Guild Wars Wiki talk:Request for Record Wipe

Does not compute. &mdash; Skuld 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah... are we talking like a user's personal history in logs or a comment they'd rather not have in their talk page? The term record makes me think of block logs and such, but its usage sounds like a comment.  I'll withhold commenting on this until I think about it some more and get this point clarified. - elviondale  (tahlk) 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleting records accomplishes very little. Your first impression of a person always stays the first impression. People still think of you the same way, regardless of whether the talk page is archived or not. And I'd want to keep these records simply so I could see where I screwed up in the past.  Calor  - talk 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But think about it, say you ran for Sysop and users who didn't know you whatsoever decided to check out your talk page to see what you are like. If they went through your archives, they might see so complaints about NPA or image violations or being blocked or anything like that which would be a negative vote for you. Would you really want a negative vote just because of something you did a long time ago and have made up for it?-- §  Eloc   §  22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. I see... so this is so Raptors can start with a clean slate? xD - elviondale  (tahlk) 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No lol. I believe that Raptors are gone for good. Besides, it has a voting similar to GWW:RFA and due to their recent events, I doubt people would let them pass a record wipe.-- §  Eloc   §  23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that... Is there any case in particular you might be thinking of while proposing this? - elviondale  (tahlk) 00:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No specific cases, it was just one of my amazing ideas that came to me which I didn't forget. I think it just benefits people who would like to run for Sysop or Beaurocrat most or even people who just don't like having their mistakes from the past come to haunt them.-- §  Eloc   §  01:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mistakes are mistakes, and for something like this to allow those mistakes or errors to go away veil the reality that was that person. Someone running for Beaurocrat or Sysop with a squeaky clean record is misleading and, in my opinion, if they wish to be a Beaurocrat or Sysop, their whole record should go along with them. Even for someone who doesn't wish to run for a high positon shouldn't have the abillity to have their record wiped. Someone who does something they shouldn't should think about what they are doing in the first place, not do it and then have the later chance for a record wipe. [[Image:User-brains12-sigicon3.png]] br12  ~ 18:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think it is equally important to see how a user has changed or learned from their mistakes. I don't look for a squeaky clean history from a user. It's the overall character of that user that's important. And well, this is somewhat useless any way, how exactly do we "record wipe" for a user? We can't delete history and we can't make people forget first impressions. And we already have a mechanism for this... create a new account :) It's just that I don't see how this is even necessary. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 01:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. It is not a requirement that a sysop have a spotless record. LordBiro 10:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if you removed all trace of evidence on the wiki itself people would still remember and bring it back up again, unless you sent the Men in Black around... I don't really see the point of this policy. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 14:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright then, stupid idea. In my head it seemed like a better idea =S -- §  Eloc   §  15:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?
Why delete? If anything, it could serve as a precedent if this topic comes up again and adequately explains why it might not be such a good idea. - elviondale  (tahlk) 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree. Moving it from draft to rejected is enough. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 18:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it with inactive draft policy, since it was never formally proposed. -- Gordon Ecker 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow.. just when I thought I've seen all of the templates on this wiki... - elviondale  (tahlk) 22:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, there are more than I can count.-- §  Eloc   §  22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)