Forum:User talkpage policy change proposition

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

This poll is closed. Please revote on this poll as the proposal has been revised to include the blocking procedure.- The message has been approved by KingClyde and Jspoelstra.

Based on the comments and closure of the previous voting forum thread, I want to re-open the vote on the talkpage policy change. Every vote will count equal, runtime will be 7 days. I have discussed this in agreement with Kingclyde.

Following the discussion about removing comments from user talkpages I hereby suggest a change in the policy. Here's the addition to the policy:

A Yes vote counts for the suggested change in the policy, No means no change.

Poll

Poll finished on 3:30 pm March 4, 2012 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Votes

• Jspoel 15:20, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
• GobTheGoul (talk) 14:57, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
• MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity!
• ^Skål!
• KiwiBird
• Agent c 19:49, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
• I suppose I can see that this may help. I hope we don't turn this in to a 'ban off the bat' offense. I still don't agree with the requirements for archiving. -- 19:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 19:57, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

In my time here (and I've always been around in the past 16 months) my experience has been that people 9 out of the 10 cases try to hide a negative comment from an admin/moderator which previously led to a ban on more than one occasion. That has made it harder for admins to keep track on a users' history. So I think we should add the rule. Jspoel 15:20, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Definitley Jspoel we need to be able to trace a rogue user's past activity and comments from other users and this is the easiest way of letting us do so. The Australian Kiwi 17:23, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

There's just not a real reason to actually delete anything from your talk-page when you can simply archive it. Insults and vandalism of course can be removed, as noted above, but any other reasons than that falls into a sleazy category that should be taken into account by us - the administrators. I also can understand wanting complete freedom and less authoritative interference, but that is just not practical on a wiki such as this one. ^Skål! 17:25, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any particular freedom being violated . A user does not "own" their talk page, it is the communities page in order to facilitate communications to a user, all users share a common right to any given talk page - users already have their own pages in their user page and sandbox. Agent c 19:52, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

@Ryan: I don't think I've ever seen a case where we banned someone for blanking their talk-page. If someone did, then it was either an extreme case or the banner in question would be the one in the wrong. ^Skål! 19:57, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

I know we haven't but I'm saying it shouldn't be that way. Like, break that rule, instantly baned, you know what I mean? This appears as though it will pass, it was just a forethought. -- 20:02, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable concern, I think. I don't think anyone would take it that far if this policy change passes, but we'll have to keep an eye out nevertheless. ^Skål! 20:05, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

There are no rules that result in immediately banning unless it's certainly to be done in bad faith (eg vandalizing). Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 20:13, March 4, 2012 (UTC)