Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page/Archive 6

Welcome Templates

Once again, the subject of using Welcome Templates on user talk pages has come up here. It appears that some members of the community now feel that if it isn't specifically disallowed by policy, it is ok and a request from the community (whether it's a request from a sysop, or another user) can be disregarded, so I would like to propose that we modify the policy to specifically disallow them. -- Wyn talk 22:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with such an addition, but pretty sure Moo Kitty and Karate Jesus are just trolling. Misery 22:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Never the less, this is a topic that has come up repeatedly [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (and those are just the ones I could remember quickly). I believe having it spelled out in the policy will make it clear as to what the community's wishes are on the matter. -- Wyn talk 22:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually think only KJ was trolling, since it appeared Moo's intention was to use the templates "as intended".

In any case, the whole "no welcome template" issue is not one based on intention from who uses them, but on the negative effect of them on the receivers and the way they deal with them (which goes from "talk page blanking" in the case of new users to "ragequit" in the case of short-fused users).

Back on topic, i don't really see a "need" to add an exclusion to the policy, specially if it's just because one user (who more than likely will try to find a way to bypass the policy's wording, for what i have seen). Concensus and sysop discretion should be enough for dealing with this.

I won't oppose to adding it, in any case, but it seems pretty lame doing it just for that reason.--Fighterdoken 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be added. It's a common thing on wiki's and if this community is against them, then there should be a policy to keep them from being used. Also, my intention wasn't to troll, but...you know....it was so much fun...so it could qualify. Meh. Karate Jesus 22:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like them and they serve absolutely no purpose. A user who cares about the rules will look at one of the many links on the side of the page, one who doesn't won't get any benefit from a box. –Jette 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As some people don't understand these have caused more harm than good in the past as well, i think we should disallow these.

And what comes to the present situation, Moo says she'll use it to welcome new users. Most users have been more or less old users.

As i said on Moo's page, some may also take this harassment as vandalism. - J.P.Talk 23:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"since it appeared Moo's intention was to use the templates "as intended"." - Yeah, like posting it on talk pages of really experienced editors... <_<

To add one discussion to your list Wyn: Template talk:Welcome. poke | talk 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this needs to be coded into policy to stop people from (ab)using them, but if that's the only way to deal with the issue then I would support it. – Emmett 23:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

@Poke... ok, my fault. Only checked the talk pages creation which included the template and didn't bothered to check where else it was posted. Point for Wyn :).--Fighterdoken 23:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why people hate welcome templates, but are against them being added in the policy. Why is that? Obviously all of you hate them....so why wouldn't you support them being against the rules? Karate Jesus 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is that by being too specific on policy wording we open room for people wiki-lawyering their way out. Also, this could be used as a precedent for "can't be done unless there is a policy for it" arguments, which contradict the customs on this wiki and could conflict with sysop discretion.--Fighterdoken 07:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that as well Fighter, but it seems some people believe that if it's not in a policy, customs/common practice don't count. -- Wyn talk 07:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) While I have no problem with them personally my word here is worthless. Wikipedia regularly spams there new users with welcome templates as for those who are new to wiki editing it helps a bunch. Just ADD them to the policy so once and for all we don't have to literally point out the best example of beating a dead horse on this wiki. --Dominator Matrix 07:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I say get rid of them. Recently I had a user asking me why I reverted his/her (will use his from now on) edit clearing his talk page. I didn't understand what he was on about but his answer pretty much sums up my thoughts on this "Well I am assuming those messages that I deleted were automated...but I just didn't want it there, and didn't want to have to archive it because I didn't feel that automated spam was necessary or useful or necessarily useful."1. ~Celestia 08:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should only allow the official welcome template to be placed on people's pages, and that removing it is allowed to bypass the archive restriction. --JonTheMon 14:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The problems is that users abuse these templates to spam talk pages with no other reason but piss people off. - J.P.Talk 14:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep it the way it is, but wouldn't be opposed to explicitly stating it in policy. Honestly though, just having this discussion will (or has) establish(ed) that the consensus remains that the templates are not welcome and allows the enforcement by sysops if necessary. -- FreedomBound 14:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For some users, something what policy doesn't restrict, isn't against the rules. In other words, community consensus isn't enough. And i have a hard time believing that KJ and Moo are the last ones to think this way.

And do we want (and more importantly, do admins want) when someone puts a welcome template on someone's page, that there has to be an admin each time to solve the situation? I'd say no. This is just more unnecessary work for admins and possibly unnecessary drama. - J.P.Talk 15:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask why there is such a great opposition to these templates - sure, they are heartless and serve little other than to be "nice" (read: Ego stroking), I really don't feel that there is any need to ban them via policy. I think a few cases where they caused harm are necessary if we are to accept that they are, indeed, harmful. If that's not the case, then I see no reason to AGF aboout anyone about using any such template. NuVII 15:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been a number of cases where they have been harmful... – Emmett 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Link please. NuVII 15:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be no restrictions placed on Welcome Templates, as it assumes they are inherently maliciously which contradicts GWW:AGF. de Kooning 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't assume that the templates are malicious, it assumes (rightly so, based on past performance) that 1) new users that receive them are likely to misinterpret them 2) they're used as a mechanism for spam. -- FreedomBound 15:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Guns don't kill people, people do. So AGF is in effect until there is substantive evidence to the contrary. NuVII 15:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Nomadic_Knight is one welcome template that has caused problems. --JonTheMon 15:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? How can you tell - the only thing on that page is the welcome template (the welcome comic strip would be a more accurate description). That is entirely harmless, and quite funny, given that the new person isn't hypersensitive. NuVII 16:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Because (warning, spurious relationship ahead) the guy never made a single edit after that template was placed on his talk page? -- FreedomBound 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

NuVII, I think he meant the template, not specifically the user that he linked. Obviously, the user he linked had no problem with the template and all his/her contribs have been calm, normal edits of his user page. Karate Jesus 16:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I love it when disputes resolve themselves.

@Freedom: you can't possibly be insinuating that vanguard's image actually drove that guy away. He only made a userpage and that's it - no contributions, no talking, nothing. I hardly would think that he was a serious user - both before and after the placement of the said picture.

@KJ - Again, what's wrong with the picture? It's a harmless comic strip. Not belly-busting, jaw-wrenching funny, but funny. Hypersensitivity is just as bad as having no sensitivity. NuVII 16:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear, I didn't say there was anything wrong with the image (your reading comprehension teacher must be ashamed), I was suggesting that that's probably what Jon originally meant. I think someone got pissed about that template a while back (I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but some admins/users have sticks up their asses). Karate Jesus 16:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

@Nuclear, please see User talk:Ryudo (and the archive). – Emmett 18:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was expecting that example sooner or later Emmett.

See, that page (and it's archive - I'm quite familiar with both of them from my years of lurking) is a very bad example against welcome templates. Ryudo was extremely oversensitive about that issue (if he had said whatever, go play in the blender to both Eloc and Raptors, like you do with any troll, it wouldn't have been a problem). Now, I can make a very solid case about Ryudo being a Drama queen - Just from comments form that very page, too - but this is neither the time nor the place. Second, Ryudo was trolled. The templates were just the tool Raptors and many others used to get back at him. It doesn't make the templates evil - just some users. Do we ban wrenches and power tools just because they can be used by a serial killer? No, we moderate their purchase proportionately with the danger the may present. The same can be just as easily applied to welcome templates. If Ryudo's case is your best example, I don't see how your argument is going to be accepted. NuVII 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't see how the template is causing the problem. I only see the cause stemming from two things: 1) Person A receiving the template. 2) Person B giving the template. First, person A misinterprets the template as spam/vandalism/animosity. Person A removes said template. Here's where the problem is. Some self-righteous user bitches that comments can't be removed. Chaos ensues. IMO, welcome templates fall under the category of spam but this is subjective as it is not clear spam. Where one user might consider it spam, another may not. Solution: Let the talkpage's owner decide whether it is spam or not, and allow for their removal at their discretion. Second, Person B is posting their template on people's talkpage to no end. Solution: You talk to person B, tell them why their actions may cause a problem. If person B is unreasonable, then let the admins handle it. Let me repeat, Welcome Templates are not the problem. de Kooning 16:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep talking about AGF in this discussion, however, even Moo Kitty says she is using this to "have a little bit of fun at the expense of other user's.". Doing things at another user's expense is NOT in good faith, and quite simply, these types of templates are most often used for this purpose. If you really wish to be welcoming, and helpful to new users, type them a personal message and offer them assistance. -- Wyn talk 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another Welcome template that is just in poor taste, is not welcoming and promotes bad behavior, and even though the user has been asked not to use it, he continues to. -- Wyn talk 18:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, get. stick. out. of. ass. Moo Kitty 19:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If moo is using it to make fun of others to a disruptive level, fine, block ban whatever, but don't go putting blanket bans on a concept as a whole. NuVII 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuk, show me one instance on GWW where a welcome template is A. needed, B. not disruptive. I still say we just add it to the policy. -- Wyn talk 19:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Way to contribute to the discussion, retard. Imo welcome templates have just been used badly, both vanguard's and halogod's are just confusing and unfunny tbh. --Cursed Angel 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)That's not a very good argument, Wyn. There never will be need for a welcome template. It isn't necessary. There is also no need for us to have personal fluff and character pages, but we do anyway. This isn't a question of necessity - you already know that. As per the non-disruptive fine, easy: vanguard's comic strip was pretty tasteful (At least I think so, some may disagree) and I'm sure many other examples can be dredged from the dusty archives of some talkpages. Even so if there was only one such case, AGF applies. I know you are a big fan of that. NuVII 19:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, why limit ourselves to GWW? Wikipedia has a buttload of welcome messages. So does many other wiki's associated with MediaWiki and Wikia. I'm not saying our communities and functions are parallel, but it just goes to show potential. NuVII 19:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I think they have the potential to be fun. A good few people reacted well to my welcome comic. And I generally added a personal message along with it anyway, but I was told to HALT! by Auron. I don't think they should be banned because of one or two explosive users in the past.-- anguard 19:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We had lots of welcome templates in the past; we had an official template with multiple different reversions (which is now deleted). None of those really helped, in the end all they created was drama – here again btw! – being it because people who received them or the people who posted it reacted bad or just because others tried to reduce the drama and asked people to stop using them. We will never end with that.

I am sure some welcome template usages were useful, however when we eliminated all existing welcome templates back during the most prominent drama time (Ryudo anyone?), we simply resolved the need for them by adding Guild Wars Wiki:Welcome to the wiki and MediaWiki:Welcomecreation.

So no, welcome templates are not useful on this wiki and if anything at all, they only lead to problems as shown in the past and now. I would prefer to simply ask users to just stop using any of them because of obvious reasons, but if that won't work, I am in favor of disallowing them per policy. poke | talk 19:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to keep Ryudo out of this. It's just going to cloud the discussion, and it has very little to say about welcome templates. Ryudo was just oversensitive. That's the only kind of people that take offense at a simple template like that.

Blanket ban them via policy, if you will (the wiki will lament little, if at all) but please don't do it for the wrong reason. NuVII 19:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What is your right reason? :P - J.P.Talk 19:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't have one. I'm all for keeping em, actually. NuVII 19:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for a nice, basic, easy to read, no-nonsense welcome template, but seeing as I have not seen one of those that either didn't seem overly cheesy or piss off other users, I'm inclined to get rid of them altogether. These days it seems they're more used to disrupt and deter new users, intentional or not. (Seriously, hamsters? What the crap does that have to do with anything on this wiki?). -- Wandering Traveler 20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

People who use Welcome Templates to disrupt/spam/cause trouble will find another way to do it with or without a policy in place. If a person has made clear his intention of using a welcome template for ill purposes then the admins should warn/ban that person. de Kooning 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the problem that has been identified is that welcome templates have been used mean-spiritedly and/or have not had the intended reaction (of positive behavior change). Banning the templates won't stop peeps from trolling; it won't stop some from over-reacting. I have to agree with De Kooning: it's a people problem, not a widget issue; the resolution will require working with the relevant contributors. Unfortunately, that will require someone (an admin?) to take time on a case-by-case basis; there's no policy that will prevent imperfect human beings from participating in a wiki.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but it will stop this from being a subject that pops up every few months to have to have this same debate/discussion over and over and over. -- Wyn talk 01:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do agree my welcome template is bad and sucks horribly and is a piece of shit. But I've only used it on people I know irl. Should be a little break there. -- Halogod35 01:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone said before: Guns don't kill, people who use it do. Or something like that.

So, don't give them the gun.

And if someone is really going to use a welcome template as it should, what prevents others from abusing it? - J.P.Talk 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Banning them. -- Halogod35 01:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, policies will not prevent poor behavior (whether provocative or an over-reaction). The rare abuse of a template does not appear to be causing the exodus of users; it seems unnecessarily extreme to ban something when the stakes are so low.

As to why the subject keeps coming up: new people join the community, veterans get bored. I think that admins and b'crats already have enough tools to handle the relatively few abuses. I think dealing with stuff like this 1x or 20x comes with the territory. Aren't we asking our admins to be more than janitors?   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the admin. Karate Jesus 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To summarize what I've read: One crowd wants welcome templates outlawed because they've been abused in the past by trolls. The other crowd doesn't want them outlawed, because after all, it's the trolls that are the problem, not the template itself.

From a logical perspective, I've gotta side with the latter crowd. If a troll is disruptive, there's a drop-down ban reason for that. If you change policy to say "no welcome templates," you aren't solving the actual problem, which is people trolling. I'm against any policy change that doesn't solve a problem.

Ban the troll. Leave the template. As poke said farther up, I'm sure they've been useful to someone, and the only people that got legitimately offended were those who got trolled. For new editors, wikis are a huge, unknown place - and a simple welcome template (used in good faith) with links to different pages to get them started is a great idea. It's our job (as the community) to make sure these tools don't get abused. Removing the tool entirely is the wrong answer. We just need to police the template's use and don't give the trolls any ground. -Auron 02:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring the "new user who blanks his talk page after a welcome template, and originates a revert war" issue, which has also happened in the past, even when the cause was non-troll templates. In that case, we would need to allow users to remove without archival need any automated-like or spam-like message on their talk pages, withouth having to ask for permission first.--Fighterdoken 04:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that's not really an issue tbh. If they want to remove a templated welcome message, they're free to. -Auron 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

in such a situation I'd think that the revert war (i.e. badgering an innocent new user about some pedantic rule which doesn't even apply to "spam removal" anyway) would be much more likely to cause butthurt than some silly template. Vili 点 05:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we have a welcome template but only use it when a user goofs (not my idea...link somewhere)? That way we can advoid spamming, and that way its also not overused. --Dominator Matrix 05:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a welcome template stamped automatically on each user's talk page right after the account is created (in case they miss all the other's "welcome" at account creation). Not sure if that would be technically possible, though.--Fighterdoken 07:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of too, Fighterdoken. I think wikipedia has bot accounts that do it. -Auron 07:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Automated welcomes ARE NOT a solution to this issue. They are just that.. automated, and no one pays any attention to them. They are NOT welcoming. I would rather than new members be left alone than be spammed by some bot with some automated tempolate. I personally HATED the thing on Wikipedia. If a user really wishes to welcome NEW users to the community, they should type a personal message and offer them not only greetings but assistance. -- Wyn talk 09:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think just greetings (personal, friendly, not overbearing) is fine. It can only do harm to assume you're dealing with a brand new greenhorn straight-from-the-internet-uterus wiki user. If users really are new, they'll often ask for help on their userpage or talk page, in which case of course the friendly and correct thing to do is provide it. Never condescend. elix Omni 10:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think wyn's argument is becoming a bit biased - your personal experience aside, it has little to do with the policy discussion as a whole.

Back to the topic, how about we create another section on the NPA page - something to do with abusing (not using) welcome templates. I'd guess that a stern section about using welcome templates maliciously would have the right effect the nay sayers want.

Or maybe a guideline. A guideline may work, also. NuVII 11:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that GWW:NPA makes no mention of harassment, which is what I would consider malicious placement of unwanted messages to be. elix Omni 11:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds easier. Let's add "do not harass other users" to NPA with a note about welcome boxes, instead of preventing one tiny method of trolling. I stand by my opinion that I think they are stupid, but I don't care as they're not on my page. –Jette 18:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While discussion is nice its heading no where. I created a poll here. So vote and we can use the results as help for the final answer. --Dominator Matrix 03:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that as an external site, there's no way to be secure in whatever results come up? I'm not saying that someone will lolproxy and throw the votes, but really, it's just a silly idea. 71.202.136.169 04:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be detected easily. I have had proxy throwers to try to flood a website. Found out how to block it quickly, so not hard to spot fakes like that. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 04:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No. This wiki does not function with polls. The only instance where we use polls is during bcrat elections, and that's just overritualization (lol word) anyway. We decide things by consensus. Discussion never heads nowhere - it just takes some time. Your poll, while made in good spirit, is just going to muddle the issue. For the benefit of the discussion, please remove it. NuVII 10:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

^ That. Wikis are based on consensus. Straight up votes are pretty much the exact opposite - they promote no discussion, no logic, no compromise, and they just let the biggest crowd (which is, quite often, not the most correct crowd) win. Discussion will only further by discussing - substituting a vote in for discussion is not how to progress. -Auron 04:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Back to the topic now. Fine if welcome templates are something that are going to be used by trolls on this wiki who really aren't harming anyone, then ban them (the template). Just because a few bad apples over do it, and a few negative feedback(s), doesn't mean the welcome template cannot be used as a useful tool to new users. --Dominator Matrix 06:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I feel that welcome templates can be very very useful to new wiki comers. It should just either be one welcome template like this wiki used to have. Or there should be a guideline how they should be set up or what's required and what's not allowed. And misusage of a bad welcome template (like moo kitty's and mine) will result in a ban, for like 3 days, and increases each time. Etc,etc. Cause, without the welcome message then people wouldn't know about the rules ahead of time and ragequit. For example, people coming from PvX wiki and Guildwiki, they're policies are way off and more relaxed then this wiki. Cause, even my friend Alce doesn't know all about the policies and admins and (in some parts) wikicode. (and yes I know that's completely my fault cause my welcome template is a piece of shit that's only just for the lulz, and believe me my friend laughed about it).

So, short story short, I believe we should bring back the welcome template. Make a policy on other welcome templates. -- Halogod35 17:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if it is working I never got one----X 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The welcome template doesn't exist, cause wyn kept deleting it. She has issues against them. -- Halogod35 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is a whole another issue in and of itself.

Going back to the topic, is everyone okay with making an addition to the NPA page to deal with this? NuVII 18:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me. -- Wyn talk 18:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make such addition extensive to any "harrasing through spam"? (ie. "First" messages after being told to not)--Fighterdoken 22:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that would also be a valid addition, but then this has to be carried on at the NPA talkpage. NuVII 22:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Since we are at a point where it looks like it's ok to use the templates as long as the NPA adition is made, i guess switching the discussion over there would be appropiate. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time a change happends due to a discussion done somewhere else.--Fighterdoken 22:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Protecting banned users' pages

I've seen it in action some times now, especially with Karate Jesus; after a user gets banned, his user page becomes an attraction for vandals and his talk page an attraction for spam and anti-ban groups. I thought a little about it, and protecting the main user page and talk page when banning a user (for example, if someone bans me, they protect User:Titani Ertan and User talk:Titani Ertan) may save lots of drama and spam. Thoughts? Titani Ertan 18:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree here. --Unendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 18:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I also would have no problem with this but for one thing. Each time we protect a page, it takes the wiki down for as much as 10 minutes, due to a bug that so far has proven to be elusive for the IT guys to fix. Until it is, I would not want this to be an automatic action when banning someone, unless it's for an extended (more than a week) time period, unless the specific case/page proved to be a problem. -- Wyn talk 19:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

^Good point Wyn--Unendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tbh, I wouldn't use me as an example, considering that I actually don't mind if people comment on my talk page while I'm banned. Karate Jesus 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What about if someone is banned, but there is a relevant message to leave them for when they get back? Misery 20:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer leaving it to admin discretion. There are going to be cases where it's necessary, and there are going to be cases where it's not. -- FreedomBound 20:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure they can do that anyway... Be powerful! Misery 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of simply protecting the page, say that spam or discussions can't take place on banned users' pages? --JonTheMon 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)There are some problems with this proposal. The one that I see first stems from the latter part of the suggestion, the bit about protecting talk pages along with the main user pages in order to halt spam/anti-ban protesters. I just don't see this working. The anti ban crowd will let their steam off at some page on this wiki, but when deprived of the most logical choice, they will just migrate into another, more sensitive page. This could be the admin noticeboard, the NPA talk or, god protect, the talk of the admin who carried out the ban. It is usually easy to ignore posts on a banned user's page. Just a few guys ranting away, no big deal. But when these protests spread through the wiki, they generate more drama than they should (noting here that nearly all bans of known users generate some amount of unavoidable drama). I don't think it would be in our best interest to encourage that.

That being said, there is also the technical aspect of the issue. I was not aware of it until Wyn said it here, but if protecting pages sets the wiki back, we really should keep the act of protection as a last measure against repeated and insistent vandalism. it has been my experience that this is only necessary at very critical pages with a lot of traffic; like ANet pages or the main page. Since every user can easily revert vandalism, protection isn't that necessary when there is only a moderate amount of vandalism going on. I would hope that administrative discretion already empowers the sysop team to protect user pages if needed, and I don't think putting it in writing isn't going to make that big of a difference (though I really couldn't care less).

Finally, reword comment please mizzles. NuVII 20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How often is this a problem? If peeps are abusing a page, alert the admins on the admin noticeboard; they have tools to take commensurate action. We can revisit this idea if/when that repeatedly turns out to be too little/too late.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of that problem, Wyn, and that is a plan killer as is.

@important comments- There is always an option to mail that user, or you can just wait; if it's really important, you will probably have other ways of contacting him, as the banned user won't be of much help inside the wiki for some time.

@length- yes, I agree; a 1 day ban isn't very crucial, then yes, a week minimum would be reasonable.

@how often- Remember how admins sometimes come and tell people to stop RC spam of useless discussion? Even if it's 1 time? I think that answers your question.

@Nuclear's main point- If the mainstream of this wiki builds up a pile of coal in their furnace every time someone gets banned... I find that hard to believe. From what I see, most of the spam that goes to the banned one's talk page is very useless, and it can sometimes take admin interference to stop. Why won't we spare that? User pages are a vandal attraction already, and a banned user's userpage is much more of an attraction. If for example, Poke bans me for 2 weeks, User:Titani Ertan and User talk:Titani Ertan are protected. Now, in the drastic case that people want to know why I was banned, they can check the edit summary or the block log. And if they have something to say about it, the admin noticeboard is a nice place to go, and if you don't want to make it "widespread", you can go ask Poke. That way Poke can answer the question once, and be done with it.

I also don't think this will cause extra vandalism of mainspace. The angry mob of troll users already exists, and removing 2 attractive pages from their list is a work well done- that way more "specific" vandals can just leave.

I think I hammered all the points raised so far. Any more? Titani Ertan 08:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think if a note is to be left on that user page (if it is definite for a vandalizing/posting attraction), that if anyone posts there. They are subject to a ban as an assistance to a banned member. Only way anyone could leave a note, was if it was REALLY important and then that should be left up to the admins. Those that want to do 'I told you so' can leave things alone. -- riyen ♥ 09:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a note has helped very much on Admin noticeboard, Gaile and Linsey talk pages and there are more examples. What happens if someone breaks the note? You need to revert it. Add edit conflicts to that, and you waste a lot of people's time. Titani Ertan 09:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what the hell is this section even about? Sysops protect a page if it needs protecting. If it doesn't, they don't. Nothing needs to be written in policy, especially when it doesn't solve anything. Any questions? -Auron 09:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Protection is for pages that actually get vandalized only. If it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be a wiki. Also, very few tasks are worth shutting down the whole wiki for 10 minutes. Getting butthurt because of trolls isn't one of them. –Jette 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Auron; a lot talk page spam is happening on not-banned user's talk pages, so that is not an issue restricted to blocked users. If there is a problem with too much spam, we can always simply protect it. But we really don't need to generalize that for all blocks.. poke | talk 10:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the day people will suggest just locking all talk pages. Ironically, I'm not sure that would hurt or improve the wiki. Erasculio 10:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. You'd have a lot of edits on the actual pages and nothing would settle. -- riyen ♥ 10:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In theory you would be right, but right now I think only 0,01% of all talk page entries are actually to settle edit discussions in mainspace articles. Erasculio 10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need for this to be put into policy either. As Auron said if a page needs protecting it gets protected, and if we leave it to sysop discretion then whats changed from the current way of doing things as per the first part of this sentence? Also disagree with this for the bug with the software Wyn mentioned. --Kakarot 11:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding archiving

The policy says it is ok to Archive "older" comments as the talk page gets "longer", but what does these terms mean? To me at least "older" should be read as a discussion that is no longer getting additions, and "longer" should mean at least long enough to demand scrolling. The policy should imo not allow using archiving as a way to bury discussions one does not want to have to deal with though. I think some clarification is in order as it is highly annoying having a discussions with someone just to have them "archive" it in the middle. --Lensor (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What about those that like to take discussions all over the place and not where it should be? -- riyen ♥ 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Move it. -- FreedomBound 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree Lensor, but I'm also fairly sure you're allowed to unarchive active topics. (Right?) – Emmett 15:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I take someone archiving a discussion as a sign that the person is not interested in having said discussion, and it would be polite to actually obey the person's wish. Given the little control we have over our talk pages already, being able to do that and expect people to be polite most of the time is actually a good thing. Erasculio 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If you do not want to have a particular discussion, just dont answer it and let it die out naturally. But to me it is dishonest to archive ongoing discussions thus giving the false impression that an issue is settled, especially if archiving is used as a way to ensure the "final word" (since one is not allowed to add comments to an archive). It is quite simple really. Archive is (or should be) where you put, well, archives, not ongoing discussions.--Lensor (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You could claim the same thing if archiving were forbidden: that it would only be a way for people to ensure the "final word" on someone else's talk page (since you would expect someone to let a discussion die by not replying). An archive is not the place where to put ongoing discussions, indeed; so one being placed there is a sign that the discussion in question is finished, instead of being ongoing. You are free to ask the person to continue the discussion on your own talk page, where only you would be allowed to archive; but don't be surprised if the person who has just given a rather big sign of not being interested in further discussion does not reply. Erasculio 19:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You are allowed to "unarchive" a discussion if you feel it's necessary as Emmett pointed out, or you can simply restart the discussion. Most of the time however, doing either of these is a fair indication of the drama level that the discussion is going to produce. If someone is so upset by a particular discussion they feel the need to archive it immediately, continuing it is only going to make things worse and not really resolve the issue anyway. -- Wyn talk 19:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Discussions aren't just for the user whose talk page it's on. Yes, a discussion can be unarchived, but it's more drama-inciting to revert than to add something to an already present discussion. I disagree that continuing a discussion won't resolve anything, as well - archiving a discussion in this way before it's ended is, in most cases, cutting off a discussion before it's resolved; continuing a discussion usually works towards resolving it. Being "upset" shouldn't really factor in archiving a discussion - what should is whether it's finished, how stale it is, how large the page is, and how important it is (e.g. if it's a warning about policy violations, or if it's just spam). -- pling 19:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So you think it would be productive to force a discussion on someone who's not willing to discuss? Erasculio 20:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree with Lensor about article pages; topics shouldn't be archived before an issue is settled regardless of the date of the last post. (In some cases, they shouldn't be archived at all, to reduce the need to repeat the same debate.) However, on a user talk page, I think it should be up to the individual contributor. Doesn't everyone deserve the last word on their own talk page?

Suppose someone tells me on my talk to change my userID because it's identical to the name of a fantabulous gospel singer. I explain that, sure, while that's true, I'm not using it for profit and there's no confusion about who's got sixteen tons and who spends too much time playing RPGs. They point to Wikipedia:Copyright; I point out the logical fallacy in their argument. Then, the peanut gallery chimes in. Guy Fawkes says that, by the way, my name is too long. Days later, I'm still getting spammed by the original poster, who isn't going to convince me of the error of my ways, short of a lawsuit; the thing ain't gonna get resolved. Shouldn't I be able to nip that conversation in the bud by archiving it early and often?

Admittedly, in some cases, the original poster will have a good point about wiki policy or a good suggestion for the user...and the user really, really should pay attention. But isn't that up to them to decide? If they choose not to listen to arguably good advice, why should the community have any say about it? Rules violators will still get blocked. Wiki drama queens (and kings) are still going to be Divas; trolls will still be trolls.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I wont "unarchive" discussions, even though I may feel the archive was done prematurely. It is just not worth the drama. But one should understand that archiving ongoing topics is the equivalent of walking away in the middle of a discussion irl. Something that is generally considered very rude, not to mention counter productive. If someone is being disruptive on the talk page (personal attacks, not listening to arguments etc), that is something different altogether. I am not saying no archiving should be allowed, I just would like a better definition on what is "old" comments, and what is a "long" talk page.--Lensor (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's a strong analogy between "archiving" on a wiki and "walking away from a discussion" IRL. Sometimes it's rude and sometimes it's sensible (e.g. hanging up on telemarketers, walking away from someone trying to bait you into a bar fight, ...). Regardless, the only times we get to prevent "walking away" is when we're parents (with our kids), employers (with our staff), or educators (with our students).   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) If there were a policy claiming that only discussions X days old or at size Y can be archived, you would not only "unarchive", but unarchive and also tell the user he had breached a policy; wouldn't that be even more drama? Erasculio 20:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we just take a reality check here? It has never been okay to archive an active topic, whether it offended anyone never mattered. Only old and inactive topics were archived, ever. That is the purpose of archives - not to bury something, but the archive it so that it doesn't interfere with the more active sections. If someone is deliberately archiving something just to avoid having a discussion, it is within your power to revert the archival and continue the discussion. It is entirely within your power to bring whatever the hell you want to in the attention of the owner of aforementioned talk page. This doesn't mean you should beat a dead horse (and I encourage everyone to make the distinction between "discussion" and "circlejerking"), dredging an old and dead topic just to cause drama is a harmful act. But we, as a community, know this, and when it happens Pling comes in with a banhammer and smashes faces in.

If you want to "avoid" a "discussion" (just a personal note here, I feel it is extremely rude and cowardly when someone ignores my post just avoid being wrong) for whatever reason, just ignore it. It's not that hard. If a troll asks the length of your genitals, just ignore his posts. If an idiot refuses to see logic shoved in his eyes, tell him to fuck off (in much more carebeary words, ofc) and notify an admin. That why we select individuals and empower them with powerful editing tools; so they can make our lives easier by dealing with idiots. Instead of responding and generating a shitoad of drama (and in my book , if you respond to a troll you are just as bad as the troll), just notify someone who can put a stop to it. Pseudosysoping and archiving troll posts isn't the way to go. NuVII 21:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)