This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:User pages. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Suggest the addition of this sentence "User pages may not be redirected into article space"
seems there is a false assumption that not stating something on the policy page should make the opposite become true, the above phrase would clear that up. Penyulap ☏ 01:38, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
not needed, as I see that the apparent change in policy took 4 hours, so reopened the prematurely closed RfC for now. Penyulap ☏ 01:52, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction.
The question is does the phrase "any other notice regarding an active sanction" include an active block notice?
More important than clarifying the language, we need to decide whether we in fact want to prohibit the removal of active block notices.
Seems more like something for the Village Pump (technical) folks. Its kind of silly to block a person, allow them full reign on the editing of their Talk page, but make them promise not to remove walls of text that often get filled by off-topic things from page stalkers. Create an area that is editable by admins only that works like a template 'include' and then prevent it from being removed from the page. We do it for the ad banner at the top of the page, seems like it should be fairly easy to have such a thing for user Talk pages. Its a dumb rule because if admins are only relying on what they can see, they are not doing a good block review anyway. -- Avanu (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Nothing prevents a blocked user from removing most things on their talk page. We are just talking about the block notice. They can remove comments about the block, just not the notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I personally see no reason that a blocked user needs to keep a block notice on their page, besides humiliation. Just as warnings can be removed, implying they've been read and understood, the block notice should be removable. The block information is there on the block log, which is also obvious from a user's contributions page. If an indefinite blocked user prefers to retire gracefully, then let them. It's better than a ton of socks. If a temporary blocked editor would rather leave their talk page blank until the block expires, then why shouldn't it be?
Unblock requests on the other hand, make it much easier for admins to see how many unblock requests have been made and the type of comment in them. Yes, it's just admins being lazy, but at least I can see the point. WormTT(talk) 07:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
So I went over the citation guidelines and didn't see anything that covers this: if I see a cited article by a writer or journalist who is not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, but is a Wikipedia user, is it appropriate to Wiki-link to the author's userpage in the citation? Ford MF (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it acceptable for a user page to be a redirect to an article in the main namespace? I am thinking of User:Az phys grad which was redirected to Poul S. Jessen with the edit comment "moved User:Az phys grad to Poul S. Jessen: This is the name of the person the page refers to.". BabelStone (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this was an attempt to draft in a userspace sandbox and then move (albeit in a slightly unusual fashion). I don't think there'd be any problem with removing the redirect (leaving a blank page?) & leaving them a note explaining why. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Why would we object to a user's making redirects in their own userspace? Seems harmless; and even potentially useful, to give yourself a personal shortcut or mnemonic to articles you frequently access that have very long or hard to remember/type titles. Victor Yus (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I've just realized this is the user page itself, rather than a subpage of it which was the case I had in mind, but I still don't see the particular harm. Victor Yus (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It is interesting reading, and I was particularly struck by Red Pen of Doom's comment: "while i cannot see where a redirect to article space would ever be appropriate, has this ever been an issue anywhere other than [1]? is it likely to ever come up as an issue again?" And less than 3 months later the issue has come up again. BabelStone (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
What about this [[2]] - a user who wants to edit pseudonymously via an IP but has created an account to do things an IP editor cannot do, and then redirects the user page to the IP page? -- The Red Pen of Doom11:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but that's a redirect from user space to user space, which is not the problem under discussion. Many user space to user space redirects exist: two legit purposes that I can think of straight away are (i) users who have changed their name and (ii) users with alternate accounts. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It's weird (and I never quite understood this occasional preference for IP editing over using accounts), but it seems fair enough - if we treat IPs as pseudo-accounts, which we functionally do, then this is no different to alternate accounts pointing to the main userpage. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
"Solved" how? Particularly when no one but the IP knows what his new IP is, or if it actually changed at all? Anomie⚔20:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the IP still editing in the same style as before, then it is likely the same editor. Is the IP still editing, but now from a different IP, then the IP knows likely that he should 'fix' the redirect. If the IP is inactive for a couple of months, then we can do a 'Miscellaneous for Discussion' thingy, and change, blank or delete. While the IP is still active, it does not do any harm. --Dirk BeetstraTC04:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
And when the IP goes apparently inactive for a long spell, you can always drop a hint at the old IPs talkpage. If there is no response to that, or a response of the type 'who are you talking about', then it is maybe time for that Miscellaneous for Discussion-moment. --Dirk BeetstraTC04:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:AGF: Redirects from user space into main space can happen by accident, such as after a move and forgetting to do a {{db-user}}. A recommended solution:
If the ONLY revision is the redirect, AND the page is more than, say, a week old, change it to a WP:SOFTREDIRECT and put a WP:PROD at the top, taking care to notify the user what is going on.
If there are previous revisions and it's at least a week old, change it to a WP:SOFTREDIRECT and notify the user. If another week goes by, take it to WP:MfD to ask if the page should be restored to the most recent revision that is appropriate for user-space. Take it to MfD if there is any doubt about what the most recent revision that is appropriate for user-space. If there is no appropriate version, coutesy-blank the page, but don't delete it. I hope the bots that delete blank user pages are smart enough to only delete them if the matching user was the editor that blanked the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The following is a possible subsection could be added under What may I not have in my user pages?:
Trademarked images
Images that consist primarily or completely of one or more registered trademarks, as recognized by the state of Florida (the location of Wikipedia's servers), are not to be used on user pages.
Question: What exactly is the problem with using free-use images that contain a trademark on user pages? Anomie⚔16:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I personally think that trademarked images should be treated just the same as copyrighted images, since IMO they are not free. This would level out the playing field where right now some corporations and college sports teams (to name just two large commercial enterprises) get their branding logos splashed all over the encyclopedia and others don't. That said, at present we work with our current non-free image policy which allows non-copyrighted images to be used liberally, so there is no reason to restrict their use to only article space or keep them off user pages (unless they are used improperly somehow). I would love to see the policy change though... Franamax (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright and trademark laws have very different purposes. A trademark denotes the origin of a product or service. Copying and displaying a trademark does not infringe the trademark unless it confuses consumers about the origin of a competing product or service.—Finell21:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
No. This is just a guideline. If policy level restriction is needed, get it written into policy, and then link to it from here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Guidelines and policies related to trademarks should make it clear that any use of the trademark contrary to US law should not be done on US-hosted projects, including the English Wikipedia. Guidelines should say that Wikipedia errs on the side of caution. This means that "prominent" use of trademarks should be avoided except in certain contexts, but "incidental" uses, such as a photo that happens to include a trademark in the background, are generally okay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If it is lawful to use the image, then there is no need to apply additional restrictions based on commons policy. Commons policy has additional legal restrictions that are not applicable to the English Wikipedia due to its multinational mission, there is no reason to import them here. If there are specific uses that violate law in the US then we should address those directly, rather then adopting the commons policy wholesale. Monty84506:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This isn't about articlespace, but only that such files/images shouldn't be in userspace. What justification would you suggest to allow use of non-free files in userspace? - jc3707:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Just the first example that comes to mind: If while drafting an article, I want to use an image that contains a trademark, which is not subject to copyright, it would clearly be permissible under the law, and I see no reason we should restrict it just because the image isn't free to be used in every way. Same for personality rights, there are plenty of ways an image with personality rights implications could be used in userspace while fulling respecting the applicable US or State laws. Likewise, why should we worry about European Database copyright when it simply is not applicable to the English Wikipedia. If there are specific examples were editors are misusing non-free images that need to be clarified, lets do that, but adopting a mismatched commons policy wholesale is the wrong solution. Monty84507:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Except that it's a userspace draft. There is no need to display the image while it's in userspace. Using the colon trick, the image wouldn't display. We disallow userspace drafts from being in article categories as well. - jc3708:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Rules should have a purpose, and enough of a purpose to justify their downside. I can't even imagine a purpose for the much less the latter.North8000 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose There are files that are free in the US but not in the country of origin. Those are uploaded locally and may not be moved to commons. But within the project, they may be used anywhere: any number of articles, templates, wikiprojects, userpages, portals, whatever; as they are not uploaded under a non-free criteria. As for the non-free files, they are already only allowed in articles and with restrictions, so it is pointless to support something that is policy already. Cambalachero (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose There are classes of images that are considered free here but not on Commons due to us following US law while Commons also follows the laws of any country that might be tangentially related. And we quite simply don't need to be trying to import Commons's dysfunctional politics to the English Wikipedia, we have enough of our own. I also find the claims by the nominator that non-free images are somehow allowed on user pages to be blatantly false; WP:NFCC#9 is abundantly clear, and idiosyncratic definitions of "non-free" do not help matters at all. Anomie⚔16:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. WP:NFCC#9 would appear to suggest that the guideline does need to be adjusted, regardless of whether this proposal gains consensus. - jc3716:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. If it is free where the servers are located, that's good enough. Let the user beware. This is not to say that all free images don't require some minimum level of educational value, relevance, taste, etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. There's nothing illegal with me using File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg in userspace, and there's no reason for us to prohibit it. Perhaps it would be illegal if I were in France, where it's still under copyright, and for that reason it's not permitted on Commons, but it's not an issue for Americans such as I. Our prohibition of nonfree images in userspace is sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose change in policy, Approve change in guideline. A change in policy effectively prevents user-space drafting of articles that contain such pictures. A guideline that makes it clear that temporary use, for good cause, is okay but other uses are not is a good rule of thumb. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
How is this not already the policy? I'm pretty sure it is, in more words than you've said it, but really your just rephrasing existing policy. "Fair use" images are already disallowed in the userspace. --Jayron3202:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
See the discussion above. Apparently, due to phrasing, there are certain kinds of non-free images/files that aren't specifically disallowed. And obviously, this should be clear. And since IANAL, I thought starting a discussion, rather than being bold, was probably the way to go. - jc3703:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought that was going to be a rude shortcut. Can you give some examples of images that non-obviously should not be used on a userpage? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User_pages#Non-free_images - The guideline, while saying non-free, then follows up by saying (copyrighted images lacking a free content license). There are apparently other types of non-free files besides those that are copyrighted. Not to mention other legal issues with certain images/files, which, again, I can't imagine there is justification to allow such for userspace. See commons:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. - jc3707:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
For instance, if I wanted to use the image to the right A PD image at commons with a national use restriction in my userspace, It is public domain, but I would not be allowed to us it under your proposed rule as its tagged with commons:Template:Soprintendenza, making it free but restricted in use, which is what the commons guideline actually governs. The template even allows private uses, so though we don't need to, userspace use would still be respecting it, but would be prohibited nonetheless. Monty84516:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is it needed in userspace? We give latitude to all sorts of things in userspace. We have hummour, and all sorts of discussions which have nothing directly to do with editing the encyclopedia, due to supporting the sense of "community". And I do support and have supported that. And that's fine. But in what way at all are non-free images needed in userspace? - jc3717:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
They are free, just with restrictions in some countries. More generally, the question should be why shouldn't it be allowed, not why is it needed. Monty84519:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This is basically just a local version of the Commons PD-art template. In short, we host it because we're free so to do, but if you're in Italy, you need to know that you're liable to problems if you do what you feel like with it. Such an image is definitely permitted on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this allowed? User:Tubetest The user doesn't seem to have made many edits in their time here. [3] I think they may be someone else, but I doubt anyone can prove it. Among the many images used in articles, there are some which are just personal ones. DreamFocus02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any guideline against using a talk page to push personal agendas or promote fringe theories? I seem to recall there was but cannot put my finger on it. The page I have an issue with is this one, which has a "international nazi league" section at the bottom with some countries listed, and the editor's page pops up when one googles "international nazi league". Zhanzhao (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There are a variety of choices you could use from WP:NOT if you want to take the page to WP:MfD. I've added a NOINDEX template, which as far as I'm concerned is enough, but I expect if its brought to AN as mentioned, it will almost certainly draw an MfD nomination from the regulars there if you don't get it first. Monty84520:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to keep things simple, I deleted it as vandalism, under the usual definition of an attempt to damage the encyclopedia, and blocked the user as a account for a group under username policy. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
User subpages of indefinitely blocked users whose user page has been deleted
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
So, I read all the way through this and then, at the very end, found my own remarks, which I had quite forgotten about. As this has sat for some time without a close I am going to go ahead and close it anyway, if anyone objects let me know and we'll get someone to review it or something.
I can see no consensus for any specific course of action, so this is basically still up to admin discretion as that was/is the status quo.
In order to establish consensus and determine the normal course of action, should talk pages associated with users who are blocked indefinitely or banned be blanked or left intact? (It is intended that WP:USER will be updated to reflect whichever way consensus trends.) Nouniquenames19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, there are few different situations here:
Recently indeffed accounts that are clearly "until the community is convinced the problem will not recur"
Sockpuppet accounts that will not be unblocked under any circumstances
Promotional accounts who have a right to unblock for the purpose of a rename
The first one - talkpage should not be blanked until all avenues of unblock have been exhausted OR the talkpage has been locked due to abuse of the process
The second one: blank and tag as a sock. Redirect to the userpage (or vice versa)
The third one, don't blank until all avenues have been exhausted.
No way, you mean that someone understands the difference between blocks and bans (and the timey-wimey stuff in between)? : )
Anyway, I think the problem with the RFC is that there are too many things under one rfc umbrella. So I think it would be difficult to gain a consensus as currently written. Perhaps this should be restructured? - jc3720:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This is going to be a mess of a discussion unless we're really specific about what options are being discussed.
Here are what I perceive as options (please add to this list if I've missed any) A: Tag user page, leave existing content, leave user talk page as is B: Tag user page, blank existing content, leave user talk page as is C: Tag user page, blank existing content, redirect user talk page to user page D: No tags, leaving existing content on both user and user talk pages NE Ent20:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC) E: Tag user and user talk page, but do not blank (except for specific material that is covered by policies requiring its removal). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.10:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC) F: Enact no formal policy, continue permitting administrators to discretionarily choose an appropriate course of action on a case-by-case basis. — C M B J10:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Q2 Also, should the decision be at the discretion of the blocking admin (as {{blocked user}} states), or should it be the same for all editors? Q3 After achieving consensus, should this apply to users blocked/banned going forward, or should existing pages be updated to reflect the consenus? NE Ent20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
My personal opinion is option D. The goal is to build an encyclopedia. Block or banning disruptive users is consistent with that goal. Once a user has been stopped via blocking/banning, tagging or blanking does not help build the encyclopedia -- it's about misguided notions of justice (See no justice) or revenge. This is a bad user so they must be punished. One thing I've never understood is who are all these editors who go around looking at blocked user's talk pages?? I don't, why would I care? Alternatively, on the rare occassions when I have been curious, do you think blanking a talk page is going to keep me from using the history to look at the old version? So all blanking does is add a couple extra clicks to the few curious folks stalking blocked editors.
Second choice is A. If the consensus requires we have to put badge's of shame on editor's pages, fine. I think it's really important we treat indef'd and banned users' the pages the same unless we want to continually have community ban the defacto banned editor discussions on AN, which have never seemed to be a good use of time.
Regarding Q2 it should be consistent for all editors in a particular state so we don't have to haggle about an individual page after the Rfc concludes. NE Ent20:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The only thing I've found documented is Template:Blocked_user/doc, which says "... it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't." There are multiple examples of indeffed users without tags -- so I don't think we can say today there really is a policy (except sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes argue alot on ANI). Since a blocked user will have the blocked template near the bottom of their talk page, I've never seen any benefit to having their talk page tagged. NE Ent21:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's any issue with the {{Uw-block}} template -- it's the badge of shame tag on the user page (e.g. {{blocked user}}) I'm discussing. What's the justification for having it? If there is a valid reason for it, shouldn't it always be added? NE Ent04:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This has already become far larger than I had imagined, but the idea that only the blocking admin has the choice is, in my opinion, both terrible and against the community. I was hoping this would lead to either a "do it every time unless someone brings up a really good reason not to" or a "don't do it unless someone comes up with a really good reason to." Being an admin is no big deal, it's just a flip of a bit, and tagging or blanking (or not) doesn't require the bit, so there's no justification for making it admin-only. Making it blocking admin's choice further takes away the community's ability to control itself (not always a bad thing) and almost certainly leads to inconsistencies. @NE Ent, the arguing at ANI is unfortunate, and having the sometimes yes/sometimes no almost guarantees that it continues. Ideally, by having the community choose guidelines, much of that could be avoided. --Nouniquenames04:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Whether to block is an admin decision -- which should be properly explained in the block summary. The content of a user page is, to state the obvious, a content decision. I have yet to see any valid policy reason for tagging a blocked user's page. Please someone -- anyone -- explain how it improves the Encyclopedia. NE Ent22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No. There should not be a written consensus that some people may use to blindly blank userpages regardless of the page content. Some userpages are offensive rants. Other userpages are exceptionally utilitarian. Some userpages should be blanked regardless of the standing of the user, and some product of banned users belongs in ProjectSpace. Instead, treat each on a case-by-case basis, making your best judgement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I basically agree with SmokeyJoe, the block notice is sufficient. Userpages and talk pages of indeffed editors who are not banned should not be blanked unless there is some reason beyond that they are blocked to justify the blanking. If there is a problem with the page, I think editors should have more latitude to blank then they might otherwise, but there must at least be a page specific reason. Monty84506:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A - A consistent approach and clear guideline are needed to avoid issues similar to those seen a few days ago. It should be at the discretion of the blocking admin, but pages should only be blanked in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. libel, copyvios, etc.). If consensus is achieved, this should apply to users blocked/banned going forward, and can be applied retroactively (but not required). For the most part, I agree with Dennis Brown's reasoning. - MrX03:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
No to WP:CREEP. Editors should be free to use their best judgement, with other editors free to revert and discuss. WP:BRD works fine for far more often viewed and controversial pages than this, and it works fine in this situation as well. Also, no to Yet Another Special Power For Administrators Only. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I could support A or D, and I oppose B and C except for specific material that is covered by the deletion or oversight policies. --Pine✉03:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
If the user retains the ability to edit his talk page, then we don't need to change any policies. Assuming he doesn't do something to lose the ability to edit this page, he can blank it or request protection on it if he wants, just like an editor in good standing. In cases where he would have the right to ask that it be deleted if he were in good standing, he should retain that right even if he is banned or ifdef-blocked. As for those who cannot edit their talk page: There should be a formal process where these editors can request that the page be protected, courtesy-blanked, or if there is no good reason to refuse the request, deleted. The project should not take action on its own merely because the user is banned or indefinately blocked. It can, however, take action if the content violates policy, just as it can if the user is in good standing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
B. Tag the user page AND the talk page, but leave the talk page warnings, block notices, etc. so that people working on articles with edits by the banned user will be able to see that the user was banned and why. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I would support no change, or D (nothing extra), and only A with tagging of the user page if problems are more serious. Putting the uw-block on the user talk is encouraged, but I have noticed sometimes it does not happen, eg when the user would not read it, like when the user is a spambot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Add option E: Tag user and user talk page, but do not blank (except for specific material that is covered by policies requiring its removal). It's important that people be able to see why the user was blocked, on their talk page, and there's no overwhelming rationale for censoring the user page (it would be censorship simply for the sake of being censorious). Q2: Same for everyone (other than, of course, an admin is free to interpret policy as requiring the removal of certain things, but it doesn't really take an admin to do that). Q3: Not retroactive (way too much hassle). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.10:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I suppose B and E make the most sense to me. Redirecting talk seems a bad idea because of automatic posting with twinkle notifications, otherwise option C would be acceptable. I don't like A as well, but it's more a matter of preference. --Nouniquenames19:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
B is my preferred option in cases where the block has stuck or is likely to stick. Tagging notifies any users previously unfamiliar with the user of their status, a fact which is otherwise non-obvious. If for instance a new user asks an indef blocked editor for help or advice they should have some way of seeing they aren't likely to get a response. Permanently blocked users are no longer part of our community and so no longer have the right to maintain any sort of personal pages here, so blanking the user page is reasonable. The content of user talk pages can be helpful for documenting the user's behaviour and/or the circumstances leading up to the block and can act as a venue from where the block can be appealed, so it should be preserved. Hut 8.516:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty much with Dennis all the way along, here. We should never be tempted (or driven!) into vengeful or punitive actions. Any egregious personal attacks could be redacted. Blanking user talk pages, or protecting them (to "disperse the crowds") is absolutely not on (that's called repression by silencing dissent); neither is protecting pages to prevent anybody else talking to the user. We may block, but we should never Send to Coventry. That's punitive, not preventative. Tags are very rarely needed; they really are just badges of shame in most cases. As with so many things in here, it all depends on context ... Pesky (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
A (or E, they're practically identical, given that stuff which needs to be removed by policy will be removed anyway) : No conceivable benefit in blanking, tagging makes sense for transparency. --Cyclopiatalk20:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
E (or A) .. is it really just about blanking? (not deleting?) if just blanking is concerned, then consensus about this matter seems to be relatively small issue. I prefer intact pages of blocked/banned users, it often good first reference when researching some past User interactions, blanking has no helpful function. --Reo+22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest no formal policy is needed here and that it be left to admin discretion on a case-by-case basis. Users who edit war on such issues or make a hue and cry about " scarlet letters" or other nonsense should be encouraged to shut the hell up. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What about a dead editor?
A wikipedia editor might die.
After reading at Wikipedia:User_page#User_pages_and_leaving_Wikipedia, I was just wondering -- is there some custom or guideline, for what happens to the User Page (and User Talk page) of a wikipedia editor who has died?
See WP:RIP. There is a template for the userpage usertalkpage of a deceased editor. If you can't verify the death, then use an inactive user template at most. Being mistakenly declared dead can upset. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
talk page "bans" from indef blocked users
Sometimes in the course of a prolonged dispute a user will ask someone not to edit their talk page any longer. I am usually a very strong supporter of the idea that such requests should be respected. (See my essay on the subject)
However, I find myself in a somewhat odd situation in one particular case. A user was blocked some time ago, and eventually their talk page access was revoked. Over the last year or so they have endlessly evaded the block in a quest to decry the unfairness of it all. Whether there is any merit to their arguments or not is not really the point though. Every time there is another instance of block evasion (they don't even deny it, in fact the self-identify every time they evade the block) it ends up getting mentioned at their talk page, and sometimes a brief discussion occurs, usually multiple admins trying once again to explain to them that block evasion is the surest path to not getting unblocked.
They have emailed me asking (demanding actually) me to stop participating in these discussions and to remove their talk page from my watchlist altogether. The thing is, in this case it isn't really a matter of them wanting me to stop discussing things with them, they aren't even allowed to edit their own talk page. It is a more a matter of discussing the matter with other admins and maintaining a log of the various incidents of block evasion. An appeal to WP:BASC was declined and ArbCom is now "holding" the block.
Now, I don't subscribe to the theory that we treat anyone who has been blocked like a criminal or a pariah and pregtend they don't exist, but in this case I feel like my involvement is basically in an administrative capacity, I'm not involved in any sort of active dispute with this user, i couldn't be since they have been blocked for some time now. They have evaded the block about twenty times now, so maybe I don't even need to be particpating since anyone with a track record like that is de facto banned anyway. So I guess what I am asking is what do folks think of such a demand? Obviously it is not really binding, and the watchlist request is without precedent so far as I know. It's not as if I am obsessed with this user, plenty of admins have commented there to try and inject some sanity into the situation, I'm not at all sure why they are singling me out for banning. Maybe they aren't and the other admins are just ignoring those emails, but if that were the case I suspect someone would have revoked their email priveleges by now. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we should try to respect a request to stay away from someone's talk page. Generally there is no reason for a particular user to be the one to communicate regarding problems with the person requesting to be left alone, so complying with such a request is reasonable. However there is no requirement to comply (and I interpret the shortcut WP:NOBAN to mean that a user cannot ban someone from their user or talk pages). Particularly with an editor known to have been severely disruptive, it would be very unwise to respect a request to go away. I'm sure you would not be grave dancing or anything like that, so the community would thank you for taking the trouble to monitor a problem, and my recommendation would be to ignore emails requesting you to go away (do not reply as that just feeds the problem). Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I asked a question about this about 1 month ago and thought it was here, which would be the most logical place. Evidently not. Note to self to locate it... In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I would not object to Spanish on someone's talk page. You should be able to easily google translate it. More important is that the content relates to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I note this entirely as an observer. WP:REMOVE currently says this:
A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:
Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction.
This perhaps could be clearer to if/how/when confirmed sockpuppetry related notices are to be removed (from a User's Talk page) once block expires. Manual archiving? Or stay on the User's Talk for ever? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it probably wouldn't be terrible if the sock notices disappeared, because socking almost always leads to a block, which means that there will be at least an indication of problems in the block log. So if these disappeared from user talk, anyone reviewing such an account would still have access to relevant information. However, I would say that indefinitely blocked sock accounts (as opposed to sockmaster accounts, which aren't always indeffed) should have their user page always tagged as a sock account, just to make tracing easier. Those tags often link to an SPI, if one was conducted. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I would take it to mean that notices for indef blocked puppets/puppeteers can never be removed, but puppeteers who are blocked temporarily can remove notices once their block has expired. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think what it should say is that sanctioned users may have to abide by different conditions. WP:UP is not the page for defining the scope of discretionary sanctions or Arb Com sanctions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe. That would make sense to me, I can see situations where a contrite or one-time offender puppet master could be allowed to remove (per User:Boing! said Zebedee) but also cases where someone (who?) unblocking would say "you can edit but this time the sock notice stays." WP:UP isn't the place for defining, but WP:REMOVE should at least be clear in what it says and point elsewhere for what it doesn't say. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I would replace the guideline with the text I wrote, or similar, keeping it brief. Anything more may only cause uncertainty. I think that an unblocking admin imposing conditions should make it abundantly clear to the user as to what the conditions are, and they will obviously supersede WP:UP, as if the user doesn't comply then he will be blocked. Formal details probably belong at WP:BLOCK, or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Arb com sanctions are found here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions. Sanctioned users should not be seeking clarification of their sanctions here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Your text looks like an improvement. But what happens if the blocking admin gives no instruction about the Sock template (which seems to happen) and just lets block expire after 1 week, 4 weeks, then the unblocked user archives it or removes it (or the users page auto-archives it without the editor even doing anything). Then along comes a different admin with a different interpretation? Because I'm not familiar with WP:BLOCK I can't immediately see that this is covered there. Though I agree with you that linking there whether it's clear there or not is a better place to deal with it than here. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
A short term SOCK block should be recorded in the block log. A different admin subsequently looking at misbehaviour should chekc the block log and read a record of SOCKing, and see the previous blockers. From there, everything will soon be revealed. I don't think there is an issue with removing SOCK warnings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Anybody have/know of any pimped out pages?
Hello! I have a very basic user page with just my bio and a few userboxes. Does anyone know of cool-looking/customized pages that I could use for inspiration? Thanks, TheOneSean | Talk to me14:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
RFC: Blanking of user and user talk pages of banned and indeffed users
There was a discussion about this previously and I believe it was the complexity of the question that contributed to making it result in "no consensus." However, I believe that perhaps a different conclusion could be reached if simpler questions could be asked. These are "yes or no" questions:
Two "yes or no" questions:
Should administrators have the discretion to blank user pages because they belong to a banned/indeffed user?
Should administrators have the discretion to blank user talk pages because they belong to a banned/indeffed user?
It should be noted that "because they belong to a banned/indeffed user" is the caveat. It does not include blanking due to other reasons (because of sockpuppetry, disreputable material, etc.). Both questions are unrelated to the question of taging any pages.
Again, I emphasize that these are "yes" or "no" (or "no opinion") questions. Please state the reason for whichever answer you give. --Newquestions?17:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No to 1 and No to 2: The user pages and talk pages are helpful to this encyclopedia and do promote collaboration because as long as they have a contribution history, even if they are no longer participants, they were once participants in the past. Their contributions remain on this encyclopedia, and unless we are going to remove all contributions they make permanently from this Wikipedia, seeing what they have on their user page can help in improving or managing those pages they have contributed to in the past, even if it was several years ago, and I would say that it would be helpful even if a thousand years passed because their contributions are still there and have left their mark and these pages help people understand such contributions. The same goes for their talk page, perhaps even more so.--Newquestions?17:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
User:New questions seems to me to be answering the questions as though they referred to deleting the pages, not to blanking them. His/her point about it being useful to be able to refer back to old contributions is perfectly valid, but it is not at all difficult to look at the history of a blanked page. In fact, in many cases the vast majority of the edits to the page have already been removed, so that a check of the history is needed to see them. Is there any special reason why the edits which happened to be still visible when the block took place should have a special status? It would, in my opinion, be totally unhelpful to introduce a restriction on blanking user pages and talk pages in this situation. It is very often helpful to blank a page of an ex-user, for various reasons, including WP:DENY, removing offensive content, removing trolling, etc etc. It is, in particular, normal practice to blank a user page of an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet, and replace its contents with a just a sockpuppet template. I see no reason at all for introducing a prohibition on doing this, nor for introducing a restriction to administrators doing so, as the questions seem to imply. The notion that someone who is considered so disruptive that he/she cannot be allowed to edit Wikipedia ever, can nevertheless be allowed to dictate that certain content is to stay on display for ever is, frankly a weird one. In short, yes, yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Yes. And the blanker doesn't need to be an administrator. Indeed, the blocker should be expected to blank an inappropriate user page or usertalkpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes and yes. Especially in the cases of banned users. It's frequently useful when leaving an indefinite block notice or a {{schoolblock}} notice to remove several screens full of warnings, block notices, etc. to leave only the active block notice and any relevant discussion (as per WP:BLANKING). In the case of schools, {{ow}} is usually placed at the top of the talk page when this is done. Removing that material makes the task of replying to any unblock requests or discussion much easier and in these two situations (indeffed/banned users and schoolblocks), you're not losing any material content. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes to both for blanking, No to both for deletion. Page deletions should go through the normal process. LK (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes for blanking. (I can imagine specific situations with specific comments that might warrant deletion, but in that case, there would be a separate reason for deletion.) --j⚛e deckertalk20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I remove that "ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect" may not be removed from talk pages by the user? I just noticed an editor try to remove such a restriction, only to be reverted by an admin citing this guideline. It seems unfair, because ArbCom restrictions could be in effect for years, which means the talk-page notice becomes a permanent badge of shame. SlimVirgin(talk)21:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be a practical guideline, a random look at a number of talk pages of editors who have been subject to arbcom restrictions clearly shows that it isn't being applied anyway, so let's get rid of it. --regentspark (comment) 23:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
It was converted to "ArbCom...." March 18, 2011, with the edit summary "clarify....". Be bold and just remove it. If anyone wants to add it back then they can search archives for any consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. If we are to impose such badges of shame against people, then we need a clear and reasoned decision to do so. If there was none, then this page has no reason to assert that there is such a rule. Victor Yus (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Userspace is also not a substitute for project space (Wikipedia:...), nor should a userspace page be used as primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or established concept. If your user page related to the project becomes widely used or linked in project space, or has functional use similar to a project page, consider moving it into project space or merging it with other similar pages already existing there.
"Userspace is also not a substitute for project space (Wikipedia:...)
No, userspace is often used similarly to Project space. Many old time Wikipedians have documentation and explanations in userspace that are quite decent.
", nor should a userspace page be used as primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or established concept.
Every Project page should be self-documenting, or relying on an associated documentation page, yes. But what does this sentence mean? Does it mean that you may not document things in your userspace? You may. Does it mean that it cannot be the "primary" documentation? "Primary"? Well, the primary documentation is on the page itself. Does it mean that your userspace documentation cannot exceed the official documentation in quality? surely this is not the intention. Probably, it means that Project page documentation is found in Project space? True leaning tautological, and not serving any purpose here.
Any user is free to draft documentation on any project page in their userspace. The above language does not seem to give useful guidance to anyone, and should be cut as distracting from what is important.
"If your user page related to the project becomes widely used or linked in project space, or has functional use similar to a project page, consider moving it into project space or merging it with other similar pages already existing there."
This is reasonable advice to an advanced Wikipedian. An advanced Wikipedian already knows about the possibility of moving their user essay into project space. This piece of advice aids no advanced Wikipedian. It can, however, mislead a beginner Wikipedian into thinking that if they have made something useful, they should move it to Project space. This is not true. It is especially not true if the Wikipedian doesn't know understand the fuzzy distinction between userspace and Project space.
This last sentence should be removed as not appropriate as instruction to a beginning Wikipedian, and as teaching how to suck eggs for anyone else.
The whole paragraph should be removed because its low useful-information density diminishes the usefulness of these Project pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This is an old, old item. It was introduced much earlier, in 2007 [4], and I think you misunderstood who wrote it. You should probably drop its creator a note of this discussion as he/she is still an active editor.
Looking at the aim of this: - A lot of useful work goes on in user pages and a lot of useful and well-used pages exist in userspace (scripts, personal reflections, statistics, guidance essays). However, important pages covering agreed policies, guidelines, and other formalized decisions and processes of the community, should be where users expect to find them, in community pages not fragmented and buried unexpectedly within individual users' 'personal' space. The point here is that if something is sufficiently useful or important (and not just optional, interesting or fun) to project knowledge, ideally a user should expect to find it in projectspace, not buried in userspace subpages. At the least, a link should be relatively easy to find, if a page created in one's personal pages does end up being of significant value to the community (such as an essay on some point) - a user should find it at least 'somewhat' easy to locate by users who are looking for the page on that item.
Perhaps reword something like this:
"Established pages that are important to community knowledge and processes, or are routinely cited as representing a community consensus, should generally be in project space (Wikipedia:) or easily located from project space. Formal processes, policies, guidelines, and (on occasion) high-impact pages whose community standing needs to be clear, should almost always be in project space."
(Note: I'm thinking also of pages such as WP:SPA, WP:DTR, WP:LAWYER which although technically classified as 'essays', should be in projectspace because they are so often cited as representing a community not a personal view)
I think FT2 is right that I wrote the original version of that (or something like it). At the time, some essays and de facto guidelines were living in User space even though they already had wider community support / involvement. Having such documents in User space makes them harder to find, makes it harder to determine their level of significance, and was leading to the growth of cross-namespace links and redirects going from Wikipedia space to User space. If I recall correctly, there was a community discussion about a group of such pages in user space and a decision to move them to Wikipedia space, and the text was added here around the same time to discourage further issues of a similar nature. The text is not meant as a prohibition against all uses of User space for essays and such, but if a user page becomes widely cited and referred to be people other than its original author, then that page really should be migrated into the larger community space. Dragons flight (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The original text in context makes sense. At the moment, its position, between STALEDRAFT and STALEDRAFT solutions, is a bit of an awkward arrangement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLANKING
I am opening this thread to specifically query whether IP template notices here, i.e. Static Ip/Shared Ip should be included with Blanking. I was recently involved in "lamest edit war ever" not my term but it was lame I agree. It was over the Shared Ip template, and several editors prior to myself and after myself readded it. I was the only one who violated 3rr. That was my fault for not seeing the bottom line about 3rr exemption it is not. SO anyways the IP was issued a short term block for this, this was promptly overturned it stating it was a stupid worthless template. That's their business their opinion but the question becomes from this, Do we still include it as something that shouldn't be blanked or do we remove it from the list because it's irrelevant? The only thing that I am aiming for is a discussion on the relevance of keeping it included, not rehash the whole situation please, it's a long story and there were screw ups from everyone, myself included. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)]
FYI I've recently amended the provision to reflect the fact that it only relates to occasions where there is shared use of the IP address, to remove inclusion of the static IP and Whois templates.[5] Unfortunately the remaining templates are also often used not for their original purpose but as a weapon to intimidate and harass IP users. I would favour any remedy which prevents recurrences of these lame edit wars, including removing the provision altogether. -- zzuuzz(talk)13:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If it is something that should be eliminated let's do it. I'm sure that if it is that important there's a way it can be added to where it's not an option if it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed the removal of this. While I agree with removing it in most cases, the one exception where I think the headers does perform a worthwhile function is {{Shared IP edu}} ... I would like to see a label restored for cases where the shared IP tag identifies an educational institution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't seem too unreasonable. I would also say from experience that it is rare enough, outside the usual lame scenarios, for it not to cause the usual problems. We can add it back specifically. I would point out the risks involved however: given schoolblocks are usually in terms of years, we risk revoking talk page access for a considerable time over a single relatively unimportant incident (unless short-term protection is used). To take this discussion one step forward, we would probably have to consider {{Shared IP corp}}. Though it's roughly equivalent, I am not convinced it stands out to the same extent. -- zzuuzz(talk)21:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
In my view, the ISP and CORP tags, while I have at times used them, have low enough value that the disadvantages generally outweigh any benefit that may be received from them. On the other hand, I view the school tag as having a net benefit, with the value to the project offsetting any potential disadvantages or risks.
The other one to consider is {{Shared IP gov}} - I honestly don't encounter this one too often, so don't have an opinion on it myself. When I do see the shared GOV tag, it's generally for a library; but, there are many other government entities - both regional and national. This one could probably use more discussion as well to determine consensus on if it's a net benefit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
As there have been no objections; I'll wait another week, and if no further comments come up, I'll add back the item limited to shared IP tags that are specific to identifying an educational institution such as {{Shared IP edu}}.
As there has been no further support nor discussion of the ISP, Corp, or Gov tags, I will not mention those in the section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I think {{staticip}} templates should remain - specifically when used to show an IP is NOT broadly shared (as in residential service) so repeat patterns of vandalism come from the same place. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
(A) What was the original noble intent of these IP related templates?
(B) For the sake of newbies who don't know their IPs from the AP, but want to open a good faith discussion with an IP, in my view these newbies would benefit if every IP talk page had a banner at the top to provide the newbie with basic IP education (static vs rolling and whatever else they should know). I'm not suggesting this as a template, but as a programmed-in default feature of IP talk pages. This idea is all about ed retention via education to improve satisfaction with the D part of BRD NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I think so. I have seen many users with copies of older article versions in user space still. They probably never get around to having admin delete them is all. If they are articles that violate policy then they can be deleted anytime though. Attack pages and contentious BLP, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
As a draft being worked on in good faith, yes. Best practice is to use a sandbox or sub page, in my opinion. However, just letting stuff sit there starts getting into WP:FAKEARTICLE aka WP:STALEDRAFT terrritory and should be deleted, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLANKING, again
It's fairly evident from recent discussions here and here that there's a degree of interpretation going on regarding WP:BLANKING; specifically the part of the policy that states users may not remove
"declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction"
The problems appear to stem from that last phrase - opinions differ over what constitutes a "notice regarding an active sanction". Is it only templated messages, only statements from administrators involved with the case, any comment that relates to the block/ban, or something else? Does it even cover the actual block message itself? I think that, to avoid similar incidents to these in the future, the most expedient thing to do is to improve the wording of the policy to make the definition of "notices" clear.
Of course, in order to do that, we first have to agree on the definition. I have always interpreted it to mean any comment that might have a direct bearing on an unfamiliar administrator's reading of the case (i.e. templates, messages regarding the reason for the block, conditions suggested for unblock and so on; but not "haha, you're blocked" comments, commiserations, or tangential discussions that happen to mention the block in passing). I recognise, however, that this isn't the only position taken on this issue, so I'd welcome other opinions before looking at how best to rephrase the statement in the policy. Yunshui雲水21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to open it up for any discussion, I'd like to open it up for all again. Forcing the block message to remain serves no purpose. The user is blocked. They know it. There is no reason to force a notice to the world about it. On the current note, if you suck so badly as an admin that you can't look at the talk page history, you don't deserve to review blocks. As a compromise, declined block notices should remain...along with sockpuppet notices (ongoing or proven), speedy and mfd tags. --Onorem (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I did say the same thing last time. If we aren't to give our opinions again, close the discussion and link to the last one. Shutting down discussion seems to be the current trend. --Onorem (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the word "notice" has to mean the notice of the block, regardless of whether the blocking admin uses a template (many do not). That said, I'm in favor of a broad construction of the word "notice", which would include any admin's comments about the block or an unblock. Also, those comments have to be after the block and while the block is active, not comments that led up to the block (it wasn't an active sanction then). I'm not sure I agree with Dennis there's a consensus on these issues, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Where WP:BLANKING says, "any other notice regarding an active sanction", the word "notice" ≠ "comment". And if an admin wants more info about a current block, then they should simply check the talk page history or confer with the blocking admin. But it is not an editor's obligation or responsibility to keep comments on their talk page to make an admin's job easier or more convenient. Admin Jayron32 even stated this in the discussion on IP 68's talk page. You cannot, and should not, force blocked editors to keep miscellaneous comments about the block on their talk page. Trying to mandate a blocked editor to wear a "badge of shame" in this manner is complete nonsense. A blocked editor cannot remove their block notice. Fine. A blocked editor cannot remove any of their declined unblock requests for that block. Fine. But as far as other comments that have to do with the block, they absolutely can and should be able to remove them. Doing so obviously is an acknowledgement that they've been read and received, so trying to force them to keep all of them on their talk page is cruel and unnecessary, and simply a way of trying to embarrass the editor. Clearly, if the intent of the policy was to say that nothing related to a current block could be removed, then it obviously would just say that directly, so that there is absolutely no ambiguity. But it does not say that for a reason. It is very carefully specific by using the word "notice" because it is not referring to general comments. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a link to another discussion. Post this discussion, there was some battling as to what the consensus was for the language. Without giving diffs for that interim battle, the current language was put in place on June 10, 2012, with this edit. Whether there was any battling after that I didn't check.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Dennis summed it up well: "Anything that a reviewing admin might be expected to want to see when considering an unblock request should not be blanked during the block." If in doubt, it should stay. Snarky comments don't belong there. Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Anything removed can easily be found in the talk page history. So why do they have to be displayed?? You don't shame an editor just to make an admin's job easier. There is absolutely no need to force an editor to display comments they don't want there. Please, give me a break. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't dug into the related discussions as yet to investigate past consensus ... for now, I'm just pointing out a relevant edit that changed the scope of the section being discussed here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed Amatulic's edit. However, as I posted above, a later edit in June of last year put in the current language. As I recall, it said it was based on an RFC on the talk page, but I didn't look for the RFC because I was and am exhausted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
That talk page discussion related to my edit last year contains a link to a longer talk page discussion, if that helps any.
I haven't checked into the discussion on this page since then, but up to the time I made that edit, the prevailing practice (as I recall) was to allow blanking of pretty much anything except declined unblock request and notices of arbcom-imposed sanctions.
Personally I agree with the above sentiment expressed that content related to an unblock request should not be blanked. It would make most sense to allow blanking of block notices if the blocked editor chooses not to contest the block, but anything related to a contested block should not be blanked until the block is lifted. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is worthless without proper advertising. (be it RFC or whatever.) I don't care anymore. I'm only planning to respond to direct statements that relate to me or just clear stupidity that needs to be responded to. --Onorem (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Dennis, please provide proof for the claim you made on IP 68's talk page that "editors can't remove anything relating to the block while they are blocked. This has always included discussions about the behavior or the block" (emphasis added). You have been asked multiple times to provide any relevant diffs or links. And I'm sorry that you consider it an undue "burden" to possibly have to look through an editor's talk page history, which is a very easy process. But that's your job. Making things more convenient for an admin does not even come close to overriding an editor's right not to be humiliated on their talk page. So, please, stop with this inconvenience rationale. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
"There are only four types of messages that a user should not remove: declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is still in progress) and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors. These templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question but also to communicate with others."
That seem to be quite specific and clear, and it is evident that a large number of administrators and editors agree with the above interpretation. This can be easily confirmed by looking at the "what links here" for the essay and seeing how many times users have been told to read it and follow the advice contained in it.
I can see nothing in any policy that justifies expanding this (as has been claimed on 68.50.128.91s talk page) into a policy that a user cannot remove "warnings he received before getting blocked", "anything relating to the block while they are blocked", or "discussion relevant to the block".
In my opinion, "these templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question but also to communicate with others" is the key to applying this policy correctly. the reason why you cannot remove a confirmed sockpuppetry notice is because you are not being notified, but rather other editors who come to your talk page are being notified. Likewise for shared IP header templates; they are not just for notifying you as an IP editor, but also the other IP editors who share the IP address.
On the other hand, other user warnings and talk page discussions are addressed to the talk page user. Claiming that the next admin might want to see the warning or discussion and can't be bothered to look at the history is an invalid argument; it can be applied to pretty much anything posted on a user talk page.
Given the clear disagreement about this policy interpretation, I think that an RfC on the issue should be posted. Does anyone else (perhaps someone who is not involved in the policy interpretation dispute) wish to post an RfC, or should I? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
OK. I have a silly customer who actually expects me to finish the design he paid me for before the deadline, but I will get to it in a day or two. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect
Confirmed sockpuppetry notices
Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is still in progress)
Shared IP header templates for unregistered editors
I can't help wishing that the interpretation found in the most-referred-to essay on the topic was included as a choice. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The information at WP:DRRC is taken directly from WP:BLANKING - however, it omits any discussion of "other notices relating to active sanctions", and only covers those elements which are specifically delineated in the policy. Your proposal is basically to remove the disputed text from the policy - that's a perfectly valid option, in fact it's the first of the options I suggested. Yunshui雲水08:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Blanking - a different question
Since the "can of worms" has already been opened... Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_WP:BLANKING I have to ask whether any of the restrictions listed in WP:BLANKING has full community consensus. For example, I see no reason why a user can not remove a declined unblock template from their own user page once they have read it. It's not like removing it would change anything. The block remains in place... the reasons why the unblock was declined remain part of the record (and admins know to look in the page history if they need to examine the record.) It does not really matter if the template is removed from view on the page itself. So why do we require the user to keep it?
The same is true for the other notices and tags listed in the section. Removing the notice or tag does not change anything... so why do we require keeping them visible?
What is the purpose of requiring the user to keep the tag/template/notice? Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's start with the easy one: confirmed sockpuppetry related notices. If it turns out that that Jimbo fellow is actually a sockpuppet of Blueboar, I would like to know about it when I visit either editor's user or talk page. And of course, being a sockpuppeteer, you would be motivated to hide the fact that your sockpuppet created Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Given that there are block logs, lists of confirmed sock puppeteers, and other ways for you to find out whether X is a confirmed sock of Y... why it does it matter if X (or Y) wants to "hide" the fact on his talk page. Let him. It won't change anything. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It isn't his talk page. It is the talk page of him and up to hundreds of other users who share that IP address. They may not even be in the same building. You are suggesting that we allow them to suddenly find that they cannot edit Wikipedia with no indication as to why. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah... I could see where a shared IP address that was blocked might merit different treatment. But for registered users, I don't see the point. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, WP:BLANKING does not include shared IP templates as an exclusion, but WP:DRRC does. Of course, the policy (BLANKING) overrides the essay (DRRC). But DRRC is an essay that I really like; the spirit of the essay should be taken seriously by all editors. Anyway, I agree that shared IP templates should never be removed from an IP clearly registered to a school or business, etc.; but otherwise, an editor should indeed be allowed to remove it, with minor exceptions, such as when the account is blocked. Guy, thanks for your great participation in this matter. And Yunshui already knows what an exceptional admin I think (know) he is. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I keep going back to the general principle that we should apply here; if you understand why some things are deletable and others not, you can easily apply that basic principle to a wide variety of specific situations. In my opinion, our guiding principle should be:
If the information is legitimately needed by other users, it needs to stay. Shared IP address of a school blocked? the other users on that IP really do need to see that notice. User talk page up for deletion? Other users need to know this so they can vote for or against the deletion. Confirmed sock puppet? Other users need to know that the two editors they have been having a discussion with are really the same person. User blocked? Other users need to know why someone just disappeared during an ongoing dispute. Now of course you could argue specific cases -- maybe other editors don't need to know if someone is blocked -- but that's not the point here. I am saying that if other editors need the information, it needs to stay.
If the information is legitimately needed by administrators but not other users, the user should be allowed to delete it with deletion considered evidence that he read it. We don't expect all editors to know how to read the history, but we do expect administrators to have that skill. If going through the history is too inconvenient for some administrators, we should create tools to ease that burden. So, for example, a user needs to know that he received a warning, and an administrator needs to know if someone has been warned before, but the other editors don't need the information, so the user should be allowed to delete it.
By using this basic guiding principle, determining whether something can be deleted becomes a matter of determining who needs to see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Excellent points, Guy. I hope you made these points (in a more condensed version lol) at the RfC. And I think needs is the key word, as in "who needs to see it". --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that "needs" is a key word. But, as you are pondering "who needs to see it"... please ask yourself a related question: "Do they need to see it on the user's talk page?" Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just sticking a comment in here, since it seems pertinent to the discussion at hand - it seems that a lot of the arguments in favour of allowing users to blank things like block messages, etc. from their talkpages are based on the idea that the talkpage is somehow the user's personal space. They aren't - the policy is quite clear that "pages in user space belong to the wider community ... are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." Removing things like block messages does not make collaboration easier; it makes it more difficult by obfuscating information which ought to be readily available to the community. I'm not advocating for any particular position here, just pointing out that user talkpages are there as a Wikipedia resource, not a personal page; as such, any editor's personal preferences for their talkpage take second place to those of the wider community. Yunshui雲水12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for interjecting, Yunshui. But I can assure you that you will confuse many editors by using the term "block messages". There are block templates and then there are comments relating to the block. But if you say "block messages", many editors will say "What exactly does he mean by that?" That's the biggest confusion with the wording in WP:BLANKING, which uses the words "any other notice". Well, what comprises "notice"??? That's precisely the issue that triggered this war. ;) I commented about this at the RfC a few minutes ago. Does the word "notice" mean any comments related to a current block? Or does it mean just the official notice of a sanction, which includes block templates? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I endorse the general principle Guy has articulated, contingent on there being an explicit list of which things those are. Flexibility can be achieved by giving admins power to explicitly flag other things that should stay, at least for a while. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but admins do not and should not have any special "powers". They are editors (just like the rest of us) with tools. That's all. Don't get me wrong, there are many great admins. But they must follow the policies and guidelines just like the rest of us. So we most certainly cannot give them any "powers" that allow them to make subjective determinations that are contrary to policy. That's exactly why we are here; to determine what the rules are for this issue of clearing one's own talk page. If it doesn't say it in the policy, then no admin should be allowed to contradict it by creating their own provisions. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheListUpdater/Anchor list, this provision as it is currently written encourages deletion of a contributor's draft work at random, even when such removal is functionally unnecessary, and regardless of whether it is actually counterproductive to the contributor or to the greater project. In the case of those whose editing patterns suggest that they are on the fence about contributing to our project, this is particularly bad mojo because it erodes their perception and trust of our community's organizational structure — a serious complication later recognized by this guideline in WP:UP#DELETE. — C M B J10:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
All of WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:UP#COPIES & WP:STALEDRAFT were added without discussion, are oversimplistic ONEWORDS, and have lead to decrease in intelligence in MfD nominations. They are regularly cited as if the association with the one word is sufficient reason for deletion, without any apparent need to read even the paragraph they shortcut to. I think these shortcuts should be removed. Nominators shoud be expected to be prepared to read whole paragraphs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That may be true of many or most who cite this provision, but TPH has historically been one of the most effective XfD nominators and I would be surprised to see him make a case based on misunderstanding of a shortcut. The root issue here is that the provision wrongfully legitimizes deletion of TheListUpdater's drafts (not to mention editorial notes) and that's something we really need to address. I suggest that we rewrite it to focus on minimizing visibility of confusing content while emphasizing preservation of actual work, as in the above discussion, for example. — C M B J12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
TPH is a very unreliable nominator at MfD when he cites just a shortcut. Whether he doesn't read the paragraph linked I don't know, but he doesn't provide the reviewers a minimum nomination with the bare link. I think this is digressing. Why don't you make the edit you think is needed so that you may be better understood? The advice is meant to be advice to the user about their own userpage, and is not meant to be advice on finding and deleting other's userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
HISTORY; Some notion that userspace is not an execuse for bypassing NPOV has been part of this since at least 2006, the first year this guideline exists. See for example This 2006 version which lists things userspace should not contain, including "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia"
In addition, a separate section addressing article-like text has been part of this guideline for a full six years. I think it was first added in April 2007.
KEEP SECTION; In my view, where stuff survives the test of time and is repeatedly cited, that's a more than adequate substitute for discussion. In addition, there was no requirement to get prior evidence of consensus, before the initial addition of these ideas, per WP:PGCHANGE. That said, if there is a better way to expunge inappropriate userspace content while still respecting editors whose user space text was posted in good faith, then we should make those changes (whatever they are).
Are there proposed improvements on the table, or are we just philosophizing here?
This page uses both "userspace" and "user space". This should probably be fixed. The former is the spelling used in names of templates, incidentally. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Clarification
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Regarding Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings, the sentence "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction" misled me. I thought a "sanction" differed from a "block" but I found out otherwise. Could someone link the word "sanction" to Wikipedia:Sanctions? That page defines a block as a sanction (which tripped me up), and I believe it will clarify for others the unacceptable situations. Rgrds. --64.85.214.126 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought there was a middle level of protection which can request lock-out of IPs while allowing other registered users to edit. Am I wrong about that? But if right shouldn't it be mentioned? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: For user talk pages, that's only done in extreme cases, since IPs often have legitimate messages to post on user talk pages. User pages are often semi-protected on request, though, but even that goes against the spirit of the encyclopedia, so it's not mentioned here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Amending guideline
I'd like to amend this section to include the italicized section:
User pages and leaving Wikipedia
When a user leaves Wikipedia, their user and user talk pages are usually unaffected and may be edited again at any future time. Some users place the {{retired}} template on their user and talk page to let others know that they are away for an extended period or permanently. Blanking user and user talk pages (i.e. overwriting with a blank page), on the request of the user, is always acceptable provided non-removable notices (if any) are left intact.
I'm finding in some cases when a user receives a block, other Editors are blanking their User and Talk Pages where when different users face the same block, this action isn't taken and their User Pages are left "as is". An "indefinite" block isn't an "infinite" block and I've seen users appeal an indefinite block the next day, the next week, the next month, the next year, etc. and then be unblocked.
I understand that User and Talk Pages are blanked in certain cases (when the user receives a community ban, when there is offensive content, when the user is uncovered as a sock, etc.) but I think "courtesy blanking" should done, well, as a courtesy which mean on request.
Also, since many blocks are appealed, removing all content means that it is less simple for Admins to see what behavior led to the block, whether there were previous blocks and warnings, if there were other appeals and what the grounds were for unblocking or continuing a block. What I'm arguing is not only that users have the right not to have their presence erased but also blanking removes information that is useful to Admins when they consider a block appeal.
Ideally, there would be a separate section on User Pages guidelines dealing with User Pages when the user is blocked but there isn't (except the notice that block notices should not be removed from Talk Pages) so this was the closest I could find. LizRead!Talk! 18:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Additionally, on Talk Page guidelines#Other's comments, it says that any editing that is done to another users' Talk Page is if you have their permission. This guideline shouldn't be thrown out the window if a user is currently being blocked. We don't delete inactive user's pages and we shouldn't delete those who are under a block. LizRead!Talk!19:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion concerning a user page in which the user in question posted the birth dates of his children. Is this a practice that we want to discourage, and if so, should something to that effect be included in this guideline?
A TfD is not appropriate. TfD's explicitly exclude speedy deletion candidates and are only for pages in the template name space. I have requested someone with an AWB bot account mark all of them for speedy deletion. There may be more appropriate ways to go about getting them deleted. Makyen (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we don't prohibit this? It seems a no-brainer that if an IP is shared other people trying to use that IP should be able to view the block notice. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, for some reason I was thinking of community and ArbCom sanctions, but of course blocks are sanctions. Thanks for the reminder. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Self rating language boxes
The language skill boxes at the User pages have become rather popular. But where can I read more about them ?
Reason is that I fear that they may be misused (whithin or without of Wikipedia). It's not the lower levels that I'm worried about, but the levels above "Native speaker", and especially if the user also is native user of an other language. Professional interpretors and translators of novels and film only translates into their native language.
Boeing720 (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes I have had a look at WP:BABEL now. I myself uses this style {{User en-3}}, synthax taken from some other user. I think that the fith level, "professional level" (aside of the native language), when used, ought to be checked somehow. It really means that You work with translation or interpretation from the native language to the level 5 language, without a lot of dictionary help and at an academical or technical level. Reason for my concern is that it may be used for employment advantage "in the real world" without being true. (There is also a difference between reading and wrighting. F.i. is my German grammar lousy, but I can read a German newspaper and understand the essential matters in an article.) Boeing720 (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}}(t • e • c)21:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Link in nutshell needs to be changed
This edit request to Wikipedia:User_pages has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The link in the nutshell is not going to the right section (for me anyway) It should be changed to WP:NOT#WEBHOST or WP:NOTHOST
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under the "What may I have in my user pages?" section there is a bit that says "Matters that are long enough in length, or active enough, to allocate them a page of their own". As an aside, I'm not quite clear on what this means but the phrase "long enough in length" is a barbarity. Please change "long enough in length" there to just "long enough". Bellemora (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I know that users can blank their own username talk pages, but can an IP editor blank the talk page of that IP? What if this is done while an attempt to communicate or edit conflict is in progress? Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
So does an IP editor have the right to blank the IP talk page associated with that IP number in the same way that a username account can? Nightscream (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLANKING says a few more things besides shared IP notices. For example, block notices and declined unblocks should both be preserved for the duration of the block. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Aside from block notices, I can't see any reason why an IP would not be able to blank its own talk page. There are two possibilities when that happens. Either it is the person to whom the warnings/comments have been directed, in which case blanking indicates that they have been seen, or it is a different person, perhaps because the IP address is dynamic or shared. If a different person is seeing warnings and comments directed at someone else, there is no reason for that person to want to keep those irrelevant comments on the page. bd2412T19:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Imagine a situation where its an IP that covers multiple workstations. And two different users use it for Wikipedia and both of them have ongoing discussions on it. If one blanks it, then the other is losing their discussion as well which is not a good thing. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
From this end we can't tell if there is one workstation or two (or more). We see disruption, abuse, vandalism - we serve warnings, maybe a block. We have no way of targetting the message or block at one of those two workstations, so both get slapped. It's unfair, but how else can we deal with a rogue IP editor? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@DJSasso: I'd imagine that if the wrong editor read a message, the intended editor wouldnt even see a notice that there was a message waiting anyways. Chalk it up as another advantage to registering.—Bagumba (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Outside of things like vandalism, threats, attempts to out, etc., talk pages should not be blanked, but archived. Allowing blanking makes it impossible to maintain a coherent and historically accurate record of warnings, block notices, discussions, etc., and serial policy violators have historically exploited this privilege to continue gaming the system, something I've seen countless times over the course of my nine years here. This is especially a problem, I think, with IPs, because most vandalism comes from unregistered IP editors. Since IPs may be used by more than one user, allowing blanking makes it harder to maintain a record of a problem IP, such as a vandalism-only account. It also makes it difficult to determine that a given editor has received a message directed toward them, since one editor using a shared IP may blank a message intended for another one using the same IP. Moreover, editors who intend to edit on more than a one-off basis are expected to sign up for username accounts anyway. Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:TPO says "On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving." It makes no distinction between between registered and IP users.—Bagumba (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
How can it allow IP editors to blank messages from the IP talk page when an IP talk page is not necessarily "theirs", as multiple users may use the same IP? Nightscream (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm here at the request of Nightscream. Earlier, I had reverted a large section of an IP editor's talk page that was literally a copy/paste of a rejected article. I had reverted it to the previous version that was welcome message/warning/block notices due to that IP editor copy/pasting items disruptively to multiple articles. That earned the IP editor a block and I elected to revert to the previous talk page version from around an hour previously. Now, I'm wondering if Nightscream may be correct and it should have been archived, rather than simply reverted to previous. Thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you were entirely in the right. The idea that trolls, vandals and other IP troublemakers should be allowed to blank warnings from their talk pages, thus making it harder for future admins to deal with violations with accurate historical context, is inane. Editors who intend to do more than one-off edits are expected to sign in for free username accounts anyway; If IP editors want a talk page they can blank, they should sign up for a username one. (To be fair, I have the same problems exist with username pages, as I've known one or two troublemakers who blanked warnings and block notices from their talk pages in order to hide their history of violations from admins who come across future violations of theirs, but at least a username page is the page of one specific editor.) Nightscream (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
That's such a transparent attempt though, as one need not be an admin to see the page reversion history and notice the blanking of notices. Block history is also independent of the talk page as well, but casual users would likely not realize that. So, if anything, that gives a further suggestion of malicious intent on the part of a user.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
As an admin, I'll say that an editor blanking their talk page isn't a huge deal. It's a habit for me to check a talk page's edit history if I'm trying to evaluate their disruptive history (I usually do so as I'm evaluating their block log, it's fairly routine). You could argue that an IP has even more right to blank their talk page than someone with an account, because while warnings on an account's page are for that editor, warnings on an IP's talk page might no longer apply if someone is using that IP for the first time. And in that case, the warnings give a false impression of a history of disruption for an innocent new anonymous user who has never actually done anything wrong. So there are definitely different ways of looking at this.
Another complication here is that not all IPs are dynamic. Some are static and belong to a single person, which makes it a sort of "super account". An editor who edits under a static IP not only has a contiguous edit history but also publicly discloses whatever information you can derive from the IP, such as the editor's geographical location. The editor can't do a change username, or otherwise obfuscate who they are, they have that IP until and unless they register an account or change their connection. So any policy change should take this possibility into account.
But regardless of what perspective you have, the policy does explicitly allow IP editors to blank their talk pages just as people with accounts can blank their talk pages, with the only exception being any templated notices about the nature of the IP or the fact that the IP is being shared. So if you choose to edit-war with an IP who is removing comments or warnings from their user talk page, you do so under the peril of being blocked yourself for edit-warring as well as violating this user page policy. -- Atama頭16:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Registering for an account is trivially easy, and does not even require an email address. As for "archiving" IP talk pages, this is a wasted effort. So long as the page is not deleted, its entire history is recorded in the page history, and nothing further is needed to do that. Over time, all that archives do from a systemic perspective is preserve massive link farms that make it tedious to use a "what links here" page to find incoming links that are actually relevant to a search. This, in turn, makes it more difficult to build an encyclopedia. bd2412T17:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Archiving pages, among other things, provides a transparent record for the community, particularly admins, in the cases of serial policy violators, one that is not as easily constructed by looking through an edit history, particularly a long edit history. No disrespect intended, but to say that archiving records of violations to maintain a historically accurate context for admins makes building a encyclopedia more difficult is ridiculous. Nightscream (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done No specific change was requested. DES (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Done See WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Speedy deletion of 1,397 pages Thanks, Johnuniq and Soap. Makyen (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 21:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)