Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

• UI Spoofing archive (2007)
• Temporary userpage template archive (2008)

There was a discussion about this previously and I believe it was the complexity of the question that contributed to making it result in "no consensus." However, I believe that perhaps a different conclusion could be reached if simpler questions could be asked. These are "yes or no" questions:

Two "yes or no" questions:

1. Should administrators have the discretion to blank user pages because they belong to a banned/indeffed user?
2. Should administrators have the discretion to blank user talk pages because they belong to a banned/indeffed user?

It should be noted that "because they belong to a banned/indeffed user" is the caveat. It does not include blanking due to other reasons (because of sockpuppetry, disreputable material, etc.). Both questions are unrelated to the question of taging any pages.

Again, I emphasize that these are "yes" or "no" (or "no opinion") questions. Please state the reason for whichever answer you give. --New questions? 17:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No to 1 and No to 2: The user pages and talk pages are helpful to this encyclopedia and do promote collaboration because as long as they have a contribution history, even if they are no longer participants, they were once participants in the past. Their contributions remain on this encyclopedia, and unless we are going to remove all contributions they make permanently from this Wikipedia, seeing what they have on their user page can help in improving or managing those pages they have contributed to in the past, even if it was several years ago, and I would say that it would be helpful even if a thousand years passed because their contributions are still there and have left their mark and these pages help people understand such contributions. The same goes for their talk page, perhaps even more so.--New questions? 17:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• User:New questions seems to me to be answering the questions as though they referred to deleting the pages, not to blanking them. His/her point about it being useful to be able to refer back to old contributions is perfectly valid, but it is not at all difficult to look at the history of a blanked page. In fact, in many cases the vast majority of the edits to the page have already been removed, so that a check of the history is needed to see them. Is there any special reason why the edits which happened to be still visible when the block took place should have a special status? It would, in my opinion, be totally unhelpful to introduce a restriction on blanking user pages and talk pages in this situation. It is very often helpful to blank a page of an ex-user, for various reasons, including WP:DENY, removing offensive content, removing trolling, etc etc. It is, in particular, normal practice to blank a user page of an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet, and replace its contents with a just a sockpuppet template. I see no reason at all for introducing a prohibition on doing this, nor for introducing a restriction to administrators doing so, as the questions seem to imply. The notion that someone who is considered so disruptive that he/she cannot be allowed to edit Wikipedia ever, can nevertheless be allowed to dictate that certain content is to stay on display for ever is, frankly a weird one. In short, yes, yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Yes. And the blanker doesn't need to be an administrator. Indeed, the blocker should be expected to blank an inappropriate user page or usertalkpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes and yes. Especially in the cases of banned users. It's frequently useful when leaving an indefinite block notice or a {{schoolblock}} notice to remove several screens full of warnings, block notices, etc. to leave only the active block notice and any relevant discussion (as per WP:BLANKING). In the case of schools, {{ow}} is usually placed at the top of the talk page when this is done. Removing that material makes the task of replying to any unblock requests or discussion much easier and in these two situations (indeffed/banned users and schoolblocks), you're not losing any material content. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to both for blanking, No to both for deletion. Page deletions should go through the normal process. LK (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes what Lawrencekhoo said (YES blank / NO delete) Reason, per JamesBWatson NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes for blanking. (I can imagine specific situations with specific comments that might warrant deletion, but in that case, there would be a separate reason for deletion.) --j⚛e decker^talk 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much along the same lines as Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12#Too_many_RfCs._Require_a_seconder_for_every_RfC, this RfC was too easily submitted and the system would have benefited from the user being required to find any other user to agree to his question. Can we close it now? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No to both. Provides no benefit to the encyclopedia, doesn't make any articles better. NE Ent 14:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone mind if I remove that "ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect" may not be removed from talk pages by the user? I just noticed an editor try to remove such a restriction, only to be reverted by an admin citing this guideline. It seems unfair, because ArbCom restrictions could be in effect for years, which means the talk-page notice becomes a permanent badge of shame. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should not be removed while in effect as this page states. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be a practical guideline, a random look at a number of talk pages of editors who have been subject to arbcom restrictions clearly shows that it isn't being applied anyway, so let's get rid of it. --regentspark (comment) 23:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was added Sep. 24, 2010. Should we check archives for consensus?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be in archive 8, but I can't see anything there. The Sept 24 edit didn't explicitly refer to the ArbCom, just WP:RESTRICT; I can't see where the reference to the ArbCom was added. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was converted to "ArbCom...." March 18, 2011, with the edit summary "clarify....". Be bold and just remove it. If anyone wants to add it back then they can search archives for any consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we are to impose such badges of shame against people, then we need a clear and reasoned decision to do so. If there was none, then this page has no reason to assert that there is such a rule. Victor Yus (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. WP:RESTRICT serves the purpose in a much preferrable way. NE Ent 14:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to cut the following:

Userspace is also not a substitute for project space (Wikipedia:...), nor should a userspace page be used as primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or established concept. If your user page related to the project becomes widely used or linked in project space, or has functional use similar to a project page, consider moving it into project space or merging it with other similar pages already existing there.

"Userspace is also not a substitute for project space (Wikipedia:...)

• No, userspace is often used similarly to Project space. Many old time Wikipedians have documentation and explanations in userspace that are quite decent.

", nor should a userspace page be used as primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or established concept.

• Every Project page should be self-documenting, or relying on an associated documentation page, yes. But what does this sentence mean? Does it mean that you may not document things in your userspace? You may. Does it mean that it cannot be the "primary" documentation? "Primary"? Well, the primary documentation is on the page itself. Does it mean that your userspace documentation cannot exceed the official documentation in quality? surely this is not the intention. Probably, it means that Project page documentation is found in Project space? True leaning tautological, and not serving any purpose here.

  Any user is free to draft documentation on any project page in their userspace. The above language does not seem to give useful guidance to anyone, and should be cut as distracting from what is important.

"If your user page related to the project becomes widely used or linked in project space, or has functional use similar to a project page, consider moving it into project space or merging it with other similar pages already existing there."

• This is reasonable advice to an advanced Wikipedian. An advanced Wikipedian already knows about the possibility of moving their user essay into project space. This piece of advice aids no advanced Wikipedian. It can, however, mislead a beginner Wikipedian into thinking that if they have made something useful, they should move it to Project space. This is not true. It is especially not true if the Wikipedian doesn't know understand the fuzzy distinction between userspace and Project space.

  This last sentence should be removed as not appropriate as instruction to a beginning Wikipedian, and as teaching how to suck eggs for anyone else.

• The whole paragraph should be removed because its low useful-information density diminishes the usefulness of these Project pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph was added here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_pages&diff=next&oldid=378362514 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 06:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments:

1. This is an old, old item. It was introduced much earlier, in 2007 [1], and I think you misunderstood who wrote it. You should probably drop its creator a note of this discussion as he/she is still an active editor.
2. Looking at the aim of this: - A lot of useful work goes on in user pages and a lot of useful and well-used pages exist in userspace (scripts, personal reflections, statistics, guidance essays). However, important pages covering agreed policies, guidelines, and other formalized decisions and processes of the community, should be where users expect to find them, in community pages not fragmented and buried unexpectedly within individual users' 'personal' space. The point here is that if something is sufficiently useful or important (and not just optional, interesting or fun) to project knowledge, ideally a user should expect to find it in projectspace, not buried in userspace subpages. At the least, a link should be relatively easy to find, if a page created in one's personal pages does end up being of significant value to the community (such as an essay on some point) - a user should find it at least 'somewhat' easy to locate by users who are looking for the page on that item.

Perhaps reword something like this:

"Established pages that are important to community knowledge and processes, or are routinely cited as representing a community consensus, should generally be in project space (Wikipedia:) or easily located from project space. Formal processes, policies, guidelines, and (on occasion) high-impact pages whose community standing needs to be clear, should almost always be in project space."

(Note: I'm thinking also of pages such as WP:SPA, WP:DTR, WP:LAWYER which although technically classified as 'essays', should be in projectspace because they are so often cited as representing a community not a personal view)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think FT2 is right that I wrote the original version of that (or something like it). At the time, some essays and de facto guidelines were living in User space even though they already had wider community support / involvement. Having such documents in User space makes them harder to find, makes it harder to determine their level of significance, and was leading to the growth of cross-namespace links and redirects going from Wikipedia space to User space. If I recall correctly, there was a community discussion about a group of such pages in user space and a decision to move them to Wikipedia space, and the text was added here around the same time to discourage further issues of a similar nature. The text is not meant as a prohibition against all uses of User space for essays and such, but if a user page becomes widely cited and referred to be people other than its original author, then that page really should be migrated into the larger community space. Dragons flight (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original text in context makes sense. At the moment, its position, between STALEDRAFT and STALEDRAFT solutions, is a bit of an awkward arrangement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am opening this thread to specifically query whether IP template notices here, i.e. Static Ip/Shared Ip should be included with Blanking. I was recently involved in "lamest edit war ever" not my term but it was lame I agree. It was over the Shared Ip template, and several editors prior to myself and after myself readded it. I was the only one who violated 3rr. That was my fault for not seeing the bottom line about 3rr exemption it is not. SO anyways the IP was issued a short term block for this, this was promptly overturned it stating it was a stupid worthless template. That's their business their opinion but the question becomes from this, Do we still include it as something that shouldn't be blanked or do we remove it from the list because it's irrelevant? The only thing that I am aiming for is a discussion on the relevance of keeping it included, not rehash the whole situation please, it's a long story and there were screw ups from everyone, myself included. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)][reply]

FYI I've recently amended the provision to reflect the fact that it only relates to occasions where there is shared use of the IP address, to remove inclusion of the static IP and Whois templates.[2] Unfortunately the remaining templates are also often used not for their original purpose but as a weapon to intimidate and harass IP users. I would favour any remedy which prevents recurrences of these lame edit wars, including removing the provision altogether. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is something that should be eliminated let's do it. I'm sure that if it is that important there's a way it can be added to where it's not an option if it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's see what happens. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the removal of this. While I agree with removing it in most cases, the one exception where I think the headers does perform a worthwhile function is {{Shared IP edu}} ... I would like to see a label restored for cases where the shared IP tag identifies an educational institution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem too unreasonable. I would also say from experience that it is rare enough, outside the usual lame scenarios, for it not to cause the usual problems. We can add it back specifically. I would point out the risks involved however: given schoolblocks are usually in terms of years, we risk revoking talk page access for a considerable time over a single relatively unimportant incident (unless short-term protection is used). To take this discussion one step forward, we would probably have to consider {{Shared IP corp}}. Though it's roughly equivalent, I am not convinced it stands out to the same extent. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the ISP and CORP tags, while I have at times used them, have low enough value that the disadvantages generally outweigh any benefit that may be received from them. On the other hand, I view the school tag as having a net benefit, with the value to the project offsetting any potential disadvantages or risks.

The other one to consider is {{Shared IP gov}} - I honestly don't encounter this one too often, so don't have an opinion on it myself. When I do see the shared GOV tag, it's generally for a library; but, there are many other government entities - both regional and national. This one could probably use more discussion as well to determine consensus on if it's a net benefit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no objections; I'll wait another week, and if no further comments come up, I'll add back the item limited to shared IP tags that are specific to identifying an educational institution such as {{Shared IP edu}}.

As there has been no further support nor discussion of the ISP, Corp, or Gov tags, I will not mention those in the section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{staticip}} templates should remain - specifically when used to show an IP is NOT broadly shared (as in residential service) so repeat patterns of vandalism come from the same place. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(A) What was the original noble intent of these IP related templates? (B) For the sake of newbies who don't know their IPs from the AP, but want to open a good faith discussion with an IP, in my view these newbies would benefit if every IP talk page had a banner at the top to provide the newbie with basic IP education (static vs rolling and whatever else they should know). I'm not suggesting this as a template, but as a programmed-in default feature of IP talk pages. This idea is all about ed retention via education to improve satisfaction with the D part of BRD NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are articles that are moved, or meant for mainspace/articlespace allowed on the userpage or Talk:User?Curb Chain (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I have seen many users with copies of older article versions in user space still. They probably never get around to having admin delete them is all. If they are articles that violate policy then they can be deleted anytime though. Attack pages and contentious BLP, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a draft being worked on in good faith, yes. Best practice is to use a sandbox or sub page, in my opinion. However, just letting stuff sit there starts getting into WP:FAKEARTICLE aka WP:STALEDRAFT terrritory and should be deleted, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly evident from recent discussions here and here that there's a degree of interpretation going on regarding WP:BLANKING; specifically the part of the policy that states users may not remove

"declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction"

The problems appear to stem from that last phrase - opinions differ over what constitutes a "notice regarding an active sanction". Is it only templated messages, only statements from administrators involved with the case, any comment that relates to the block/ban, or something else? Does it even cover the actual block message itself? I think that, to avoid similar incidents to these in the future, the most expedient thing to do is to improve the wording of the policy to make the definition of "notices" clear.
Of course, in order to do that, we first have to agree on the definition. I have always interpreted it to mean any comment that might have a direct bearing on an unfamiliar administrator's reading of the case (i.e. templates, messages regarding the reason for the block, conditions suggested for unblock and so on; but not "haha, you're blocked" comments, commiserations, or tangential discussions that happen to mention the block in passing). I recognise, however, that this isn't the only position taken on this issue, so I'd welcome other opinions before looking at how best to rephrase the statement in the policy. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wanting to say we've already had this discussion before, and anything that a reviewing admin might be expected to want to see when considering an unblock request should not be blanked during the block. Anything else (chat) can be blanked. It might be in the archives. We could spell it out, but that simple definition seems adequate, and my understanding is that it is already supported by consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to open it up for any discussion, I'd like to open it up for all again. Forcing the block message to remain serves no purpose. The user is blocked. They know it. There is no reason to force a notice to the world about it. On the current note, if you suck so badly as an admin that you can't look at the talk page history, you don't deserve to review blocks. As a compromise, declined block notices should remain...along with sockpuppet notices (ongoing or proven), speedy and mfd tags. --Onorem (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said the same last time, but the consensus was still to keep the tags there [3]. This isn't the only discussion where consensus has already clearly been established on the tags. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did say the same thing last time. If we aren't to give our opinions again, close the discussion and link to the last one. Shutting down discussion seems to be the current trend. --Onorem (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, the word "notice" has to mean the notice of the block, regardless of whether the blocking admin uses a template (many do not). That said, I'm in favor of a broad construction of the word "notice", which would include any admin's comments about the block or an unblock. Also, those comments have to be after the block and while the block is active, not comments that led up to the block (it wasn't an active sanction then). I'm not sure I agree with Dennis there's a consensus on these issues, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Where WP:BLANKING says, "any other notice regarding an active sanction", the word "notice" ≠ "comment". And if an admin wants more info about a current block, then they should simply check the talk page history or confer with the blocking admin. But it is not an editor's obligation or responsibility to keep comments on their talk page to make an admin's job easier or more convenient. Admin Jayron32 even stated this in the discussion on IP 68's talk page. You cannot, and should not, force blocked editors to keep miscellaneous comments about the block on their talk page. Trying to mandate a blocked editor to wear a "badge of shame" in this manner is complete nonsense. A blocked editor cannot remove their block notice. Fine. A blocked editor cannot remove any of their declined unblock requests for that block. Fine. But as far as other comments that have to do with the block, they absolutely can and should be able to remove them. Doing so obviously is an acknowledgement that they've been read and received, so trying to force them to keep all of them on their talk page is cruel and unnecessary, and simply a way of trying to embarrass the editor. Clearly, if the intent of the policy was to say that nothing related to a current block could be removed, then it obviously would just say that directly, so that there is absolutely no ambiguity. But it does not say that for a reason. It is very carefully specific by using the word "notice" because it is not referring to general comments. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a link to another discussion. Post this discussion, there was some battling as to what the consensus was for the language. Without giving diffs for that interim battle, the current language was put in place on June 10, 2012, with this edit. Whether there was any battling after that I didn't check.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis summed it up well: "Anything that a reviewing admin might be expected to want to see when considering an unblock request should not be blanked during the block." If in doubt, it should stay. Snarky comments don't belong there. Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything removed can easily be found in the talk page history. So why do they have to be displayed?? You don't shame an editor just to make an admin's job easier. There is absolutely no need to force an editor to display comments they don't want there. Please, give me a break. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There really are some good reasons. Often, discussions get derailed because outsiders claim someone said something they didn't say because they misread the history, etc. If everyone else stayed off the users talk page, it would be one thing, but threading through a variety of deletes, additions and deletes is an unnecessary burden, and in extreme cases can cause errors. If it was ONE blanking, that would be trivial, but someone that has been blocked for a long time might have a dozen blankings or at least more than one, so there is no one version in the history that has all the information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: An edit to the page from 00:40, 3 March 2012 by Amatulic (talk · contribs) is a relevant edit, which intentionally narrowed the scope of what should not be removed. The related talk discussion for that edit was pretty short, and can be found at Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 10#Removing active block notices, part VII.

I haven't dug into the related discussions as yet to investigate past consensus ... for now, I'm just pointing out a relevant edit that changed the scope of the section being discussed here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Amatulic's edit. However, as I posted above, a later edit in June of last year put in the current language. As I recall, it said it was based on an RFC on the talk page, but I didn't look for the RFC because I was and am exhausted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page discussion related to my edit last year contains a link to a longer talk page discussion, if that helps any.

I haven't checked into the discussion on this page since then, but up to the time I made that edit, the prevailing practice (as I recall) was to allow blanking of pretty much anything except declined unblock request and notices of arbcom-imposed sanctions.

Personally I agree with the above sentiment expressed that content related to an unblock request should not be blanked. It would make most sense to allow blanking of block notices if the blocked editor chooses not to contest the block, but anything related to a contested block should not be blanked until the block is lifted. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is worthless without proper advertising. (be it RFC or whatever.) I don't care anymore. I'm only planning to respond to direct statements that relate to me or just clear stupidity that needs to be responded to. --Onorem (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Dennis, please provide proof for the claim you made on IP 68's talk page that "editors can't remove anything relating to the block while they are blocked. This has always included discussions about the behavior or the block" (emphasis added). You have been asked multiple times to provide any relevant diffs or links. And I'm sorry that you consider it an undue "burden" to possibly have to look through an editor's talk page history, which is a very easy process. But that's your job. Making things more convenient for an admin does not even come close to overriding an editor's right not to be humiliated on their talk page. So, please, stop with this inconvenience rationale. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The essay at Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments interprets our policy at Wikipedia:User pages in the following way:

"There are only four types of messages that a user should not remove: declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is still in progress) and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors. These templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question but also to communicate with others."

That seem to be quite specific and clear, and it is evident that a large number of administrators and editors agree with the above interpretation. This can be easily confirmed by looking at the "what links here" for the essay and seeing how many times users have been told to read it and follow the advice contained in it.

I can see nothing in any policy that justifies expanding this (as has been claimed on 68.50.128.91s talk page) into a policy that a user cannot remove "warnings he received before getting blocked", "anything relating to the block while they are blocked", or "discussion relevant to the block".

In my opinion, "these templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question but also to communicate with others" is the key to applying this policy correctly. the reason why you cannot remove a confirmed sockpuppetry notice is because you are not being notified, but rather other editors who come to your talk page are being notified. Likewise for shared IP header templates; they are not just for notifying you as an IP editor, but also the other IP editors who share the IP address.

On the other hand, other user warnings and talk page discussions are addressed to the talk page user. Claiming that the next admin might want to see the warning or discussion and can't be bothered to look at the history is an invalid argument; it can be applied to pretty much anything posted on a user talk page.

Given the clear disagreement about this policy interpretation, I think that an RfC on the issue should be posted. Does anyone else (perhaps someone who is not involved in the policy interpretation dispute) wish to post an RfC, or should I? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I think that if you were to post such an RFC, it would be a very good thing. Toddst1 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What is typically said at ANI doesn't match what is said in the linked discussions, which often don't match each other. It looks like there is less consensus than I thought, and I am happy to conform whatever the consensus is, if we can just get one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have a silly customer who actually expects me to finish the design he paid me for before the deadline, but I will get to it in a day or two. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Guy, it's already done. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_WP:BLANKING. Worms, anyone? I've just cracked open a fresh can... Yunshui 雲‍水 02:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I was going to let people comment on my wording and address any objections before posting it.

First your RfC lists "Not otherwise covered by WP:BLANKING, but both sides of this dispute claim that their position complies with WP:BLANKING.

Next, your RfC lists

• Block template
• Declined unblock template
• Comment by the reviewing admin that is directly and unambiguously tied to a declined unblock template

While my proposed list, which is the list from Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments, is:

• Declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect
• Confirmed sockpuppetry notices
• Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is still in progress)
• Shared IP header templates for unregistered editors

I can't help wishing that the interpretation found in the most-referred-to essay on the topic was included as a choice. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information at WP:DRRC is taken directly from WP:BLANKING - however, it omits any discussion of "other notices relating to active sanctions", and only covers those elements which are specifically delineated in the policy. Your proposal is basically to remove the disputed text from the policy - that's a perfectly valid option, in fact it's the first of the options I suggested. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the "can of worms" has already been opened... Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_WP:BLANKING I have to ask whether any of the restrictions listed in WP:BLANKING has full community consensus. For example, I see no reason why a user can not remove a declined unblock template from their own user page once they have read it. It's not like removing it would change anything. The block remains in place... the reasons why the unblock was declined remain part of the record (and admins know to look in the page history if they need to examine the record.) It does not really matter if the template is removed from view on the page itself. So why do we require the user to keep it?
The same is true for the other notices and tags listed in the section. Removing the notice or tag does not change anything... so why do we require keeping them visible?
What is the purpose of requiring the user to keep the tag/template/notice? Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheListUpdater/Anchor list, this provision as it is currently written encourages deletion of a contributor's draft work at random, even when such removal is functionally unnecessary, and regardless of whether it is actually counterproductive to the contributor or to the greater project. In the case of those whose editing patterns suggest that they are on the fence about contributing to our project, this is particularly bad mojo because it erodes their perception and trust of our community's organizational structure — a serious complication later recognized by this guideline in WP:UP#DELETE.   — C M B J   10:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All of WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:UP#COPIES & WP:STALEDRAFT were added without discussion, are oversimplistic ONEWORDS, and have lead to decrease in intelligence in MfD nominations. They are regularly cited as if the association with the one word is sufficient reason for deletion, without any apparent need to read even the paragraph they shortcut to. I think these shortcuts should be removed. Nominators shoud be expected to be prepared to read whole paragraphs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true of many or most who cite this provision, but TPH has historically been one of the most effective XfD nominators and I would be surprised to see him make a case based on misunderstanding of a shortcut. The root issue here is that the provision wrongfully legitimizes deletion of TheListUpdater's drafts (not to mention editorial notes) and that's something we really need to address. I suggest that we rewrite it to focus on minimizing visibility of confusing content while emphasizing preservation of actual work, as in the above discussion, for example.   — C M B J   12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TPH is a very unreliable nominator at MfD when he cites just a shortcut. Whether he doesn't read the paragraph linked I don't know, but he doesn't provide the reviewers a minimum nomination with the bare link. I think this is digressing. Why don't you make the edit you think is needed so that you may be better understood? The advice is meant to be advice to the user about their own userpage, and is not meant to be advice on finding and deleting other's userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HISTORY; Some notion that userspace is not an execuse for bypassing NPOV has been part of this since at least 2006, the first year this guideline exists. See for example This 2006 version which lists things userspace should not contain, including "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia"

In addition, a separate section addressing article-like text has been part of this guideline for a full six years. I think it was first added in April 2007.

KEEP SECTION; In my view, where stuff survives the test of time and is repeatedly cited, that's a more than adequate substitute for discussion. In addition, there was no requirement to get prior evidence of consensus, before the initial addition of these ideas, per WP:PGCHANGE. That said, if there is a better way to expunge inappropriate userspace content while still respecting editors whose user space text was posted in good faith, then we should make those changes (whatever they are).

Are there proposed improvements on the table, or are we just philosophizing here?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to make an edit sometime tomorrow.   — C M B J   14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]