Meta talk:Deletion policy/Archives/2014

Proposed addition

I propose to add text explicitly allowing users to blank their own talk page or user page(s) to this policy. This issue has come up recently, and I think it should be mentioned somewhere. Although deletion is quite different from blanking, I believe this policy would be the best place to add it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Has it ever been a problem ? Users can do whatever they want in their user page.... unless this is the only page for which they are not blocked from editing and where there's a notification banner informing them (and others) about their status (but anyway such public statement about the blocked status of a user should not be editable and should probably not bepart of the editable wiki code of their page, the information banner should be added automatically to their user page by a MediaWiki addin.

The issue I know was about some users trying to hide a decision applied to their account. Such removal is not allowed as long as the user is blocked, but after that, they can delete the notification or move the notication into their own archive subpage (but bocked users cannot move their page to a new archive subpage as they cannot create any new pages). Blocked users can still submit new comments or replies to appeak their decision (because they cannot discuss it anywhere else, except by private emails sent to some admins or to the OTRS system or by contacting them by an IRC channel. verdy_p (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

An admin reverted (twice) a user removing content from his own talkpage recently, see here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You're just giveing an example if what I said. But technically this revert was against a blocked user trying to blank some decision made. As long as the decision is effective, that removal is not permitted, but later, if the user can come back, he may want to archive it somewhere else and there's no reason to refuse that and keep his talk page overlong. Blanking user pages by themselves is permitted (they can't really delete their page which is historied anyway if someone contests the contents of the user's talkpage archives. So this is a decision for some kind of edits or page moves, but this has nothing to do with the deletion of a page (only admins can "delete" pages, i.e. hide them to the public view, generally after an OTRS complain due to a copyright violation or some other legal injunction, possibly with an option also blocking its recreation). Most page deletions in fact are in fact either from OTRS, or are performed because the creator asked for it for speedy deletion, or because the community discussed about deleting some content; or to drop an old redirect left after the move of an incorrectly named page. verdy_p (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ottava Rima is not blocked, and was not blocked at the time. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

So IMHO he has the right to blank his own user page to maintain it at a sustainable level. This is not a deletion, he can archive it freely and his edits should not have been reverted twice by M7 (abusive reverts I think)...

Many users on Wikimedia cleanup their talk page regularly (with or without archiving) for faster access to it and easier reading and editing of newer discussions. Depending on discussion volumes, they can do that frequently, or once a year.

There's however a need to protect some old talk pages when the user is no longer living: when the community is informed, that user should be respected as he cannot defend his own past. Generally an admin will archive that talk page completely, and will replace it with a "tribute" page. But this can happen to any user pages when that user passes away and his family (or other legitimate successor) performs a request for this to the OTRS (the family coud also request for a full deletion of the account, except contents published in the collective work outside user talk pages).

On the opposite, discussions outside user talk pages (e.g. forums or this page) should not be blanked, they are collective by nature and must be able to track multiple opinions (except abuses such as: random junk, spams, copyvios, privacy violations, insults, profanity, pornography, racism, defending or calling for violence, letal threats, unfair impersonation of someone else, manipulation of votes...). For the rest, this can be discussed (including "errors" when there's no real consensus about who's wrong or right as things are not always as evident and opinions will need some mitigations to maintain our collective "NPOV" which is defined by plurality and clear separation/classification of contradicting views). Personnaly I am not a deletionist, I am inclusionist and I like seeing fair contradictions (even for opinions of a minority and even if I don't like these opinions). verdy_p (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. First, blanking has nothing to do with deletion policy. Second, Meta has never regulated this matter and removal from talk pages should not be explicitly allowed nor forbidden by policy. Either way would be surprising for many editors coming from projects having opposite policies. --Nemo 16:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  Meta needs to be welcoming for users of all wikis. This means (IMHO) we should be liberal in what is allowed. Users from wikis where this is allowed would (as they expected) not have their blankings reverted; users from wikis where this is forbidden would not have to worry about it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  "Meta needs to be welcoming for users of all wikis", my point exactly. Surprising regulation is never welcoming. I disagree they "would not have to worry about it"; if such a policy existed, for instance, they would need to know that it's more convenient to post replies on your own talk pages, in order to have control over them. --Nemo 16:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  You're right; I withdraw this proposal. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)