Wikipedia talk:User talk page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge and be merry

Why can't this just be a section in Wikipedia:Talk page? It's relevant to that guideline and you'd avoid the whole drama of proposal-not-a-proposal.--Father Goose (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The material here seems short enough that MERGE might be the best way forward.Newbyguesses - Talk 23:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. I do think that having it clear and organized into a section makes a lot of sense. The kind of harassment of (typically) new users that Law Lord was responding to could be helped by a clear guideline like this one. Darkspots (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I suggest this as a separate guideline is that specific guidelines apply. A user talk page is neither a user page nor a talk page but rather a being in its own right. If people are being yelled at for removing stuff from their own talk page, it will make there life so much easier to be able to refer to a clear and distinct WP:UTP. --Law Lord (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that in its current state, this proposed guideline is intended to address a single problem and could be reduced to a single sentence, "Users may archive or delete messages on their talk pages, including warning and block messages." It seems to me that all the rest of the proposal so far either simply repeats this in a different way, or states simple facts of the software (archived history can still be viewed, deleted or archived talk pages have been viewed, etc.) that aren't really "policy". The proposal might also want to address various other topics. If only this one topic is intended, I don't think a new guideline is warranted, would support a merge, and would suggest simply adding a section with just the nutshell sentence to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is consensus, I can support inserting a new heading (per Shirahadasha) in the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines with the single sentence: "Users may archive or delete messages on their talk pages, including warning and block messages." --Law Lord (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That page does already say "More latitude is extended for user talk pages. Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred" and "On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded as uncivil."
If you feel it needs to say something beyond that, change it, and see if anyone objects.--Father Goose (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing warnings

As a vandal fighter, I like a record of user's warnings so I know what level to give them. How about:
Users may remove warnings over 31 days old, although a record of blocks should be kept.
I am aware that this is quite a radical change, but I believe it is necessary. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 12:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggestion since many warnings may be without merit. Blocks can always be seen in the user logs. --Law Lord (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously a provision should be made for incorrect warnings, and the block thing can go either way. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 16:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How about:
Users may remove incorrect warnings instantly, but correct warnings can be deleted after a period of 31 days. It is preferred that a record of blocks be kept but this is not necessary.
It could maybe be worded better but it makes provisions for the problems raised above. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Who decides what an incorrect warning is? Also, the user talk page should not be a wall of shame. Not for anybody. If somebody commits vandalism then that person will be blocked eventually. Besides the stuff can still be seen in the history. --Law Lord (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point but it would help vandal-fighters immensely. An incorrect warning is a warning for something you didn't do, or a warning for doing something that doesn't meet the warning criteria. I (and others, I'm sure) can't be bothered to check the history to find out what level of warning to give them. It's common practice to start back at 1 every month which is why they can be deleted after 31 days, but would the end of the month be better? George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you cannot be bothered to look in the history then probably it is not really necessary to warn the user. --Law Lord (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious that we're not going to agree on this so I think we ought to call in outside parties to gather consensus. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 13:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll post this at the village pump. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. User talk pages should not be a "wall of shame". I agree that being required to keep warnings up would be useful, but that utility is outweighed by the greater good of letting users have (reasonable) control over their user talk pages. Darkspots (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't need sock puppets posting bogus warnings on user talk pages (including those of admins), then getting into revert wars with editors about whether the warnings are bogus, and then requiring admins to jump in and settle things. And no, it isn't always that clear what is a valid warning and what is not - for example, exactly when something is a "personal attack" is a matter of judgment. Vandal-fighters are making a big mistake if they think they can rely on what is visible on a user talk page to decide what level of warning to leave, and that's true even if there were a rule "requiring" such warnings be left as is - since vandals, by definition, aren't particularly good at following rules. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)