Fallout Wiki
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > User talk pages

See here, I've been thinking, especially recently when there's been such controversy around this specific subject: the blanking of user talk pages. We've always said that it is frowned upon and we have more often than not reverted a blanking of a user talk page. Some people even think that it is against policy (which it isn't) which at times creates confusion and unneeded animosity.

Then what are our alternatives? As I see it, we either do things like we've always done or we do something about this. Some ideas of mine are either to include in the policy that messages from administrators and moderators should not be cleared from user talk pages for future reference, or that user talk pages are to not be cleared via deletion, only archiving. Thoughts on this? Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

If you want my input, I'd say we include this in the policies. It's obligatory, but furthermore, tradition, to make this wiki as transparent as possible. We have elaborate histories on every page, and even blog comments! There shall be no hiding of rebuke, past punishment, or anything, on talk pages. The only time when talk pages are to be cleared is when they are archived via the archive function, after a considerable amount of messages. You (admins) would be doing us all a favour by setting this in stone and inserting it into our policies and guidelines, so people will abide to this. Otherwise, we have no right to stop them from blanking their pages. -ΣΔLet's talk! 20:13, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
I agree, we should make it officially stated in the rules that talkpages should never be deleted or 'cleaned up', only archived. I say we should even go one step further and limit after which point should archiving take place (eg only after it reaches x topics or y bytes) in order to curb abuse of the feature. Out TPs directly reflect our histories as members, and as such it's important to keep them as open records, and to prevent people from whitewashing unflattering passages. Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 20:28, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what I said ;) I propose a minimum of 75 topics posted by others? -ΣΔLet's talk! 20:31, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was clearly stated that content on talk pages are not to be removed. The only thing a contributor can do about it is to archive them and hope no-one does not see them. MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 20:14, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Leon's View

I was originally worked up because I thought this was another forum to changing the rules here. xD I'm very happy to see I'm wrong. Anyways, it is very obvious why people blank their talk pages and that action should never be condoned, especially when there's a chance that the Administration needs to look back on words said. If you want to get rid of information but not for transparent reasons? Then archive your talk-page. It's as simple as that. Just because you don't like something on your page doesn't mean you have to be a coward and try to remove it so you look better in the end. Hell, there's things on my talk-page that I wish I could have removed. But I didn't. So I'm sure the rest of you can get the hell over it. Dragon.jpg Skål! 20:35, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take that as a "I agree" from Leon. Hugs MadeMan2.png "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
Yes, during my early days I was warned to not expunge content from my user talk, and I searched through the policies and guidelines and to this day, I still haven't found it :P I'm glad we seem to all be on the same boat here. By the way, is that "Leon's View" title really necessary? ;) -ΣΔLet's talk! 20:38, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
Is that how I came across? ;) Yes, I agree that this rule needs to be expanded upon so we can get it through people's heads. Dragon.jpg Skål! 20:39, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
If I've been putting put with having my TP talked about constantly and even linked to in other sites for almost a year because of the very first post, I'm sure peeps will able to bear a few harsh words resulting from them causing trouble until it's time to archive them. XP Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 20:45, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
LOL! That guy was funny :3 -ΣΔLet's talk! 20:48, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Never, should be against policy. Clean up (to aid in readability, break up paragraphs, censor blatantly offensive comments or add headings, etc) in limited circumstances yes. Agent c 21:30, February 29, 2012 (UTC)


I'm going to play devil's advocate here, (Truthfully) I don't think blanking pages should be against policy. It is quite shady, and I think it reflects that on the user and how far they are going to go here. Those who do usually aren't great contributors to the site. Is it in our place to tell another user to keep something on their profile? I think that those who do delete will sort themselves out in some other way. Besides, we can see the history, and problems with another user usually can spread if they are major.--Bunny2.jpgBubble.png 21:59, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why users should claim their talkpages as personal spaces. Userpages are one thing, but the talkpage is also the official method of communication here, so it should be regarded as official material, not personal. That's where warnings and talkdowns are posted, and those although obviously relevant when estimating a user's character. For instance, if they have been repeatedly warned, they're far more likely to be acting in bad faith. Those warnings are stored nowhere else apart from the talkpages (ie, there's no rapsheet for warnings like we do with actual bans). So my argument is: there's no reasonable justification to allow TP free editing or blanking (other than hide the past), and lots very good reasons to keep them easily readable. Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 00:13, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Ryan does have a point though. Removing talk page content is more of a personal thing and doesn't quite affect the rest of the community as much. -ΣΔLet's talk! 00:15, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
May I ask how a talkpage is any more personal that say a forum page? We don't allow removing content from them, nor should we allow removing content from TPs. They were never meant to be personalized like userpages or sandboxes, they're merely a means to directly communicate with the user. And whitewashing them do affect the community as a whole, for the many reasons noted above. Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 00:43, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Generally, I'm in favor of not allowing talkpage messages being removed, it makes it more difficult for admins to see if there's been a problem with a user. Some exceptions are possible, for example with harassment or insulting posts. Posts like these can be removed but it would be best I think to let an admin know of that then. And archiving after a considerable amount of talkpage messages, 75 or so. Having read the comments above, looks like we're more or less in agreement about adjusting the rules (except for TB). What do you think of it, Kingclyde? Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 23:20, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, let's hear Clyde on this. We could even set up a short vote if there is no consensus. -ΣΔLet's talk! 00:00, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Burrs on this one. Let them do what ever they want, I mean it can't be that big of a deal. ToCxHawK 01:49, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

My dos centavos

I'm still taking this whole issue under consideration. I think it's an important issue, with validity on both sides of the argument. One thing I will unequivocally state, though, is that anything that is done with regard to enforcing more regulation of the user base must be done with a clear need. There must not only be a consensus for a change, but a necessity for it also. We should always side on less regulation of users, rather than more, without a clear and present need for such. One thing we never want to have is a general feeling from new or prospective users that we are too rigid or unwelcoming. Every action made by the community that effects the whole should be made in an effort to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. We never want people to feel disenfranchised here. The entire premiss of this endeavour is that many will contribute, the more the better. Making rules that ease the burden on the leadership is fine, but the cost of those rules to the general attitude of the user base must be considered at the utmost.

Like Ryan, I will also play devil's advocate here: What is harder to do as an experienced admin? Browse a user's talk page for evicence of bad behavior or simply look at the block logs? Browse a user's talk page for incriminating warnings or look at their talk page history for large deletions intended to hide the same? As it stands, I frankly don't see a clear and present need to mandate enforcement of a new rule regarding talk page protocals. I see the utility of it, but I don't know if the advantage gained by the admin staff outweighs the possible resentment or backlash created by enforcing a new rule. The bad actors that this would target are certainly easy enough to spot without a rule change, and the evidence sought by any admin will still be availble in the talk page history. I'm still undicided on this issue, but those with a pro inclination will have to do a better job to convince me of the absolute necessity of it. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 00:14, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Browse a user's talk page for evicence of bad behavior or simply look at the block logs? Browse a user's talk page for incriminating warnings or look at their talk page history for large deletions intended to hide the same? You're assuming that those deletions happens abruptly, while they usually happens post by post; ie, a few days after a warning/harsh message/etc has been posted, the user deletes while leaving other posts intact. When coupled with the habit of deleting neutral posts as well, it can make finding that information incredibly frustrating and time consuming, unless you already know what you're looking for (or that there's even something to look for in the first place).

I'd like to point out that this practice is not new at all -- it has been preached and enforced (albeit inconsistently) by many admins. We're just looking to standardize and clearly codify this. Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 00:35, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Limmie, I'm assuming nothing. My point still stands: Is it any harder to read dozens of mundane messages on a talk page searching for evidence of wrongdoing than to look to see if there are any edits that reduce talk page file size that may be suspect? I posit the answer is no. I personally feel that the information any admin needs is still available and not that hard to get. In response to your other point, since I've only been around here for a few months, so that I may get a feel for what standard enforcement of this issue was in the past, I asked a long-tenured admin. The response was that this was not necessarily either commonly or universally enforced in the many years the wiki has been around. It was represented to me as a rather recent evolution. The veracity of this I can't speak to, but written policy seems to stand behind this sentiment. I may be wrong, and will stand to be corrected, if this is information is proven to not be the case by others with similar experience. As I stated above, regardless of leadership convenience or prior inconsistent and/or inappropriate application of this unwritten rule, I want to see a clear and present need for new regulation. Your argument has not addressed that enough for me. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 00:56, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I can safely say this no recent development at all. I point to this link and a quote from Tagaziel earlier in the chat: 9:27 Tagaziel: The only rule for user talk pages is "don't post offensive material and don't blank them". It's already a rule, not formally enacted, but one we've been adhering to a lot.. Opinion is divided, but the fact is a good chunk of the users and admins have always adhered to this unwritten rule, so there's no arguing this is a recent development or a new issue. Regarding the information being available and not hard to get, like I argued, it IS hard to get if you don't know what to look like or even if there's anything to look for in the first place. Warnings are also messages to admins that the user in question was problematic in the past. But if you have no knowledge about an earlier warning, why would you be looking for one? As for the clear, present need for this, I could show a few userpages but I feel that would only lead to flames which are better avoided. But I at any rate I am arguing that the need has always been here, since many users and admins have been enacted this unwritten rule since ever. All we're asking is that it be formally codified and standardized. Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 01:40, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Wish I had time to expand my thoughts further at the moment but right now I'd just like to point out that this is not a recent enforcement. I've seen Admins reverting people's edits concerning the blanking of their talk-pages since I became an Anon here years ago. Dragon.jpg Skål! 00:59, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Well, Leon, if that is the case, they were blatantly in disregard of the clearly written policy. As I see it, the policy is already "standardized" and "codified". Show me a better reason to change it. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 01:02, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
I personally don't think we need to add anything new. We already have policies stressing the importance of using common sense and social decency here and I think the blanking of the talk-pages fits very nicely into those categories. The simple fact is, there really is no defense for having the right to blank your talk-page aside from the cases of vandalism and flame-baiting. We have the tool to archive our pages and that should deal with blanking your page without actually deleting the information stored within quite nicely. Dragon.jpg Skål! 01:07, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

The right to clear one's talk page is clearly given in the policies of this wiki, and as such, unless policy is changed, users need no defense at all. Frankly, the conclusion I'm being led to here is that the conduct that should be in question is the conduct of some leadership inconsistently and inappropriately applying the policies. Don't get me wrong here. I'm by no means any anarchist. I've probably lived with more regulations than most people who come here. But the thing driven home in any leadership training I've had was that application of rules and regulations MUST be fair and consistent. And nowhere in that is there any defense for leadership sanctioning others for things that they clearly are allowed to do. Any argument that it is either commonly done or that it falls under common sense or social decency is specious and disingenuous as it is crystal clear that it is permissible. Your argument to me should be based on why you need a policy change rather than reminding me that policy was improperly enforced in the past. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 01:24, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Looks like things are heating up finally, perhaps we do need a vote. Personally, I feel that would be best, and would go back to our more purely democratic roots. -ΣΔLet's talk! 01:20, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I don't. It would be too biased on either side. On one hand, us, the leadership, want to have easy access to any shady details we might need to know about a certain editor if a situation ever comes up. On the other hand, no newer user is going to enjoy the thought of not having the freedom to remove less than desirable messages on their talk page. To be quite honest, I'm not seeing any legitimate concerns on the newer users side of the table, especially when we have the archiving tool.Dragon.jpg Skål! 01:25, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Leon. That speaks more to why a policy change is needed. I'm going to ask another devil's advocate question: What do you personally feel the average new user's first experiences here are like? The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 01:32, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
I personally feel as if every user has to get used to how things run in a new environment. It took me awhile as well if you look back through my talk-page and my run-ins with certain Admins. Most anybody new to any environment is going to protest any sort of idea that harms they're freedoms in any way and that is why we have leadership. Because we have been here long enough to gain everyone's trust in what needs to be done here. Sorry to tell you, but most newer users don't have a clue as to what would be best for our community. Letting them vote would be letting them vote in ignorance and self-cause. Dragon.jpg Skål! 01:40, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Would a restricted vote be a better idea then? -ΣΔLet's talk! 01:42, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

@Gunny: I think you're mistaking the policies with guidelines my good friend. There are no policies concerning what one can do with their talk-pages so I am relying on actual policies that are in place that state that every user must hold themselves to a certain standard of social norms and proper conduct. Blanking your talk-page just because you have an unsatisfactory message that goes against a certain personal way of thinking is not socially acceptable or wanted. Dragon.jpg Skål! 01:36, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

That may not be what any particular user has in mind. And unless it is written in our policies there is no direct indication of transgression there. Therefore, users would only be obligated not to blank their talk pages, not required. -ΣΔLet's talk! 01:40,March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Isn't an obligation a requirement? Both are "must"s. Agent c 01:43, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
This is true. I actually don't mind people blanking their talk-pages if it's not for a selfish goal or because they don't know how to archive. It's just when a topic such as this one comes up because someone with a shady history here started questioning us that's ruffling my feathers. And to be perfectly honest, when someone has made a bad reputation for themselves here, they should have no extra rights and they should be at the mercy of the leadership present. It is an Admin's right to take matters into their own hands (With boundaries of course) whenever a user is unruly. Dragon.jpg Skål! 01:45, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how many instances of blanking their talk pages for non-selfish reasons, not to hide anything, or because they don't know how to press archive there are. I think the main point of this discussion is preventing the subterfuge of hiding messages or erasing rebuking remarks. -ΣΔLet's talk! 01:47, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are only 3 reasons to remove content from a TP: if it's vandalism/offensive, if the user don't kn ow how to archive, or to white wash. And only the first one is valid. Whitewashing is bad and goes against the values of every wiki, and if you don't know how to archive, then there are plenty of others (specially admins) who would be happy to teach. Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 01:53, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to archive is a poor excuse. Archiving takes almost the same amount of effort as erasing, not to mention it can be "taught" easily. Vandalism/offensive posts can/should be removed. And whitewashing should be against policy. That's what I believe. -ΣΔLet's talk! 01:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
That's what I said, Sigma @_@ Only the first one (offensive/vandalism) is valid, the others are not Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 02:00, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Well, in simple words, I'm in full agreement with you :) -ΣΔLet's talk! 02:16, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

@Leon: I'm sorry. I respect your efforts and contributions here, but your argument that the ability to blank one's talk page is only a "guideline" is exactly the specious and disingenuous argument I'm talking about. Reductio ad absurdum: If the talk page policy is only a "guideline", then flaming, spamming, being rude, edit wars and editing other user's talk pages are also only a "guideline" as they are listed on the very same page as the user talk page policy. I also looked in vain for the social norms and proper conduct clause in any of the three properly named "policies" and could not find it. Granted they're difficult to wade through, so I simply could not find them, but the user talk page policy is clearly defined: "The general guidelines for talk pages above apply, with the exemption that you are allowed to clear out your talk page from time to time." That's straight from the page that warnings on possible bans links to from the administration page. I'm left with no other conclusion that the policy is clearly defined to all users, with appropriate consequences detailed and that the current trend to warn against and/or revert edits of user talk pages is that is actually in contravention of policy. Again, I implore you to convince me of the necessity of a change of this policy, rather than argue that administrators of this wiki already enjoy that authority. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 02:05, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Bear's proposal

Gah, there is so much response since I last looked. I did see something about perhaps setting up a short vote. Perhaps this could be a choice to handle things should this motion fail to pass. This is what I have always done: When a user blanks their talk page, give them a warning, letting them know that this is frowned upon in the community, but leave the final decision up to them, let them choose how they want to stand here. Let them decide, if someone is dedicated, they will not go against our warning. --Bunny2.jpgBubble.png 02:31, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I have discussed this in chat where Limmiegirl got that quote from. Wile it is an accurate quote Tag was incorrect about it being a rule. I discussed this in chat and I feel that if people want to blank or removed their talk page they should be allowed to. It seems to me that when someone does that all of the new people do the following things: 1) they threaten the user who removed the content with a ban or "you shouldn't do that because it is against the rules" (which it isn't) 2)they also consider the user who blanked their page as "hiding something" or being of "low character". In my opinion neither of those should be bestowed on said user. I am curious as to whether only the stuff that was pro making more rules got saved from that chat. If we start telling people that they can only archive vs. blanking their page, what happens when someone archives a message/warning? Are you going to unarchive it? Then we will have all of these random archive pages. None of this makes sense. Forcing people to only archive after x-amount of post is 1)ridiculous and 2)silly to enforce. We have lost a great deal of editors when the fork happened and now there does not appear to be any new Fallout game in site for awhile. Do we really want to scare away what editors we have left with unneeded rules and overzealous admins who want to make new rules. This wikia has run as a well oiled machine for 5 years. Why tweak something that runs smooth?--Kingclyde 03:35, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I've saved the whole log KC, I just didn't post the whole transcript because you never answered when it was proposed that it be posted here, so I wasn't sure how you felt about. I only quoted Tagaziel to dispute the fact that this is a new practice -- he's obviously not a new admin, and has done this himself and is aware of others doing it for long before the split. That's all I wanted to show with the quote. Anyways, here it is. Regarding your concerns about archiving bans, we're also proposing that a limit be set as to when pages should be archived (~75-100 topics). That's no harder to enforce or patrol than any other rule about page content. Also, I don't see how a mere rule regarding handling talkpages is going to scare away anybody. I think what you're referring to is about how anons and new users are being treated badly recently, being harshly reprimanded for good faith mistakes instead of kindly being offered a helping hand. Which, as I told you before, I agree with you 100%, but that has nothing to do with this. This is exclusively about administrative efficiency and wiki transparency, not oppressing anybody. Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 10:37, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we see eye to eye on much Clyde, but I am in agreement. I think that some people are forgetting that this wiki is for the fans, those anons, who if you look at our data on the admin dashboard, pour in at about 600k a day. That's a lot of people who are looking for Fallout help. I think that this overzealousy (Is that even a word?) is going to harm us only. --Bunny2.jpgBubble.png 04:03, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Please explain to me how creating perfectly reasonable guidelines for handling TPs is overzealous, and how is it going to scare away anybody? I think you and a lot of people are erroneously linking this proposal with the poor treatment of new users we've seem. That is one thing, and this is another. Nobody is planning on bringing down the wrath of god to somebody who cleared their TP without knowing it was against the rules. Only just like you did, kindly inform them that they shouldn't do it again, and perhaps teach how to properly archive. Ie, exactly like how you've been doing, except we won't be giving them the option of disregarding the warning. Is that really so unreasonable and evil? Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 10:37, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
its easier to go through archives than to look through the edit history on a talk page, particularly as time goes on. Agent c 10:05, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

The only time anything should ever be deleted from a talk page is if it is spam/trolling. We have looked down on the practice of removing things from talk pages ever since before I joined and its time for policy to reflect that. I don't see how not allowing someone to remove messages could do anything but improve this wiki.--RAMUser talk:Ramallah 09:29, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Why having yoour talk page blanked when you could archive it? MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 14:02, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

So what are we to do from now on? From TB, "When a user blanks their talk page, give them a warning, letting them know that this is frowned upon in the community, but leave the final decision up to them, let them choose how they want to stand here." <--- That's what I agree with, after some rethinking. -ΣΔLet's talk! 00:18, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Blanking of talk-pages

I would like everyone to list what they consider the pros and cons of allowing anybody to blank their talk-pages at anytime. I've thoroughly searched through this wiki's policies/guidelines and the overall ones for Wikia itself. I am coming up empty handed though so maybe we do either need to drop this idea or expand upon it and create something official. I want the chance to have everyone's thoughts condensed in the three options below. Try and not to list the same thoughts that someone else mentions here.

Freedom to blank


  • More freedom for users.
  • Less Administrative interference.
  • Keeps other users from prying in your business.


  • Harder for the Administration to track down certain comments.
  • Makes a bad reputation for those who remove unsavory comments in an effort to erase their past actions.

Selective freedom to blank


  • Easier for Admins to keep track of more shady users.
  • Keeps this wiki as transparent as possible.


  • Might scare away newer users.
  • Might cause dissent amongst certain users which may lead to the questioning of authority and policy.
  • More authoritative involvement.


  • You always just have the option to archive your page.

Dragon.jpg Skål! 01:38, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain how exactly is prohibiting users from blanking pages going to scare away new users, specially any more than any other rule we have. "Causing dissent amongst certain users" is going to happen either way we go, so it's biased to note it as a con just for one of the options. Also "less freedom" and "more authoritative" is saying the same thing, so one of them is redundant. Limmiegirl Lildeneb.jpg Talk! ♪ 13:01, March 2, 2012 (UTC)\
I agree. I don't think I've ever seen a case where someone was scared away and never came back because of this issue. I just saw that listed above and added it in. Dragon.jpg Skål! 14:33, March 2, 2012 (UTC)


Relax everyone, I've had some correspondence with Clyde and as a result I will set up a forum thread on which can be voted for the adjusting the rule to remove comments. Discussion here can be closed I think. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 14:43, March 2, 2012 (UTC)


Just a possible alternative (thanks to LWBAG), maybe we instead need a mod/admin/etc only edible/accessable page detailing "corrective action". Agent c 19:28, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think this idea is a better way to go about it. When a user needs discipline, the admin opens a page in his userspace dedicated to admin communication and all warnings/ban messages go there, then it gets locked. That solves all the problems of having the information available, not having to search for it, and leaves their other user space their "own". I have no problem with doing it this way. With the caveat that warnings/ban messages and all "official" communication be done in a professional, respectful and uniform way. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 19:54, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this one. ToCxHawK 20:02, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
This also has the benefit of being able to implement it immediately without a vote. As far as I understand it, nothing in this proposal would necessitate a change in policy and the Admins already have the authority to make and lock pages like this. Do I understand this correctly? The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 20:09, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this idea. I'd be perfectly happy with dedicating a page to keeping tabs on the troublesome users here. Dragon.jpg Skål! 20:13, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
This is a splendid, yet very plausible idea. I support! -ΣΔLet's talk! 20:14, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

The only problem I see with this is that chat mods that would wish to leave a message communicating the reasons and length of a chat ban would not be able to unlock the page to add them. Is it possible to tailor the page lock permissions so that chat mods can edit them? The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 20:16, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

They can just leave an Admin a message stating that they left a chat ban notice for someone and we could add it in personally. Dragon.jpg Skål! 20:18, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
Gunny has a point. And I think that would be too much of a hassle, when chat mods should have the power to leave their own ban messages without the "help" of an admin. Perhaps we could make it a rule that the page is only to be edited by admins/mods? -ΣΔLet's talk! 20:20, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
I checked, you can't change the lock so chat mods can edit it. If we "make it a rule" then it'll have to go through the policy change vote, but I would have problem with this as outlined. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 20:22, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to just lock it against new and anonymous users. We can just go back through the history from time to time to make sure no one vandalized it. Dragon.jpg Skål! 20:23, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
If it's not locked against all users (except admins) then there has to be a new policy. We can't sanction users for editing their warning page (not what it should be called) unless we have clear authority to do so. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 20:25, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
Then I say we should just stick with chat mods letting an Admin know whenever they chat banned someone. We - the Admins - can add it in personally and I promise you it's not that big of a hassle to leave us a short message. Dragon.jpg Skål! 20:27, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It in itself is not hard (leaving a message), but it makes mods unable to send their own ban notifications. And Leon, if you look at it from a mod's point of view, I'm sure you wouldn't be too comfortable with it either. But at any rate, it seems like we're all in general agreement with this idea. And locking the page so only admins can edit it is no better than just not allowing editing of the page by whom it belongs to. -ΣΔLet's talk! 20:35, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Of course chat mods can send their own ban notifications. The Admins would only add the information into the ban-tab page. I wouldn't really consider that a proper comparison either. Locking a page such as the one we're contemplating on creating would more properly be compared to locking templates pages. Regular users would not have a right to edit the page, as it wouldn't directly concern them in any way. Dragon.jpg Skål! 20:42, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm good with it either way. Hammer out the details and see if Js and Clyde will agree. If we need a vote for a policy change get them to set it up. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 20:44, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... I see. Best to have another 3 day vote like last time about this. This time let's have everyone's votes count the same ;) -ΣΔLet's talk! 20:54, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should create another discussion page to circulate this idea first before setting up another vote to be shot down. I think there's some promise in this idea, and I wouldn't want it being dismissed because we were hasty again. Dragon.jpg Skål! 20:56, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
First I'd say run it by Clyde and Js. Get them on board, tell them that there's a better consensus on this idea and get their approval. Then the vote won't meet any resistance. The Gunny 380px-USMC-E7 svg.png 21:04, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

( Doesn't make sense me. We're talking about the policy for removing comments, this here just discusses keeping a tab on violations in general. Don't need that, that can be found in the block history. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 21:41, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I personally felt that this idea would compliment the talk-page policy we're trying to add quite nicely. It would allow easier access to keeping tabs on certain users. However, I do agree with J that this isn't exactly a good replacement for only allowing selective blanking of a user's talk-page. I still support that idea 100%. Dragon.jpg Skål! 21:50, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it doesnt solve the Blanking "problem", but it solves the major motivation to make blanking against policy - that to monitor ban lengths/reasons and other admin comments. Whilst I am still in favour generally of making blanking pages against policy, I do have to ask: If we did have a specific admin communications page that users couldn't edit/blank, would we still need to make blanking talk pages against the rules? I can't see aproblem with blanking talk pages in this case. It is quite frankly not possible for us to make available all communications between users available because to my knowledge we don't log them (on the chatroom) or cant access them (Skype, Email, etc).Agent c 23:04, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

GhostAvatarBot keeps a log of everything that goes on in the chat room while attending chat. And the bot sits in chat all day, so he usually gets everything. Otherwise, what happens on Skype and E-Mails isn't really under Wiki jurisdiction, so we can't do anything about it anyway. Yes Man default.pngUser Avatar talk.png 23:11, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
GaV's bot seems to be a more occasional visitor than it used to be and even if its not the log isnt up on public display. Even then, the fact that there are other communication methods means that people still can subvert the whole talk page process. Agent c 23:16, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this is so difficult. We've reverted people's blanking of talk pages before and given warnings when appropriate, and we've also removed vandalism/spam or insults on talk pages. Yet when a rule about it is imposed, suddenly it's a bad thing. Can someone explain what I'm missing here? Thanks. Yes Man default.pngUser Avatar talk.png 23:06, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

This. ^ I think the problem here is that people are over-thinking this. It's quite a simple concept, and I'm not sure why it's becoming so complicated to implement. Dragon.jpg Skål! 23:09, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

( My thoughts too YesMan. I'm even half tempted to implement the rule without a vote. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 23:18, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a terrible idea. Although I'm in favour of the change not even allowing those it effects a true say in it is a very bad idea. Agent c 23:20, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
We've done it before with the logo vote, and that worked out very well. This shouldn't drag on needlessly. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 23:26, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. This shouldn't be a big deal. We just need to get on with it and get back to taking care of the wiki. Yes Man default.pngUser Avatar talk.png 23:27, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
I should also point out once again that this is not a Democratic wiki. The original voting poll was closed and so if we bring up this issue again, we can come up with a different set of rules on how we want to proceed. Technically, the leadership can pass whatever they wish as long as it doesn't break Wikia rules and there's a general consensus amongst the other leadership present. Dragon.jpg Skål! 23:30, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
The logo vote I think was an exceptional circumstance that hasn't been met here; and in this case Jspoel, with all due respect I don't think you have the moral authority to make this change by fiat. Before going on I'd like to again point out I'm in favour of this rule change, however the way this is happening is beginning to stink. The previous vote was closed by the other B/c for policy violations, violations that seem to have been designed to increase the weight of voters who are likely to be in favour. Additionaly, the other B/c is against the change and has called it uneeded - if anything a vote is required to break the B/c deadlock on the issue. Agent c 23:32, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Agent c on this one. -ΣΔLet's talk! 23:36, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this has become a tad trickier now that we have a 'crat on both sides of this issue. KC was originally in favour though and only changed his mind when certain policies were unintentionally not taken into account. Not sure how he'd weigh in when we bring this up again properly. Dragon.jpg Skål! 23:38, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

( My last post was a call of frustration, SD, I won't change the policy by myself if Clyde doesn't agree. But I mean, what are we talking about here? Most admins want that change, we have a whole pre-discussion, I set up the vote, and suddenly everyone backs down because of some technical errors? And now already about a 100 comments on a minor policy change? This is becoming ridiculous. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 23:53, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think the right thing J is to reopen the vote, one man one vote, 7 days duration. Agent c 00:01, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, or even 4 or 5 days, I think that will be sufficient. We need to get back on focus before this turns into another logo-poll fiasco. -ΣΔLet's talk! 01:00, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
7 days is policy I believe. Agent c 01:01, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but we can adjust this to fit the nature of the vote, and to get things done quicker. It's not like it hasn't been done before. That bit of the policies is more of a guidelines, a general rule that would be exempt to fit the circumstances. -ΣΔLet's talk! 01:11, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
Playing fast and loose got us here. Lets go by the book. Agent c 01:14, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
Well if you put it that way... we'll see what happens. -ΣΔLet's talk! 01:17, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

( Perhaps we should add a new policy rule then for a shorter timespan for voting on minor issues. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 01:21, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sure, sounds good. But I think we don't need to be so rigid with the policies & guidelines, especially for things like this. -ΣΔLet's talk! 01:36, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
I can honestly not believe what I am seeing here. Calls for ignoring/bending the rules when it doesn't suit the admins, calls for just implementing rules as certain people see fit, false information being presented as facts. Certain people are just trying to subvert the whole process to get things the way they want it, pushing throw change at any cost, it is like a load of mini dictators running the insane asylum. If people are so confident in the need for a rule change and the proposal, then why not have confidence in what the community decides. Those who do not have the best interest tend to shy away from the light and use the shadows, this is how it is feeling to me at present and I am sadly disappoint in a lot of people at the moment. User:AvatarUser talk:Avatar 17:18, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
Here is the deal. One this page is closed as the discussion is moved so placing derogatory comments where most users cannot respond is disappointing. Second, all rules and regulations are brought up by one or two people and then put to the community so "calls for just implementing rules as certain people see fit" rings hollow."Certain people are just trying to subvert the whole process to get things the way they want it, pushing throw change at any cost, it is like a load of mini dictators running the insane asylum" is a blatant lie as this is being decided by the community and is a direct insult to myself and other users. I understand that everyone has the right to an opinion but to come on here and blatantly insult me and/or other users is a violation of standard wikia protocol. In other words, the general don't be a dick guide applies here. I've been here a long time and you of all people know how I operate and how things have operated in the past. I nor other admins randomly add rules and regulations as we see fit, which is what you are accusing us of doing. This policy change is up for community consideration which is right here! "Those who do not have the best interest tend to shy away from the light and use the shadows, this is how it is feeling to me at present and I am sadly disappoint in a lot of people at the moment." - what the hell does this mean? I am sadly disappointed with your conduct in coming here and stirring up the community with these empty accusations and blatant insults. I have it bouncing around in my head to ban you with good reason but I respect you too much to just "drop the ban hammer." I want an honest and concise reason as to why you have decided to come here and make accusations and hurl insults around like its nobody's business.--Kingclyde 06:18, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Policy vote forum overview
GuidelineUser conduct guideline
Amendment 1Comment policy · Vote · 18 January 2011 · 4-3
Amendment 2Talk page blanking · discussion · Vote · 11 March 2012 · 16-4-1
Amendment 3Signature image size · Discussion · Vote · 24 January 2013 · 8-3-0
Amendment 4Multiple accounts · Discussion · Vote · 15 June 2013 · 8-2
Amendment 5Article talk pages · Discussion · Vote · 15 October 2013 · 8-2-1
Amendment 6Plagiarism enforcement · Vote · 27 August 2015 · 13-0-0
Amendment 7Mandatory edit summaries · Vote · 8 October 2021 · 18-10-2
Amendment 8Editing user and talk pages · Discussion · Vote · 8 April 2022 · 11-0-0
Amendment 9Multiple accounts and block carryover · Discussion · Vote · 8 April 2022 · 11-0-0
Related topicsAdministration policy