Forum:Removing talk page messages

Whenever someone removes messages from their talk page, it's reverted by another user, but there's never been an actual policy on the matter. This is a simple proposal, not exactly introducing anything new, but it's necessary. I propose that, upon first offence of removing messages from one's talk page, the user is warned, and blocked upon second offence for one day if the user simply blanked his entire talk page, and for three days if he/she removed warnings from an administrator in particular. The rest, of course, would follow the regular block times (1 week, 1 month, infinite). Drewton  ( Drewton's Holocron ) 01:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Support (+1)

 * 1) As the proposer. Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 01:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Well, it's already tradition (and a good one too). -- Michaeldsuarez  [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. -- Lord  Bender Nightmare975  02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Okay then. --Victortalk 05:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) --[[Image:Darth tom sig.png|100px]] (talk) (contributions) 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Because I do not believe we should be banning people over trivial matters. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *It's not trivial if they're ignoring administrative warnings. How else can we enforce the policy other than banning? Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) **By letting them disrupt the wiki to make a point. Then we nail 'em. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer 6,000,000 forms of communication[[Image:Sabersmilyc3po.jpg|25px]] 20:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Brandon. -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Per my response to Drewton above and Brandon Rhea. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer 6,000,000 forms of communication[[Image:Sabersmilyc3po.jpg|25px]] 20:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I don't think we need to be handing out infinite bans on this. I think that if the problem persists, then we should do something similar to the Image Policy where, upon continued offenses, we don't let users upload anymore images and enforce this by just automatically deleting any image they upload. What we should do in this case is put a protection level on the user's talk page for a certain amount of time, meaning that only Administrators can edit the talk page. Personally, I think this should apply to every punishment. First there is a warning, then a one day protection on the talk page, then a three day protection, and so forth. This isn't something important enough to warrant bans, although I do agree with the proposal in regards to reverting message removals and requiring archives if a user wishes to remove messages. - Brandon Rhea  (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, the above sounds like a great idea. --Victortalk 04:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) *Wait, so you're going to restrict a user's talk page, which is how the majority of the community would need to communicate with them, if they misuse it? That doesn't make sense. That punishes other users unnecessarily, in case they need to communicate with someone (warnings, anyone?). If there were a lot of active admins here, and the mod to user ratio was higher, then sure, this would be fine. There's not, but there are a decent number of active users who can and do use talk pages for warnings, advice, etc.&mdash;which are all legitimate uses of talk pages. A block is the best way to deal with this, IMO, because they are disrespecting site policy if they do so after being warned. To make my final point: If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.  Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 05:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) **Right, didn't think about that. --Victortalk 05:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) **Per Ataru. With Brandon's idea, another user might not be able to contact another user for a week or a month, and eventually perhaps infinite. Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 13:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, Ataru is correct. However, I still do not believe we should be handing out bans with this, because undoing the "damage" is just a simple revert. Unless bans are taken out of this proposal, I myself won't be supporting it. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Brandon is correct; however, if a revert war occurs, then there should be blocks. -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 17:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If a user remove warnings/block messages specifically from a administrator as I've seen happen many times, that shows that they have no intention of following our policies and will ignore warnings. Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 17:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, sounds kinda trivial. Plus, the entire thing seems a bit over-the-top, in my opinion; we don't even ban people for categorization anymore and now we're going to ban them for removing talk page messages? I'll abstain for now, I need more time to think about this. &mdash;  JM ' 76 ' Ask Archives [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|18px]] 06:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Per above.--Arav the Undersith (Contact Me ) (My contributions ) 07:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Now I'm not liking it so much. -- Lord Bender Nightmare975  08:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Meh. Unit 8311 [[Image:1110 Big small.jpg|20px]] Talk!  13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Apathy -MPK (MPK's Talk Page)|undefined 16:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Can we just change the proposal to say that users are perfectly justified in  reverting the removing of material from talk pages without the intention of creating an archive? Now that I thought this through, I don't think we have the right to block someone for something so trivia. Blocking should only happen if an edit war occurs. -- Michaeldsuarez  [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 17:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) *While I agree we shouldn't block, I think we need to require archives, especially in the case of removing warnings from Administrators. Administrators shouldn't have to pour through the page history to find out whether or not someone has been warned before. It should be right there in an archive or on the talk page. - <font color="#1A2BBB">Brandon Rhea <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contribs) 17:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) *Heh, well that would be the complete opposite of what's already been proposed. You can make another proposal in this thread if you like.  Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have two support votes and a bagillion neutral votes, the bagillion being because people don't agree with the banning. With a tally like that, you have every right to alter the original proposal. If the two support people don't like it, they can change their vote. - <font color="#1A2BBB">Brandon Rhea <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contribs) 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So I should change the proposal something that's completely opposite to it's original purpose just because there's some neutral votes? If people really disagreed with this, they'd vote oppose instead of neutral. Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) *I voted neutral becuase I though we may convince you to change the proposal. -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) **And, following site policy, who would be the one who was banned or warned for the edit war of taking away talk page messages? Technically, the one reverting the message removals would be the first one to violate the 3 RVT rule. There would be nothing to say that the user couldn't remove messages from his or her talk page, and the other user would be at fault for trying to control another user's talk page. Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 18:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) ***The 3RR can be ignored as long as the reverts are justified by policy, such as reverting vandalism and personal attacks. Now we're planning to add the reverting of the removal of talk page messages to the list of justified reverts. As a result, the remover, not the restorer, would be blocked. -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 18:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) ****So that would literally be a one edit difference from what's being proposed. In this proposal, they're first given a warning and upon second offence, blocked. By what you're saying, they'd be blocked upon third offence, if I'm understanding correctly. It wouldn't be an edit war if the user deleted different warnings at different times, and they wouldn't be warned or banned. As I've said above, the removal of warnings shows that the user has no intention of following our policies, and that definitely deserves a ban upon second offence. What's been proposed is a better way to deal with this. Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 18:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) *The blocks are silly. Would you ban someone for stepping on a bug? They're not vandalizing the site or breaking copyright laws. -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) **They're showing that they're disrespecting and ignoring administrators' warnings. It's perfectly fine to ban people for not following the Manual of Style, per the Blocking policy, and that's not vandalism or violating copyright laws. If users don't follow our policies, there has to be a way to control it. Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 18:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Okay, so let me get this straight, we are punished for removing our messages? I'd like to understand this better before I vote.-- Lord Bender Nightmare975  01:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC) We just want users to archive their talk pages rather than making past messages disappear. Deleting talk messages can be seen as a dishonest attempt to hide valuble data, such as past warnings and blocks. The only thing that should be removed from talk pages is vandalism and personal attacks. -- Michaeldsuarez  ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 02:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. You can, of course, remove if them if you archive them. Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 02:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see.-- Lord Bender Nightmare975  02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)