Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Question

I kind of don't get how the talk page works. Jed Fu (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

swearing on talk pages?

Acceptable or no?

Lunakeet 14:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. It would seem to be, in a very, very limited manner, not so much frowned upon when it does not extend to others. However, it is generally considered impolite and should be avoided. Please read Wikipedia:Civility. Waltham, The Duke of 14:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with swearing on a talk page. Wikipedia, after all, is not censored. However, WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, etc. apply; personal attacks and uncivil comments are completely inappropriate, whether profanity is involved or not. Of course, in polite conversation there is little call for profanity, but just because some see it as distasteful hardly means that it isn't allowed. faithless (^speak) 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessive profanity is unacceptable here, as it would be in any collaborative working environment. Would you approach a librarian with the comment "Hey, I think this book has the wrong fucking catalog number" or your secretary with "Can you order some goddamn staples"? Bearing in mind WP:CIV and WP:NPA, ask yourself if a comment is the sort of thing that would be appropriate to say to a stranger on the street, casual acquaintance, or new coworker. Language that is likely to make such people uncomfortable – or worse, is intended to make such people uncomfortable – has no place.

That said, we usually don't remove profanity, except in the most extreme cases. Editors who use colorful language to excess can be approached politely and encouraged to express themselves in a less heated manner. (There exists, unfortunately, a small subset of editors who have confused or conflated honesty and forthrightness with abruptness and rudeness.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of profanity in an of itself is not the problem. As just one prominent example, the general counsel of the entire Wikimedia Foundation allowed this colorful header to remain in his talk page for almost six months. The real issue is whether someone is rude or abusive, and that unacceptable incivility can obviously occur with or without the use of profane language. — Satori Son 14:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to Talk pages from articles

It's my understanding that Wikipedia articles should never link to pages in the Talk name space, but I can't find that mentioned in the guideline. Am I missing something?--agr (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I know, links in the mainspace should only lead to other pages in the mainspace; in other words, articles and lists should only link to other articles and lists. I think links to categories and images are allowed when they help with the understanding of the subject, but this is rare; the mainspace should be mostly self-contained. (There is also the ability to use templates for relevant portals, but these links are not in the prose.)

An exception to all this is, of course, the Main Page (just for the record).

The problem is that I cannot find the relevant passage in any guideline and how-to page pertaining to links; most of them are introduced with something like "you can use links in articles to link to other articles". As a matter of fact, I don't even know if there is such a passage. The limitation on links seems to go without saying, but it really should be written somewhere. Waltham, The Duke of 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELF is probably the page you are looking for. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Various people are spamming these all over. They are ugly, don't contain useful information and make pages slower. Combined with other talk page notices talk is often three screenfulls down the page. Its worse than adverts. Can't we just agree they are a mistake from someone who perhaps as a child triple underlined the title of every page in pink and ditch them all? --BozMo talk 06:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree. We must try to make such notices "nested" that will remove the clutter - examples: [1] and [2]. Depending on my inclination and time, I will try to remove the clutter to some extent. --Bhadani (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting material not relevant to improving the article

Currently the lead reads like this:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. The following list is designed to help Wikipedians use talk pages effectively.

How does this look?

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Material not relevant to improving the article may be removed.

When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. The following list is designed to help Wikipedians use talk pages effectively.

Visiting a talk page and posting a non contribution takes very little effort. Trying to work at an article one might visit this talk page hundreds of times. The constructive editor has to read the nonsense hundreds of times.

Perhaps the lead should even have a link to Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages to make it even more clear that talk pages should be constructive. If it's not then the editors will leave the discussion. Having any amount of nonsense on a talk page costs editors. Having nonsense on a talk page is clearly not something that is worth loosing editors over and it harms the credibility of the encyclopedia.

Users should be encouraged to use user talk pages to compare POV's.

Go-here.nl (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

I have found it disruptive when certain editors continue to add fallacious arguments to Talk pages in support of their POV. I recommend that this article be modified to discuss that continually adding fallacious arguments to Talk pages is disruptive and unacceptable behavior. Editors should actually be blocked or banned for continuing this behavior. --Jagz (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This article already has a section titled "Behavior that is unacceptable". I would like to suggest that another section be added with the title "Behavior that is frowned upon", "Behavior that is discouraged", or something like that. --Jagz (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that a section be added have added a section to the article titled "Disruptive behavior". I propose that the following be added to the section as examples of behavior that can be disruptive:

1. Using fallacious arguments, including sophistry.
   
2. Making repeated off-topic posts to a discussion thread.
   
3. Adding posts of excessive length on a regular basis (see WP:TLDR).
4. Being primarily involved in debating instead of article editing (see WP:SOAP).
   
5. Repeatedly invoking rules in a nitpicking manner (see WP:Wikilawyering). --Jagz (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I can really see this section being misused as it's currently worded. For example, I spend most of my time with discussions rather than editing the article namespace, but that doesn't mean I'm being disruptive. I would trust you guys here on this talk page to know that, as well as many other users, but I also can think of a few that would not (and probably would block someone without thinking much about it). We should work out the wording on this. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the same misgivings.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As do I. One man's fallacious argument is another man trying to get through to someone who simply refuses to get the point. It's a license to have bad faith. It doesn't mean that a WP:DICK:dick or troll is allowed to flourish; if they are truly on e of these, you won;t be the only one telling them that their reasoning is cocked up. If they degenerate into unpleasantness, then its a small matter of blocking them for actually being disruptive. Dissent should not be discouraged but encouraged. Out of that crucible usually comes some pretty good articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so instead of putting it in a "Disruptive behavior" section, how about if we put it in the existing "Good practice" section? For example, "be careful to avoid using fallacious arguments, including sophistry". We could then refer someone who is using a fallacious argument to the WP:TPG list of good practices instead of directing them to this link. It is more civil. Also, I have updated the list above. --Jagz (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that most folk don;t think their arguments are sophistry or fallacies - they believe in them, or they wouldn't waste time discussing the matters at length. Setting policy to presume that people are offering them is inherently bad faith. What might be better is to simply suggest that people discuss politely the differences between the edits offered, and avoid attacking the editors.

Respectfully, it sounds as if this argument is arising out of a conflict elsewhere. Altering guidelines is an extremely poor method by which to attempt to win an argument. At best, your changes will likely no endure and at worst will be seen as wiki-lawyering and/or attempting to game the system. I am not saying this the situation, but if it is, you need to realize that there are consequences for that behavior.

And you will note the irony presented in that last part there. I presumed you might be editing in bad faith, which quite likely put you on the defensive, and less likely to react positively. The presumption that someone is acting poorly is always a bad faith venture. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of this is completely redundant. Fallacy is already covered in rules about article content, talk page guidelines already tell you not to be disruptive and to stay on topic. As for length, long posts are a matter of preference, I or anyone else, will make a long post if it is necessary to say what is needed to be said, and if you don't like it, you don't have to read it. WP:TLDR is an essay, which does not need overall community support to exist and should not in any way be interpreted as something that should or should not be done because of its existence. Also, there is nothing wrong with preferring to discuss contentious issues instead of editing. Some editors feel the most effective way they can contribute is to discuss matters, and let bolder editors make the changes. As for wikilawyering, that seems to be exactly what these guidelines would do, and would really defeat the purpose of including them in the first place.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RE User talk pages

I'd like to suggest a minor addition to the final section of the page where it says, "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred." It would appear to me to make sense that it should also say, "Users should not remove their comments from other's talk pages, nor other user's archives." Obviously this still includes the general guideline but may help avoid an issue like this one. BigHairRef | Talk 01:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

commercial sounding content

What is the policy on commercial sounding content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFreitas75 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This was also posted to Wikipedia:Help desk#What is your policy on commercial sounding content? where it seems more relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I will assume that in asking it here you are wondering about such content on talk pages. Article talk pages should be limited to discussion of the article, its revisions, and ways to improve it. It should not be used as a forum for general promotion, discussion or theorizing about an article's content. If you wish to advertise for something you may want to hire an advertiser to place ads on websites for a fee. Wikipedia does not contain commercial content and does not allow blatant advertising on any of its pages.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User names in talk page headings

This was split off from Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Personal headings.

From the guideline as it exists today:

• Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed.
• Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, since search engines can pick up that information. Reporting 3RR violations is a notable exception, since it is neutral and necessary reporting, not attacking.

For one thing, Wikipedia shows page histories and diffs within /w/ not /wiki/, and its robots.txt file blocks robots that conform to the Robots Exclusion Standard from this folder:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /w/

For another, consider the case of a section in the talk page of an article or project page that neutrally describes a particular user's pattern of contributions to that article or project page. Even if the heading contains the name of the user in question, how does such a heading not "invite all editors to respond to" this section? Or should the part about "Reporting 3RR violations" just be worded a bit more broadly? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As your information is no doubt correct, I therefore suggest that the relevant part be revised accordingly. The 3RR wording can also be broadened, as ANI and such like are also appropriate places to use user names in the headings. Neutral use of names may not be a problem. It's only a problem when done as an attack. -- Fyslee / talk 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

( B R D ) Updated. Let's see if this wording is any better. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement over my old version. Thanks for improving Wikipedia! -- Fyslee / talk 04:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page/Forum page for talking about the topic

There are many Talk pages in which people give there opinion this is not what the page is for but it is something that seem to be very desired. The idea of a forum like page would be very useful talk pages offering review on movie pages for example could be something useful for picking a movie to see some times the page are just a spoilers and if there were reviews you could read the review without having the movie spoiled .To often pages discussing politics or history are told from the POV of those who were in control.Soldiers who served in Iraq offering stories about their service would be very insightful all to often the little details are over looked. a simple story of one day in Iraq telling what the berics were like how they ate this would never be in a normal encyclopedia but that's what is the benefit of Wikipedia offering the most complete view . The incessant unceasing perpetual, continuous, nonstop, around/round-the-clock, uninterrupted, unbroken, unremitting, persistent, relentless, unrelenting, unrelieved, walk over POV would be solved put the FACTS on the article and the OPINION on the talk/forum page.If anyone likes my ideas and bad spelling and grammar and has Ideas on how to go about adding a forum tab to the top an every page email me [email address removed]

I don't know about a "forum" since that could encourage tangential and unending discussion, which is not the idea of an encyclopedia. However I think an "opinion" or "anecdotal commentary" page would be an excellent idea. A place to gather useful information that may be less strictly factual, or more objective in some sense (and not intended for eventual publication due to it's nature).Josephmarty (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboards

Is there some reason why noticeboards aren't explicitly mentioned in the guideline? I ask because I consider them to be talk pages, and therefore subject to the rules regarding staying on topic, civility and so on, but have been challenged regarding removing off-topic comments (per the section "How to use article talk pages / Keep on topic). Are there separate guidelines for noticeboard discussions? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forbid comments from anonymous editors?

Is it appropriate to keep a general policy on a user talk page of deleting all comments from anonymous users, with the implication that they are deleted unread? I'm not yet ready to name names, but I know of an editor who leans toward this policy. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Users have considerable latitude over their talk pages. However, deletion of a something is taken as a sign of the user's awareness of it. Ty 03:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That re-statement of "user talk page" guideline section is not quite accurate; here is what it states:

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users.

The removal of a warning (not just "something") is understood ("taken") as a "sign of the user's awareness of it" in the words of Tyrenius above; but archiving is still the preference, as stated. Straight deletion of "something" that is not "a warning" annoys some users and other users practice deleting whatever they want to delete from the user talk page. Users' practices are not consistent throughout Wikipedia, and the "guidelines" do allow users to remove "comments" from their own talk pages (not other users' talk pages and not article talk pages or policy talk pages) "freely"; Wikipedia etiquette also relates in respect accorded to other users' talk and user pages (both included in concept "user space"). So more about how to behave re: other users' talk pages and one's own talkpage might be found in both Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL. --NYScholar (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in relation to the first post w/ the question; the person probably refers to his or her own user talk page; it is not appropriate to remove "good faith" comments (whether anon. IP user or registered user w/ log-in identity) from other users' talk pages; anon. IP users can post comments on article talk pages and user talk pages; they should not be posting comments on other users' user pages. The grounds for removing anon. IP user comments or registered user comments from an article talk page would be blatant vandalism or total inappropriateness (not commenting on editing the article (but even that is sometimes dubious--I removed 2 totally-inappropriate comments from this talk page today; they had nothing to do with the subject (talk page guidelines) and seem to have been posted in the wrong place entirely; one seemed like and advertisement for printers. --NYScholar (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Clear-cut vandalism can be removed from one's own talk page and doing that is an exception to WP:3RR: see WP:3RR#Exceptions; see the exceptions stated there for more information. --NYScholar (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Because comments are supposed to be signed with 4 tildes (time/date stamped w/ user signature or IP id.), those that are not signed are either going to get signed by a bot automatically, or if one wants to keep them can be signed and dated by one's adding an "unsigned" template, which will produce the actual IP or log-in id. and time stamp; that kind of information can be retrieved from the editing history of the page (if one wants to keep the comment and respond to it, e.g.. --NYScholar (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

After having responded to the question in this section, I scrolled up to the talkheader for this talk page and see the following:

Do not ask general questions on this page. Do not comment on articles on this page. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page "Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines".

Such general questions raised here would be better placed at the link given in that header template and not discussed here. This talk page is not for asking "general questions" about the subject (not a "message board" or "forum" on the subject); it's for discussing how to improve the article: editing matters pertaining to improving the article (content/format/style/source, e.g.). (This is not a "help" page pertaining to talk page maintenance.) --NYScholar (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of comments becoming more common?

I am noticing a greater tendency to delete comments that others find inappropriate. In extreme cases, this is justified by the guideline, but the wording is consistent with doing this only in extreme cases. On Bristol Palin multiple comments have been deleted by other editors, citing this guidline but giving no further explanation,. One deleted comment contained a racial slur (I let that one be), one accused Wikipedia of censorship (another editor reverted), a third accused Wikipedia of being a right-wing cabal (that was refreshing: we are usually accused of being a left-wing cabal), and tha tlast seemed to be a WP:POINT deletion. I reverted the last two.

I hope this doesn't become a slow-moving revert war on a talk page. I would appreciate some additional eyes, and some discussion of which, if any, of these actions were proper. Thanks! Robert A.West (Talk) 12:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article talk page is there for improving the article and addressing content. If editors have more general issues about wikipedia, they should go to a general forum such as WP:VP. Too many talk pages resemble message boards, rather than workshops. The guideline permits "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". Ty 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing others' comments: extra clauses

I have added extra clauses, allowing for:

• Disambiguating or fixing links
• Hiding or resizing images
• De-linking categories
• Redacting code samples

in others' comments. I trust that these will not be controversial. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Because this article and talk page are used, almost on a daily basis, for irrelevant comments and questions by newbie (usually IP) editors, I've made a request that they be permanently semi-protected. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to figure out how people keep ending up here when they have general questions or comments. Then maybe something could be changed so that won't happen as often. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a guess as to what the source of most of this is, and have thus requested a change. Thanks for documenting the recent occurrences. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently that has been suggested before but the feeling is that it's better to have the link. I guess we could work on improving Template:Metatalk. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

a new template

Could somone create a new template that would be similar to that talkheader template, but to be used in all articles? Because apparently the talkheader template shouldn't be automatically used in every talk page (even though in my personal opinion, it makes much much more sense that way, becuase it's kind of like a how to guide for new users) PeaceOfSheet (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of archiving

I have noticed recently, particularly on the AN/I page that people are archiving comments that are less than one hour old, purely because they are related to a previous discussion that had already been archived. This effectively make it impossible for anyone new to the subject to discuss the matter. Can we have some clarification added to this article that helps to make it clear how late-comers can be able to discuss matters that were previously closed/archived? I think it's also worth bearing in mind that the topic might not be a simple "re-opening", but might be a related off-shoot topic, etc. --Rebroad (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Posting of personal information on discussions

This is a stupid question, but are users normally allowed to post information about what they saw on a user's blog on an AfD discussion page without the user's consent and without any relevance to the discussion, like what someone did to me here? I always thought this was not allowed provided the user does not consent. MuZemike (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you risk putting up information in wikipedia. Morefight (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight

And Aslo don't blame wikipedia if somethings happens to you. Morefight (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight

User Talk cannot be redirect: codify it, or don't enforce it.

• Aeons ago, I was dragged to ANI by an individual for making my User Talk a redirect to my user page.
• If something is serious enough to drag someone off to ANI for (NOTE: I disagree with this idea anyhow; consider it admin meddling in places that aren't their concern), then it should be codified. Probably in more than one place. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous-IP address warning deletions

Re:

User talk pages

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users.

Warnings serve two uses: One, they warn the user. Two, they notify other editors that the next related warning in a short time period should be escalated.

It's widely accepted that logged-in users have wide latitude over their talk pages, so I'm not going to raise this here.

However, should anonymous editors be able to remove warnings from the talk pages associated with their current IP address? The current guidelines say "yes" but I think this should be revisited. It breaks purpose #2 above and in cases where multiple people are editing from the same IP address, such as users using the same computer, it can break purpose #1.

If this policy stands, it should be highlighted on all anonymous-ID user talk pages, to avoid edit wars like the one I got into with 82.31.95.212 on User_talk:82.31.95.212. Once this guideline was pointed out, I quit. I would have apologized on that page, but the editor specifically asked me to stop editing the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that it would be better to disallow IPs to delete warnings on their talk pages for transparency reasons. Additionally I can't imagine any circumstance, in which it would be reasonable for an IP to delete the warnings on its talk page. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I personally feel that an anon user should not be allowed to remove warnings from their user talk. It makes it harder to see editing patterns and know what else the anon user has been up to. I have no problem with logged in users removing warnings from their talkpage, with the removal of block notices being up in the air for me. However, with an anon user, I feel that they should not be allowed to remove warnings, since in most cases, the anon is not indef'd. Since the block is temporary, past history could prove helpful in the future for showing a history of vandalism, however most of us would not bother to look in the history for deleted warnings. --Terrillja _talk 23:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in perfect agreement here with Terrillja. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, allowing anons to remove warnings only causes trouble, as seen in this case. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This proposed change to a guideline needs wider input over several days' time. Any idea of where the best place is to get feedback, especially feedback that might be less than wholehearted agreement? If this needs tweaking or is a bad idea I'd rather know now than after I change the guideline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This comes up quite frequently. The purpose of warnings is only to warn the user to whom it is intended. Any admin or other editor can see the list of prior warnings by looking at the history of the talk page. There are two reasons why an IP user may delete warnings. 1) They are the person to whom the warning is intended, they read it, and thus they can delete it. Deleting proves they read it. Nothing else is needed. 2) They are not the person to whom the note was intended because the IP is dynamic or shared or something like that. In that case, it is likely the person to whom it was intended will never get it, thus it is unneccesary to keep it around. You are an experienced editor. If you want to know if an IP has a history of vandalism warnings, check the talk page history. Preserving the warnings indefinately provides no added benefit... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be the theory but it's not the practice. While many experienced editors may faithfully check the edit history to determine the warning level, I and I assume many other experienced editors don't faithfully check the edit history of a talk page before giving warnings. This boils down to: Which is better for Wikipedia: To restrict by rule editors from removing warnings from "their" IP-user-talk page, to find a way to encourage editors to take the time researching a talk page edit history, or to live with intentionally disruptive editors "getting away with it" more by obscuring previous warnings. There's not going to be a perfect solution. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Add another reason why why should reword this. Earlier today, User talk:62.24.251.240 (one of the UK proxies) was blocked for spamming, then they blanked their talkpage[3]. This removed the UK block notice, as well as the ACC notice, so any other users who proxy through that IP would have been unable to figure out why they were blocked, since all the warnings and notes to users were gone. --Terrillja _talk 19:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Warnings and important notices are two very, very different things, and you're mentioning a rather extreme edge case. That aside, most new users aren't going to look at their talk page until they've already seen MediaWiki:Blockedtext, which should do a better job explaining their situation than a talk page notice could ever hope to. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Some related historical information:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive382#IP_Blanking_their_talk_page dated March 9, 2008
• Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_4#IP Blanking their talk page dated March 9, 2008
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_42#Wikipedia:User_page_and_IP.27s - March 31, 2008
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=206624721 - the edit on April 19, 2008 that inserted the text "This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users." The edit summary was "User talk pages: consensus has been that this includes IPs, and has been so for quite some time."

Based on these and the present discussion, I would say there is no uniform agreement of which approach is best. There can be consensus even when there is no agreement though, however it requires everyone to "be on the same page" so people don't get into edit wars because they have different understandings of acceptable behavior. Whatever the outcome of this week's discussion, the results should be put on the boilerplate for user talk pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC) updated to include March 31 link - thanks Terrillja! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been announced on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), here

Unfortunately, I missed the discussions back in March that resulted in the change here. I disagreed with that change then, as I stated here, and I still disagree now. I do not believe consensus has ever been clearly established that IP talk pages are considered “User” pages in the context of this guideline, and it has certainly not been true in practice. Encouraging IP editors to exert control over “their” talk page is not helpful in any way. It makes our vandalism and spam enforcement efforts much more difficult with little or no corresponding benefit to the project. — Satori Son 20:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it make anything more difficult? Name a scenario and I can probably explain a better solution. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but what exactly is the benefit to Wikipedia of allowing some drive-by user to control the content of a school's IP or other shared address? How does it help the project to protect this edit? Or this, this or this? It just doesn't seem at all productive for this guideline to protect these edits. — Satori Son 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the discussion last spring[4], I think one thing that has changed between last spring and now is that part of the problem that we are dealing with now is dealing with many, many users going through a proxy. The talkpage of an anon used by one person at a time is IMO very different from the talkpage used by 1K+ people. If an anon is allowed to remove all the warnings/noticies for others as well as replies to others using the proxy, then the utility of a talkpage is in may ways lost. I feel that we should reevaluate this policy due to the recent events, as the likelihood that the use of filtering proxies will increase in the future, and this will likely become a recurrent problem.--Terrillja _talk 20:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not replying to anyone in particular, but I'm sorry to see that this has come up yet again. Worrying about user talk warnings is useless at best and winds up being harmful more often than not. I've seen no end to the amount of bureaucratic nonsense people are willing to put newcomers through, and yet no one seems to ask the question: why should we care? I've yet to see any experienced recent changes patroller ever become the least bit confused at the sight of a blank IP talk page. Page history, relevant logs, and user contribs are, and should be considered, the only authoritative record for these purposes. We have enough trouble keeping our articles in order without wasting time edit warring on pages the general public will never see or give a rat's ass about. Wikipedia talk:Don't restore removed comments#Ridiculous policy might also be good reading. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion in that discussion as it relates to registered user talk pages, but not IP address talk pages. — Satori Son 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that no one should be blanking warnings unless they are falsely given. Archiving can be automatic and if you did something wrong own up to it. If you have a busy talk page, trying to piece together deleted, rather than archived sections from someone's talk page can be extremely difficult if not impossible. Talk pages are meant to be a record of communication and that means an easy record, not one you have to spend 3 hours looking at diffs to figure out what went on on it.--Crossmr (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (don't allow them to remove). Form what I know it's quite simple. Often IPs are shared and allowing unregistered users to remove comments from their talk page might result in them removing warnings that were actually meant for someone else sharing their IP address. Since removal assumes the person read it, allowing this causes all sorts of problems for the user actually being contacted that are out of their control. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Another excellent point. Shared or dynamic IP addresses simply do not belong to any one person like a true user page does. — Satori Son 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A true user page doesn't really belong to anyone either. It belongs to the community. If a talk page truly belonged to someone they'd be able to delete it, protect, and do whatever they wanted with it at any time, but thats not the case. There are plenty of uses the community doesn't allow, and some latitude is given as a courtesy.--Crossmr (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right: "belong" was a poor choice of wording. "Attached to" or "affiliated with" only one person is what I meant to communicate. It's not an issue of ownership, but accountability. — Satori Son 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the point. No one has explained why talk page warnings on talk pages should be preserved in perpetuity; there is nothing gained that cannot be learned by looking at the talk page history of that user talk page. We're not talking about the talkpage boilerplates at the top of the page, things like "repeatvandal" or "sharedIPEDU" or openproxy tags or the like. If an IP user blanks their talk page, then return the boilerplates and leave the rest blank... Jeesh. Warnings are messages for the user and nothing else... They aren't meant for the rest of the world to read them; they are not supposed to be a "scarlet letter" that you must wear forever. The warning exists to let the person who received it know that they are being watched, and that their edits are unwelcome. There is NO compelling reason to preserve these warnings beyond "I can't be bothered to check the Talk Page History", and that laziness seems to be poor justification for changing this back! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Because on a busy talk page be it IP or logged in user, it can be extremely difficult to piece together a talk page that has been blanked repeatedly if it hasn't been restored/archived properly. On a talk page with few edits its very easy to look at diffs of each edit and see what went on on a talk page. As an example my talk page has over 1000 edits to it. If you encountered me on a page and noticed an issue and wanted to check to see if this issue was new or long term, it would be a nightmare for you to dig through my talk page history to check each of those diffs to see if there were any blanked warnings (templates or otherwise) about behaviour in the past. It becomes easier for people with certain editing issues to fly under the radar for awhile if they've been around, have a busy talk page, and blank certain warnings. A user experiencing a problem with this user might skim the archives and say "hmm don't see any warnings about that, leave a level 1, oh they blanked it they must have read it" and move on, not realizing that this is in fact the 17th time this user has received a level 1 warning over this kind of behaviour in the last 2 years. Any individuals users need to remove a legitimate warning pronto off their talk page is out-weighed by the communities interest in keeping a perfectly readable and easy to follow record of communication with a user. That is what talk pages are for.--Crossmr (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious there is a dispute on whether anonymous IP addresses should be able to delete warning messages from the associated talk page. If there are no objections in a day or so, I will add {{Disputedtag|section=yes|talk=Anonymous-IP_address_warning_deletions}} to this section. Speak up now or forever hold your peace revert it later. If we ever reach consensus on what text should go there, the section can be updated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose using the disputed tag. There is seldom a good reason for a {{Disputed}} tag on a guideline page. This question could be listed for input in a few places, and if you don't find a consensus to change the present wording, I think we should leave it be. Here are my own questions about the new plan:

• How would the modified guideline would be enforced? Will you issue a block to the anon who keeps removing his warnings?
• Vandals have a tendency to not obey the rules. The admin who visits a blank talk page will have to look in the history no matter what this guideline says. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston: I would appreciate help in publicizing this discussion. Let me know where it should be publicized and I'll announce it there. Second, after repeated warnings and attempts to find out why he was blanking the warnings and possibly negotiating with him, I probably would block him for an hour or a few and prevent him from editing the IP talk page, but more likely I'd just follow up after a few days and revert, or post an announcement that previous warnings are available as I did here. In any case, I would be very reluctant to block an IP for more than a day or two without consulting with others. See the edit history of User_talk:82.31.95.212 and this request for semi-protection for an indication of how I might handle this situation if I were an administrator if the wording were changed When I took these actions, I did not know of the current wording. By the way, I immediately retracted after the editor gave a plausible indication that he might just be a newbie rather than a troublemaker. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To make more people aware of this discussion, you might announce it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I did that already. Any other suggestions? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If the entire talk page is blanked yes. If a user blanks a section/warning/etc and leaves the rest intact and it goes unnoticed a week later. If users are prohibited from simply blanking non-vandalism/harassment content on their talk page no one should have to dig through any diffs ever because if the warning is legitimate and they keep trying to blank it (to which it would be rightfully restored) its very obvious they're trying to shirk the responsibility and cover up what they've done. If a warning is fairly given I see zero reason to hurry it off the talk page over any other legitimate talk on the page.--Crossmr (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was lurking in project talk space and somehow got goaded into commenting in this discussion. I hope I'm not too terribly late to add something that davidwr made me think of when he wrote "To restrict by rule editors from removing warnings from 'their' IP-user-talk page, to find a way to encourage editors to take the time researching a talk page edit history, or to live with intentionally disruptive editors 'getting away with it' more by obscuring previous warnings." Davidwr lists three worthy and competing goals, and it seems to me that the lack of consensus on this matter is due to different users weighing these goals against each other differently. Consensus will only emerge when a solution is found that decouples these goals. Talk pages are intended to host discussion, and user talk pages are intended to host discussion with and/or about their particular users. It is reasonable that a user should control discussions centering on their Wikipedia persona. Warnings, while they are commonly discussed, are not in and of themselves a discussion. My engineering intuition tells me that warnings ought to be separated from talk pages, for they are not discussions, and this would have to be done in a way that is supported by the MediaWiki technology. Warnings should not in essence be subst'd templates on talk pages, but rather they should be attached to a user's account in some other way. Of course, this is different from the problem that IP addresses do not correspond 1-to-1 with users. Ideally, there should be a better system for identifying 'anonymous' users than by using their IP address (perhaps a one-way hash of all available and presumably static user data—that raises other issues, for example with checkuser, and is a different matter anyway). Any solution to the different but related matters of users controlling the discussion about themselves and users receiving and acknowledging warnings in a self-documenting way would do best to presume that IP users are single users. The reality is that the one-person-per-userpage assumption is not always true, but in the situations where it isn't there are alternatives for those who truly wish to edit productively (WP:WHY), and Wikipedia reads perfectly even from a blocked address or account.

In short, I think that the three goals davidwr lists compete with each other only because MediaWiki fails to make the distinction between warnings and discussion. Furthermore, having user warnings managed somewhere besides the user talk page may even improve the reform rate of delinquents: the tone of delinquent users' talk pages would not be effected by warnings, potentially promoting constructive interaction with those users. In closing let me ask those of you reading this to judge my comments on their merits, rather than dismissing it because it calls for changes to the software. Not until there is wide agreement that the solution is to distinguish warnings from discussions does it become appropriate to analyze the feasibility of any specific implementation thereof. BigNate37_(T) 04:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)