Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page/Deletion Proposal

→ moved from Talk:Http:/wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild Wars Wiki:User page/Deletion Proposal

Thanks Anja, I was about to put the tag on but I got the edit conflict as you did it. It is correct though. Anon

OK I want to propose adding this to the current policy:

Users are able to remove or request deletion of information from their personal user talk pages provided it is not one of the following:

• A warning about breaking a policy pre-empting a ban

Any wiki related discussions can be moved to the appropriate talk page or deleted.

The reasoning for this is there is no reason to contain redundant information on the wiki. The only information I can see a reason to archive is warnings which are used in arbitration cases. Many users have expressed a desire to delete things such as welcome messages from their user pages and this policy change will allow that while retaining the only real use of an archive. If a discussion is vital to wiki content it is more appropriately placed on said content's talk page in the first place and can always be moved there before deletion. This policy doesn't outlaw archiving, people who want to do so can still do it. Anon

I agree about requesting to delete something like a welcome template or random talk, but only if all posters in that discussion agree to it. Policy/warning discussion should be kept on the page or archived, as you said. About wiki related discussion that can be moved - I think the most that should be done there is {{moved}}. Without that, the poster will not know where the discussion has gone, thus recreating the discussion again on the talk page. -- br12 • (talk) • 16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if it's on my talk page I don't think I should need every user's permission, as long as it's not a warning used for an Administrative decision, it isn't important. I have been told the current policy allows users to move something and then delete the moved thing while archiving. It's in a user's own interest while deleting a {{moved}} from their page to ensure that the appropriate party has seen it before it is removed. This being said, I would imagine it would be OK to delete a moved, if you use common sense and wait a couple days first and THEN delete it you won't get asked where it went. If you don't wait you can just tell them when they ask the second time where it went. I don't think we need to mess around with that much at all. This is about a user talk page keep in mind. Anon

In my opinion it should be not allowed to remove a {{moved}} from your talkpage. I still think it should not be allowed to remove anything from your talkpage except for archiving or when moving to another page. poke | talk 17:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that doesn't matter because apparently you can remove a {{moved}} from a talk page when archiving anyway. This discussion is about allowing the deletion or removal of any non warning content, I've only included the move tags to be clear. Anon

Who says that you can remove it? You can only archive it. poke | talk 17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule against removing the moved link, people generally get rid of them when they archive. -- Gordon Ecker 07:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Aside from the issue with the appearently already existing move rules, is there anything anyone else would like changed about the policy before I officially propose it? Anon

Gordon is not a policy and I think he meant it that the link isn't any longer visible when you archive it (because it is in the archive then) poke | talk 18:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think that if you are warned because you were getting border line close to violating GWW:NPA or GWW:USER or something like that, it should stay as it can just serve as a friendly reminder :) — ク Eloc 貢 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the term "delete" because, within the context of MidiaWiki, it implies a page history purge. As for moved notices, I consider them to be an optional courtesy rather than an obligation, they're only explicitly mentioned by the proposed talk page formatting guideline, in which they are a suggestion. -- Gordon Ecker 01:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is ever completely deleted in a wiki. Even when it is technically deleted, it can be restored. — ク Eloc 貢 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But it's hidden, and IIRC MediaWiki doesn't keep deleted pages indefinitely. I don't have anything else to say about user talk page content deletion that other people haven't already said at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Request for Record Wipe. -- Gordon Ecker 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well since the only objections to this policy come from a possibly misionformed beleief that the {{move}} tag is required let alone can't be removed and a further reference to the record wipe, which is about warnings or bans etc, which this policy explicitly says can not be removed or deleted, I am moving this to a proposal. Anon

Proposed

OK this change has now been proposed. Please keep in mind this is different from the previously proposed record wipe as this policy explicityl states

Users are able to remove or request deletion of information from their personal user talk pages provided it is not one of the following:

• A warning about breaking a policy pre-empting a ban

This is not about clearing a person's record, that is still protected. This is about removing other non vital information from a user's talk page - particularly things such as welcome messages or harassment. I have not included bans or blocks in this as they are already recorded in the block log. The goal is to allow users to remove anything which has no reason to remain, if they wish. Please consider when responding if you want something to be exempt from removal, is it absolutely vital? Anon

I've replaced "delete" with "remove", I still have a problem with allowing wiki-related discussions to be removed without archiving them or moving them to a more appropriate talk page, but that's it. -- Gordon Ecker 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this part: "Any wiki related discussions can be moved to the appropriate talk page or removed." I also fear that removal of comments from your talk page will be easily abused.

As a side note, the proposal needs some polish (information => comments & bullet list of one). --Xeeron 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How can removal of information from a talk page be abused? If something is relevant to a specific part of the wiki the issue should be brought up on that part of the wiki not a user talk page. If it was very important to an article, you are doing a disservice by placing it on someone's talk page which is out of the way instead of the page where all users can find and see it. If you don't mind I would like you to elaborate on what you mean by polish, I don't understand what you want. Anon

Polish: It says "one of the following" but only lists one item. Similar, there is no need to make a bullet point list for only one item. "Information" is bad wording, because it can be read as "comments that are not informative can not be removed" which is not what you want. --Xeeron 11:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of being able to delete unimportant sections of the user talk page, but I don't really agree with how it has been presented here. Not only I think it lacks polish, like Xeeron said, but I also think it's way too vague about what may be removed. I would rather switch it around and replace it by:

Users are able to remove a discussion from their personal user talk pages provided it is one of the following:

• A discussion unrelated to the wiki
• Vandalism
• A NPA breach

Erasculio 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Where would you classify {{welcome}} in those? -- br12 • (talk) • 18:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the dumbest thing ever. Sorry to sound mean, but nothing should be removed off of your talk page, unless it's a personal attack. Anything else removed is just stupid. Also, if no one likes the {{welcome}} then why not remove the template completely? — ク Eloc 貢 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok well basically what I wanted to say is the ONLY thing which can not be removed or deleted is a warning which is used for administrative decisions. Allowing their removal or deletion is allowing people to claim it never took place, which is obviously bad for dealing with problem users. Everything else should be able to be removed from a user talk space - unless someone can come up with a justifiable reason to keep it, aside from personal preference. I will rewrite it to clarify this. Anon

(Edit conflict) I agree with Erasculio's POV (and Anon). In addition to this I see the welcome template as wiki spam - it adds nothing to to the information body of the wiki and forcing people to keep it has caused more problems, effort and angst than it is worth. It is clear from the average users reaction to the message that the instinct is to remove the message. Perhaps it is the policy which should be molded to fit user expectations rather than the other way around - because there is no harm what-so-ever in allowing form letter spam to be removed from the talk page. -Aspectacle 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Why not just archive it? If you put such a big deal about a welcome or something like that, then you attract trolls like Raptors. See what happened at User talk:Ryudo how Raptors came after Ryudo said he didn't like the {{Welcome}} then Y0 came. — ク Eloc 貢 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Aspectacle, the average user actually says either thank you or just doesn't say anything. It's only the rare cases that complain about it. — ク Eloc 貢 02:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

i love welcome templates [1] and most of everyone does it too, only people who fail gets offended by being welcomed --Cursed Angel 02:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The welcome template has caused more harm than good. Imo delete it and prevent users from posting irrelevant welcomes and we'll get rid of these problems and don't need to modify any policies. (welcome templates have started multiple policy discussions lately...) -- (gem / talk) 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Or better yet, delete {{Welcome}} and reject this policy as this policy kind of sprung up as Anon didn't like the {{Welcome}} — ク Eloc 貢 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like an explicit "yes you can move discussions from your user talk page to appropriate topical pages". -- Gordon Ecker 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

People keep discussing the welcome template, this isn't a ban on welcome templates, you can still post them and people can still find them useful. This just lets people remove them, or anything else which doesn't have an explained reason for being. If we implement this and decide later on there was something it missed which should be kept you can always propose it. Don't prevent things which are common sense of have no negative impact, allow them. NOTE: This does not ban you from saying things on talk pages, or even discourage it. All it does is allow people to delete things instead of archive them. Anon

If the solution is to allow removal of non-wiki business talk from pages cases like the welcome page are important. I don't mind the welcome template staying if people can remove it as per your suggestion. If the strict talk policy stays then stop the idea of welcoming random users so people are less likely to get unfriendly rule wrist slaps when their second edit ever on the wiki is to remove the welcome. -Aspectacle 06:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help or hinder the convo- but thats the same thrust behind Guild Wars Wiki:Harassment. -elviondale (tahlk) 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New Section to Differentiate from the Welcome Template Discussion

This policy is not about welcome templates, it has a much broader scope. The idea is a user will have the ability to remove comments from their page provided it is not a warning from an admin. I have changed it again to clarify if a wiki related discussion has no page to be moved to, it can be deleted.

Glossary: Remove: To manually remove text from a page by writing over top it, or pressing the backspace/delete key. The previous versions of the page are still preserved in the page history. Anyone can perform this action. Delete: To use a special wiki tool to delete the page from existence, at least to the eye of the average user. Deleted pages turn into a red link and the page history is gone too. Only admin can delete pages and possibly view or restore deleted pages.

A few things to keep in mind (these questions assume the "warning" case is accounted for):

• Is any wiki related topic which occurs on a person's user page so important it can't be removed?

As I have said before; if it is vital to an article it should take place on that article's discussion page, not mine or anyone else's talk page.

• Why can't we "delete", as in request admin to delete, the page? (Currently not in the policy, although the words "delete" and "remove" appear to have been used ambiguously in other policy. I would like to be able to delete the page but others have suggested it's not a good idea. I would still like to hear a discussion why).

Are histories important enough that a differentiation between remove and delete should be made.

• Is there a reason to prevent someone from removing something from their talk page?

We don't need to even read them, let alone post on them so why can't we remove stuff from them.

• This does not allow users to mess with any page other than their own talk page.

Reasons why I think this change is needed:

• Removing comments from my own talk page when I don't want them there is the natural reaction as demonstrated by many users in relation to unwanted comments such as the welcome template (but not limited to).
• Archiving will over time create very large archives, most of which will likely never be used and may in fact limit the ability to find important information.
• Most of the comments made on talk pages are redundant and have shown to annoy users.
• A lack of reasons to not allow this change, (precaution isn't a reason, I might get hit by a bus when I walk outside to get the morning paper, does that mean I take the precautionary approach and not do it?)
• Unlike other policy proposals this DOES actually give more power to a user, but not in an area they can do much, if any, harm.

Anon

I don't have the time to answer in depth atm, but I'll post something quickly. One thing where preserving history is important (and preserving the content in viewable form in archives also helps this) are arbitration cases and sysops decisions about banning someone. If NPAs and such can be removed at will, it makes a future arbitration case that much harder when people need to scroll through article history of possibly thousands of edits instead of just going through the archives.

I'm not saying that this idea is completely bad, but I think it requires some rethinking and needs to be a bit more restrictive. -- (gem / talk) 10:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, I agree that users should be allowed to remove some things from their own page. Some, though - what the Anon above has mentioned is more than what I think should be removed. Things that I believe should be removed are:

• The welcome template. IMO it has caused far more harm than good. Worse, it's one of the things that makes an user feel like he's not welcome in this wiki: someone registers, then a random person posts what's obviously a template on his talk page, and when he removes it, the template is added back and the person is warned that he has just broken a policy. In other words, the first thing added to a new user's talk page is a template, the second is a warning about a policy breach. What kind of welcome is this?
• Anything not related to the wiki. If someone just posts a "hello, how are you?" in my talk page and we talk for a few seconds, I see no need to keep that conversation after it has ended, and no betterment for the wiki thanks to keeping it there.
• NPA breaches and vandalism. I believe we only empower vandals and trolls when we let them know how what they add to our talk pages cannot ever be removed. Gem has a good point about it making it harder for the adminds to keep track of all an user has done, but I think said point has some problems:
  • We already make reverts when vandalism is done to an article. Yet the information is not lost - when necessary, sysops are currently capable of finding that kind of information easily.
  • Today, a sysop already needs to use some kind of help in order to find what a vandal/troll has done. It's not viable for an admin to look at all user pages and then find where the vandal has posted; the admins need to rely on previous reports (such as notes made on the Admin Noticeboard), on the list of contributions made by the vandal, and on the community to let the sysop know what the vandal has done (as we see on the ArbComm discussions, for example). It is then on the best interest of each user to know where vandalism and NPA breaches are, among all the edits in his/her page, so he may easily point such behavior when an admin asks for it.
  • The wiki keeps old revisions for a long time. Taking a look at "Special pages -> Articles with the most revisions", we would see that the article with most edits so far has been the main page - and even it still has the very first edit in which it was created.

Everything else - wiki related discussions - should be kept, IMO. Some moves would be awkward, while still being important enough to be useful for someone else. Erasculio 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Violations of NPA are removed already, not by will but as a rule so I don't understand Gem's comment. Admin would still need to search through history to find the NPA violation, but I am not an admin, I assume they have some other kind of system in place, where if someone violates NPA, the Personal Attack is removed and some kind of reference is placed somewhere, if not then the current system doesn't seem to put much weight on personal attacks as it is. How many edits the main page doesn't seem relevent to me, it's not a user talk page. I still can't see clearly why anyone would want an archive on a person's user page aside from warnings. If anything this policy will remove all the garbage from a page and let people find the warnings easily. If a discussion about something wiki related is sooooo important it needs to be kept and it's not specifically about a user, it should be placed on the appropriate talk page, not someone's user page. Anon

I have more time for posting now if my computer doesn't bother me again with it's new bluescreenish sickness. :(

• I agree with allowing to remove the welcome template.
• I agree with removing vandalism, but that's allready stated in another policy
• I agree dealing with personal attacks according to the NPA policy, no need to wirte NPA rules in other policies
• I agree with allowing to remove discussions unrelated to the wiki such as 'cu on msn', 'hows life today', 'spam pyramid', etc.

I don't agree with removing anything else. -- (gem / talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removing of vandalism and personal attacks. — ク Eloc 貢 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with Gem -elviondale (tahlk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I know people have said they disagree with removing anything else from Gem's list. I haven't seen a lot of explanation for why? Why not? What would be so important on a user talk page which is justified on a user talk page and not an appropriate article talk page? BTW personal attacks is already in the current policy, it is not a part of this proposal (I did not add it, it was already there). Please use the "difference from current policy" to see specifically what this proposal is about. 122.104.227.192

Note that 'removing' and 'moving' are two different things. Basically another way to write my list is:

• You are allowed to move any wiki concerning discussion on another wiki talk page if that page is more appropriate for the discussion.
• You are allowed to remove anything not related to the wiki.
• Vandalism and personal attacks are handled like other policies dictate.

-- (gem / talk) 14:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gem, the only problem I have with your list is that it leaves the Welcome template (and welcome messages) out of it. I can't find a way myself to word a list so it includes the welcome thing but excludes anything else related to the wiki. I agree with everything that is currently written there, though. Erasculio 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Woops, the first list had the special bullet point for the welcome template, I just forget it from the second one. So yes, I do want people to be able to remove it. -- (gem / talk) 00:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys are either ignoring what this policy is about and the questions for your position, or you are talking about things which this policy is not about. If you want to ban welcome templates or do anything about them propose your own change, this is about removing everything aside from the warning which are used for decision making. I have asked for justification for why anything else should stay and I have yet to see it aside from what you personally feel, as opposed to a structured logical reason. Anon

(Reset indent) Actually they aren't talking about banning them. They are talking about finding some provision to allow the removal of them and how Gem forgot to include that in the reiteration of his points. -elviondale (tahlk) 06:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying this isn't about welcome templates, this is about a much broader issue. If they want a crusade on welcome templates I would appreciate it if they took it elsewhere. It is not what this policy is about (only a small part of it, and even then only under a broad heading) and I feel it is detracting from the conversation. For the same reasons people want to remove welcome templates I feel the same reason applies to any other comments a user puts on my page. How is anyone saying they don't like my signature colour absoulutely vital to archive? What about someone saying I have named a signature image incorrectly? What about someone who says "your general commenting style is stupid and retarded, please stop it"? These things on my page are not vital to the wiki and are fucking annoying, more so than a stupid welcome template. Just because some of the people in this discussion don't use welcome templates, they have nothing to lose in removing them, but their spam about how they feel about my contributions or someone elses is vital and can't be gotten rid of. Anon

"I have asked for justification for why anything else should stay and I have yet to see it aside from what you personally feel, as opposed to a structured logical reason." That's because every policy on this wiki really is based on what the users 'personally feel'. We don't do decisions that we don't like. Yes, you have made your point clear that you think that anything but sysop warnings can be removed as non-vital information. However I and Erasculio were saying that we don't think that anything wiki related should be removed. Yes, you have a point in saying that most of it isn't vital to the wiki, but it's not a reason for why the stuff should be removed isntead of archived. -- (gem / talk) 10:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As talk pages are used for talking with someone i see no use in archiving old discussions, no one needs to read it. As for warnings like uploading an image wrong or doing something wrong if the user is new i think he should be able to be remove it after that he'd read it and understood what he did wrong. --Cursed Angel 10:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If we include every special case where a user is and isn't allowed to remove a specific thing then instead of a policy we have a hundred page essay, and that's not a good thing. Policies need to be kept simple. -- (gem / talk) 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

yah, forgot about that, youre right --Cursed Angel 10:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

;) -- (gem / talk) 10:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Gem I would suggest you stay away from policy discussions if to you they are about what you "personally feel". Policies are supposed to make sense and be good for the wiki. If you make decisions based on how you feel, you will likely not form logical proposals and will likely not do what is best for the wiki. How you feel is neither a justifiable nor defend able reason. Seeing as no actual reason to reject this proposal has been brought aside from what someone personally feels, with no logical basis even when requested, I say we go ahead and bring it in. SystemisFlawed

IMO, Gem is right. And, as he said, he's using the same argument the anon here is - the Anon feels like it's the right thing to be allowed to remove some things, and he sees no reason not to do so; Gem feels like it's not a good idea to remove those things, and I agree with him. Let me use two of the examples mentioned above by the Anon to explain why:

• "What about someone who says 'your general commenting style is stupid and retarded, please stop it'?" - that's a NPA breach. Today, he is already allowed to remove that kind of thing. With the changes proposed above by me and Gem, he would have even more room for things he could delete.
• "What about someone saying I have named a signature image incorrectly?" - see, this kind of thing is my main problem with this idea. The Anon mentioned how he thinks we should be allowed to remove everything expect warnings. But the difference between what's a warning and what's just a reminder of a policy is very thin - and one important difference is in how many times that reminder has been said. An user who has named his signature image incorrectly is breaching a policy - we don't say this or punish every person who does that because many of those users simply did not know about that policy. But an user who insists on using an incorrect name for his signature image is breaching a policy willingly, and thus he is going to suffer the repercussions of that. Notice how the only difference here is that some users were acting before they were told what's the "right" thing, and the others were acting despite being told what the right thing is - if you remove the first reminder (which isn't a warning, as it's intended to sound just like a friendly reminder), that difference would be lost. Things like this give just too much room for arguments - anyone would be able to make a long discussion about what is and what isn't a warning, thus trying to remove something like my example above, and it would be just a waste of time. It's easier, faster and simpler to just forbid users from removing anything wiki related (with an exception being made for the welcome template). Erasculio 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. and @ SystemisFlawed- that made no sense. Gem's verbage conveyed that that was his opinion- you saying that he can't let his opinion affect the matter is a bit.. wrong? just a little bit maybe ^.^ -elviondale (tahlk) 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A warning is something which is used in ArbCom, it is something which is used for bans or administrative action. For that reason it is absolutely vital that there be no confusion, ambiguity or vagueness about what is a warning and what is a friendly reminder. For example, I have said this elsewhere on the wiki, some things are not a breach of policy which some users beleive they are. Some people interpret vague parts of policy different, these users sometimes post "warnings" or friendly reminders on a person's talk page when they did not in fact breech a policy, and so the warning was moot anyway. I strongly beleive, for the reasons above (this is supporting "what I feel" with logic) that a warning should be strongly identifiable to ensure users don't have this problem. If they were, the problem you have cited with this policy would be resolved, so the flaw doesn't in fact come from my proposal change, but what appears to be an ambiguity in another process on the wiki. Anon

Let me say it in other words, then: if you do something (minor) wrong once, you'll be told it was wrong and what's the proper way of doing it. That's not a warning. If you insist on doing it wrong, despite being told what's the proper way, you will be warned. But if you have removed the first comment, the other users won't know that you had already been told what's the proper way of doing whatever, and would then repeat the same explanation instead of making the proper warning.

We deal differently with someone who has acted out of ignorance and someone who has acted out of malice. That's how it should be, IMO, so that's not a problem (or ambiguity) - but that's a difference that is lost under the policy you have proposed. Erasculio 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't thinka ny user should be allowed to make a warning, something which is to be considered in admin decisions should be official enough to be done by an admin, at least in this case. It isn't lost seeing as the current proposal uses the word "remove" instead of "delete" and thus such a comment is retained in the page history and will be easily identified by the person who made the initial warning. I wouldn't mind betting users with larger multiple archives who receive "warnings" the people who post them don't bother to check through the archives to identify if prior warnings had been given, which would make this a moot point functionally anyway. The only time I have heard of an archive being used was for warnings before bans in arb comm. Most people will never even search archives, even when asked (Gem repeatedly refuses to do things like this, yet is so strongly defending archives). To cite examples I have these which I just quickly chose: If you are going to update a page, please try to use the preview button instead of the submit button until you are done updating the page. This is to help with not flooding the recent changes page. Just a friendly notice. - or this, Could you sign with four tildes (Anon 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)) instead of just three? Four includes the date as well, which is most useful. Thanks or even this; Just letting you know that I added a redirect to the image in your user signature according to this policy and also you should probably re-upload the image under the recommended name from that same policy. I don't mean to sound like a jerk I'm just letting you know about some of the rules. Which of these constitute warnings, or are even about policy breeches? Anon

I know I'm a little late to this comment, but if you're implying that something is lacking in Gem's admin abilities, you should realize that's because he isn't one. -elviondale (tahlk) 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{RI) Yet, the community has chosen to run this wiki in such way that admins are not the only ones capable of enforcing a policy: any user is free to point to someone else a policy breach, hopefully to avoid the lack of knowledge that lead an user to breach a policy. Those friendly notices you have mentioned are exactly about this: none of your examples are warnings (therefore you claim they should be removed), yet they often are about policies (such as Sign your comments for the third example, and the "rules" mentioned in the fourth example). If the user in the fourth example reverted back his signature, despite being told about the signature policy, then he would be warned - removing that notice would only confuse others (and that's something easily seen - go back to the pages from which you took your examples, and you'll notice how there aren't multiple users giving the same "friendly notice", even if the first one is already in the archives). This is different, say, from an user whose archive has multiple pages - you'll notice that the users in this wiki with such long archives are the sysops, bureaucrats and others who know the policies well enough to enforce them. Erasculio 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is all three of them are warnings or could be interpreted as such, yet not all of them are violations of policy but mereley ettiquete. If a warning is to be used on some official basis there needs to be a strong definition of it to prevent confusion with these examples on who was warned and whether they believe something to be a warning. There should be a strict clarification on this, and on who can make a warning (I have seen admin confuse policy before) if they are to be taken so seriously. Anon

Why? A rigid system in which we have to say with all letters what's a policy breach would likely scare new users (as they would be warned about behaviors they simply didn't know wasn't allowed). The entire idea, IMO, is to not take warning so seriously all the time, and that's why I think your idea (to remove everything in the user talk page except warnings) does not work. There are many different degress of "warnings", from friendly notices to the "do this or else" ones, and all those kinds have a role in this wiki. Erasculio 17:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice as well that only some of them mention rules, or a rule violation. The one about signatures is merely a request and quotes no rule or violation, and thus couldn't be considered a serious warning. The reality of there being different degrees of warning makes it even more important to define them. I think I have demonstrated pretty clearly how the current interpretation, or misinterpretation of what constitutes a warning is severely flawed. Anon

I disagree (not to mention how about the signature one is about GWW:SIGN). The idea that a "serious warning" is about a policy breach and non serious ones would be for ettiquete breaches if flawed, IMO - using the former for a breach made out of ignorance would only scare users, and using only the later would prevent us from giving harsh warnings to users with disruptive behavior who avoids directly breaching policies. In the end, the current definition of what is and what isn't a warning is very good - it's vague enough so the users are free to adapt it to fit any given circunstance, without having to worry with extremely articial rules. Changing that definition would only hurt the wiki, IMO; changing that definition just because of this policy proposal would be a huge waste (and in the end it would likely accomplish little). Erasculio 17:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(bloody long response :P reset indent) Can there really be comments that are so extremely annoying that you cannot even tolerate their very existence on archive pages? As I've asked before, this issue may result in selective removal of comments that may put things out of context unless one digs through history. Why open the door for such issues? Don't look at those archives that you hate so much. I have no problems with the removal of totally irrelevant stuff like welcome, or idle chat, things that are totally unrelated to the wiki (although I would accept it only if such things are removed on a section-basis, not on a sentence basis).

One significant difference between removal and deletion is that a deletion will also delete from user contributions, making it impossible for users to tell whether someone has ever commented on another's talk page. That might not seem significant, and is probably only useful in exceptional circumstances, but it still is a difference nonetheless, so if anything, removal is far better than deletion.

And as for the removal of friendly reminders and soft warnings, I would have to disagree as well. Searching an archive is by far easier than searching history. A fully-retained page of 1000 edits can be searched by using only one or more use of Ctrl-F. A search on a page with a history on 1000 edits can possibly require 999 separate clicks on the diff plus Ctrl-F. So yea, I'd much prefer people archive than remove. Because the archive pages are not used by everyone, it should not be kept at all? All or none? If you feel that all those users who post reminders/warnings don't bother looking at archives, shouldn't we actually encourage them to look at archives instead of making it even more incovenient for them by asking to scroll through history?

The argument of what constitutes a warning and what doesn't is irrelevant. The fact is that it is far easier to be able to see upfront that a user has already been notified about something than it is to force someone to look through the talk page history before posting. Consider this hypothetical example: Erasculio politely notifies you that your sig icon is using the wrong name. You comply by re-uploading it under the correct name but you didn't bother tagging your old sig icon for deletion and did not change existing talk pages, but you did went ahead and removed his comment first. I then also noticed your sig icon name, and I also drop by to let you know about it. You grit your teeth in frustration and perhaps curse me a little but tolerate it and then proceed to remove my comment as well. Then, say Gem, also comes around and notices your sig icon, and yet again tells you about it... and then you get really annoyed and lashed out at Gem. It's a simplistic example but it's certainly possible. This is avoidable when you can't remove Erasculio's first reminder, Gem and I would see that Erasculio has already told you about it and we'll just leave you alone. If you archived, we may or may not check your archive, but the probability of us checking your archive is higher than us checking your talk page history and clicking through them. -- ab.er.rant 11:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything Aberrant said, but I would like to reinforce something: if we accept Gem's list of things an user may remove from his talk page, I think the only way to do so should be by removing sections, not individuals comments. Erasculio 11:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)