Shortcut: WT:UP

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

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Proposal to not delete talk pages for all indef users

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive137#Talk pages for indef users and WT:CSD#Proposal for U4

Original proposal: In a nutshell, I think we should clarify the issue of when to delete or not delete talk pages for indef. blocked users. I think there are situations where we do and should delete them, such as for vandals or trolls who might use them as "trophy" pages (or some other situation where WP:DENY would be a fair argument), but there are times when the talk page should simply be blanked and with the history preserved. I'm not sure how many people agree on this thinking, but I'm hoping we can find a criteria for what to delete and what not to delete that will be acceptable and functional. Thoughts on how we could word this? -- Ned Scott 05:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pages belonging to banned users, sock puppets and puppeteers, and long-term contributors should not be deleted. (I suggest redirecting these to their user page, where the appropriate block templates and explanation resides.)

For other indefinitely blocked users, I don't see any value in keeping the pages beyond a month or so. User pages serve to help collaboration between editors; blocked users are no longer editors. Besides serving no purpose, they can be harmful as explained by Wikipedia:Deny recognition. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:23:26, 07 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I've always done it, and the way I propose to continue doing it, is deleting those pages in CAT:TEMP after 30 days of inactivity on the page. Pages of sockpuppeteers and sockpuppets should be kept, and are regularly being removed from the category to avoid accidental deletion. Keeping pages of banned users also seems acceptable. For all other run-of-the-mill indefinately blocked users, there is no reason to keep the pages. If, by chance, the user comes back more than 30 days after being blocked, requests unblock, and is granted unblock, we can restore the page. So simple. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Pathoschild. Simply because some random troll came along and vandalized, was warned for it, and then was indefinitely blocked does not mean that they are entitled to eternal wiki-fame. If there is no further use for the user and talk pages, there is no reason to keep them around. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The point being made (I think) is that more than just that type of page is being deleted. I am sure examples can be found of banned users, sock puppets and sock puppeteers and long-term contributors, where the talk pages have been deleted. That is what this proposal is trying to avoid, though the source of the problem seems to be either excessively broad use of the indefblocked template, or inadequate review at the end of the 30-day process. Ned, is this what you are saying, or am I misunderstanding your point? Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If that is the issue then procedure needs to be clarified with the administrators that are deleting the pages that should not be deleted. All of this other stuff isn't going to help them understand what they are doing wrong. Please, if we have examples, lets talk to those admins. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no guidance on when not to delete except for sockpuppet pages, so those admins are likely most of the ones who clear out the temp user category.

(to Carcharoth) Yeah, that's pretty much my point. I'm fine with deleting pages for random vandals. I understand and agree with the idea that we shouldn't be giving anyone some kind of "eternal wiki-fame", as MZM put it. Although for most vandals they're not even used as that, and more than likely they only care if the messages are visible (Thus page blanking is normally just as effective) Regardless of that, even deleting those pages, they're not the ones I'm concerned about.

Talk pages we shouldn't be deleting include ones with a decent amount of history, lots of comments and discussions from other users, talk pages that are needed to properly understand why a block was made (as in, a somewhat complex issue that can't be fully summarized in a block message), or talk pages from users who are indef blocked, but aren't likely to use their talk page as a trophy page. There's a lot of users out there that, for some unfortunate reason, are unable to work with the community at large, and are no longer able to edit Wikipedia.

There's no organizational benefit to deleting these pages. We have a massive amount of IP talk pages and inactive user talk pages, and having them around doesn't really effect other areas of Wikipedia. All we pretty much have is that we don't want to give them a trophy page (which, again, isn't likely what most will even consider. The vandalism itself, which is almost always accessible in an article's history, is what most vandals care about, but still not my main point.)

Plus there's the accessibility for all editors, not just admins, the ability to review blocks and the events surrounding them, which has always been important.

tl;dr- we're all pretty much on the same page about the random vandal, it's other, more complex situations that are the issue here. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In conjunction with this and in particular due to my concern that some users who aren't even blocked are having their pages deleted due to improper tagging, I've raised the question at Template talk:Temporary userpage of whether we need that particular template. My concern though is that users may simply add the category if we don't address this part of the issue (BTW why isn't the category "CAT:Indef blocked users"? - this whole thing has so many avenues for misunderstanding the purpose). Educating admins is not a particularly good solution in my mind. There are many hundreds of admins and many scores of deletion categories. There are many admins who just check in somewhere when there is a backlog and start clearing it out, only realizing the standards have changed if someone screams about it or who really don't understand the criterion (e.g. A7). And the problem with Cats is you'll only notice deletions if you're there when it happens because once deleted they no longer show up in the cat, there's no "Cat: things that used to be in Cat X but have been deleted". If we're going to continue with this, we should get a bot to list them to Projectspace page, as with WP:Copyright problems, so we can see what others are doing.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"it's other, more complex situations that are the issue here." --- Well, I personally don't think we have an issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• This (or the discussions that led us here) is referred to several places as an RFC, but there doesn't actually appear to be an RFC, did Ned intend for this to be an RFC?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I was holding off on tagging it with the RFC template until it seemed like a good spot to have the discussion (since my first try at WT:CSD was a bit of a miss). I'll add the tag now. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting proposal. I've generally taken quite a liberal stance towards deletion of blocked users' talk pages, and, by-and-large, delete the talk page of indefinitely blocked editors after a reasonable period, even if they were previously established. I do make exceptions for pages that are required for evidence (e.g., I recently decategorised a user talk page from CAT:TEMP, because the admission of that editor that s/he was a sock puppet was made on that page), and for editors who are well-established (4+ months?). Perhaps this is not the best stance to take, but to be honest, what good is there in having a blocked user keep their talk page? I do think, however, that in future, I'll stick closer to Pathos' principles; I may be a little to eager to delete the talk page of indef. users :) Anthøny 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• While users generally manage their own talk pages, it's been established that a user still doesn't completely own their own talk page. Often those talk pages are composed of several comments and discussions made by many different users, and deleting the talk pages often makes a big hole in that talk history. Very often we'll have users who are now indef blocked, but were once working well with other users, and had useful conversations. I can think of a few myself, such as User:Jack Merridew (though his block is sockpuppet related, so it would not be "eligible" for the temp page deletion category).

• Having the talk pages also allows non-administrators the ability to review these past events, something that has been very important to the community. Admin tools are handed out based on certain aspects of trust, not authorization. I've been asked a few times by indef blocked users to help them out, bringing their situation to the attention of others for discussion, and most of those users have gotten unblocked as a result. The developers tell us to not rely on the ability to undelete pages, as they have the ability to purge the deleted database at any time, and without warning.

• Going through and deleting these pages also wastes time, granted if someone wants to spend their time doing so, then they have every right to spend it that way. However, there's hardly any value in doing so. Most "trophy" talk pages are easily identifiable, and should be deleted, but a large number of blocked users aren't using their talk pages in any such way. If anything it's a little stupid to think that most people would use the talk page as a trophy page, as any troll or vandal is going to preform their "trophy actions" on other pages, where the history will be preserved. Blanking the talk pages removes them from search results, but still allows the contents to be viewed by experienced editors. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to push for deletion of all these pages.

• The idea that we have to "clean out" talk pages is a false dilemma. We have tons of IP talk pages and abandoned account talk pages that would never quality for deletion in this way, probably far more than there are indef blocked user talk pages. The way Wikipedia works means that you don't have to deal with these pages if you don't want to. They don't "get in the way" by existing.

• Then there's the problem with the consensus regarding this action in the first place. The discussions that set up the category and practice were very lacking in any real community input, and there never was any proposal to actually approve or reject, just an un-tagged (as in, policy/guideline/essay/etc) category page with some vague instructions. -- Ned Scott 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• And we need a policy why? You seem to be confusing Wikipedia with a bureaucracy. We don't come up with rules for the sake of having a rule. Very rarely, if ever, are policies created as a way to change how something is done. As it should be, since policies are the written form of generally accepted standards. If you want to bring CAT:TEMP to more light so more than a handful of admins and a bot work on it, by all means do so, but trying to create a policy to tell people "No, the old way was wrong, do things this way instead" is just not the way we do things. For a better explanation of why pointless policies that try to force new processes are almost always bad, ask Kim Bruning Mr.Z-man 02:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't proposed any new policy or wording to an existing one. So far I've only asked for discussion on the matter. The "old way" was never established, it never had community consensus. The majority of Wikipedians, even admins, don't know that this is normal practice. If I come in and say "don't do this" and have good reason, and others agree with those reasons, then I don't need a formal policy or anything, because I would have established what had consensus. There's nothing overly bureaucratic about that at all, and I'm pretty sure that it's how we normally do things here.

• One more thing, I honestly don't understand why you feel the need to be so combative in your responses to me, Mr.Z. So far the discussions on this matter have been fairly calm and objective, and I would appreciate it if we could stay on that path. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I had a very strong opinion about {{temporary userpage}} when this started, and a mild concern that the cat is misnamed as I mentioned above, I was basically neutral on the deletion of the talk pages of users who are indefinitely blocked. However, I think Ned has strong arguments. I've stated to at least one editor who asked that in appropriate cases I would delete userpages but not user talk pages based on the indef block alone, in large part due to the absence of clear policy - absent such a policy I see no good reason to delete talk pages and I haven't seen any good arguments for general deletion. The rare cases where the user talk page is itself problematic should be handled via MfD (or occasionally PROD) on a case by case basis. Deleting the talk page of every indef blocked user who is not known to be a sock is pointless as far as I can tell and as Ned notes, deprives non-admins from viewing the talk page history. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Although not directly affecting this discussion, the TFD of {{temporary userpage}} has closed as delete.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A possible idea to try out is to not tag pages for CAT:TEMP by default when using the normal tags. It could still be an option, but would require some input/evaluation form the tagging admin. Obvious problem pages could still be dealt with without "needless bureaucracy". -- Ned Scott 06:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This idea has been discussed recently, but didn't find wide appeal. The category applies to the vast majority of correctly tagged pages. It's better to explicitly set historical pages as historical, preferably with a brief explanation of why they're historical (see an example rationale). —{admin} Pathoschild 07:27:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting talk pages like this doesn't have wide appeal either. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen pretty wide appeal for the practice. In this discussion alone, 5 (71%) of those who expressed a preference are in favour (out of 7). Even one of those who preferred not to delete agreed that "If their talk page doesn't provide any useful information there is no point to restoring it". —{admin} Pathoschild 04:10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What has wide appeal is removing trophy pages. Others don't seem to care, and consider it some kind of house keeping, which is a really weak rationale. So, no, there is nothing that could even be considered a consensus for this practice. Most other admins simply assumed it was discussed first, and don't even know how the practice came about. However, there are some very good arguments for reducing bureaucracy for when we do need to delete indef blocked user pages, and what I've proposed here is far more than reasonable. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably need to re-prod ANI and some template talk pages. Lately the RFC template doesn't seem to be pulling in a lot of people (noticed this in a few RfCs). -- Ned Scott 04:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Either that, or everyone is leaving (ahem!). Need to get some sleep. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, no kidding. It's hard to complete for attention with these kinds of "boring" issues :) -- Ned Scott 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I favor redirecting to their userpage, if it is felt necessary to implement WP:DENY. The talk page is part of a historical record that can support future tracking of such individuals (e.g. comparing their behavior to newly observed behavior by others) as well as future arbcom deliberations, etc. Also, I find it questionable that denying recognition through deletion actually accomplishes what we intend it to. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Prodding

I haven't been very focused on this proposal, but I still believe it's a very good idea, and that we need to stop deleting user pages simply because they are for banned users. I'll try to start another RfC to get some more involvement, as this talk page turned out to be one of the more neglected venues around. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008 - many userpages in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages have been deleted

• I am concerned that this discussion has just tapered off. I am not sure where the RfC is. I was concerned at what I saw was the inappropriate deletion of one user talk page. Potential socks of that banned user have recently reemerged. I don't think it is helpful that the user talk page was deleted.--Matilda ^talk 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note further to discussion with Mr.Z-man - if there was a sockpuppet tag on the page, or anything else containing {{do not delete}} it would have been removed from the category on one of the daily runnings of Mr.Z-man's bot --Matilda ^talk 00:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Does anyone have a link to the approval page for that task of the bot? -- Ned Scott 04:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mr.Z-bot 3 --Matilda ^talk 05:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tag spammers' talk pages as temporary

We use the information on a spammer's talk page to track a spammer across multiple IPs and sock accounts. This includes live links to the spam domains as well as specialized templates such as {{LinkSummary}}, {{IPSummary}} and {{UserSummary}}. Such information is vital for keeping track of spam and prioritizing which spammers to concentrate on. The hard-core spammers -- those that go through multiple warnings and then get blocked -- will almost always come back with a new IP or user name and with more domains to spam. If we don't know that they've spammed us over and over again with different accounts, we won't prioritize them for things like increased monitoring, bot-tracking and domain blacklisting. We'll just think we've got some noob that doesn't know our rules, give him a {{uw-spam1}} and move on. The fact that MediaWiki search doesn't see deleted talk pages doesn't help matters, either.

Code such as {{{category|[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}} embedded in our block templates places the associated talk pages into the temporary user page category, setting them up to be deleted a few weeks later. As someone very involved with tracking and removing spam, I ask that spammer talk pages not be tagged as temporary and I strongly recommend not using code like this in our spam-related templates.

As for the idea that since admins can always see deleted versions of these pages so other editors don't need to: I think everyone should have access to spammer talk pages. This isn't some ideological issue about admins vs. other editors -- it's simply a practical matter. The majority of the people that help with spam warning and removal are not admins. Overall our 1000+ active admins are just a small part of perhaps 10,000 active, regular editors working hard to keep our 2 million articles reliable and useful in the face of over 100 edits/minute. A year ago, we were were averaging >8000 links added per day and I'm sure it's gone up since then.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please report chronic spammers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam and someone will follow up for more investigating. Also we can always use more help there -- tracking this stuff down is interesting work for folks with an investigatory or researchy bent. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wondered how it got added to {{uw-spamublock}}, and it clearly does not belong there. I'm going to remove it. --MCB (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes regarding IP talk pages

Hey guys. Haven't been around much and was just notified of this edit and this one. This is a pretty major change as to how things have been done around here for a couple years. Could someone please point me in the direction of the discussion that preceded this? Thanks. — Satori Son 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably the last big discussion, the one preceding the written change, was at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_42#Wikipedia:User_page_and_IP.27s, and this was preceded and followed by various discussions on the admin noticeboards which reached a similar conclusion. The cause of it all is that increasingly as people are relying on policy without applying common sense, too many people were biting newbies by fighting to enforce the retention of irrelevant warnings. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I was a late convert on this issue, I am not sure I would call it a major change. The WP:USER guideline and official WP:VAN policy were updated 499 [1] and 899 [2] days ago respectively to reflect the fact that users may remove messages from their own talk pages at will. However because people (including me) were still getting it wrong with unregistered editors, the issue was discussed at length at Village pump policy earlier this year (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 42#Wikipedia:User page and IP's). Ultimately the consensus decision was to update WP:USER to explicitly state "both registered and anonymous users" for the benefit of people (like me) who were improperly differentiating between the two. It was also discussed in part again last week on WP:AN (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive150#IPs removing their block templates while the block is active). --Kralizec! (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to cause us major headaches with vandalism and spam enforcement, but honestly I’m too tired and disillusioned to fight it. C'est la vie… — Satori Son 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal really. Vandalism + recent warning(s) = block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It has not caused any issues that I am aware of (and I read AIV, ANI, and AN nearly every day). However while I am sure that some persistent vandals will exploit this in order to avoid getting properly escalated warnings, this change meshes nicely with WP:DENY. Likewise I have no doubt that Kim Bruning was spot during the debate about the futility of revert-warring with a user in their own userspace. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Banning from User_talk

Can the owner of a user talk page ban another user from posting on said talk page by declaring such a ban? Meaning: Let's say User:Example-A finds User:Example-B's comments annoying. Can User:Example-A declare and thus effectively "ban" User:Example-B from ever again posting on User_talk:Example-A? Is such a ban enforceable? Is breach of this ban an actionable offense? Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

People can say whatever they want, however that does not necessarily mean that their target audience is actually listening. When it comes to warnings, as far as WP:USER is concerned, removing a message from your talk page is viewed as acknowledgment that it has been read (regardless of if you agree with the warning). As to the "actionable offense" question, I am not aware of any policy or guideline that could be used to enforce something like this short of a community or arbcom mandated topic ban. That said, if Example-A removed the comments of Example-B off of his or her own talk page, and then Example-B reverted the message back on to the page, then Example-B could be in danger of violating WP:3RR if it happened enough times (as noted above, edit warring with a user on their own talk page is an exercise in futility). --Kralizec! (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So if Example-A simply tells Example-B that Example-B is banned from posting at User_talk:Example-A, is this kind of ban enforceable? Would it bee considered harassment or uncivil if Example-B continued to post there even if just to civilly alert Example-A to something of interest? Is there any policy which allow or disallows Example-A from banning Example-B from posting on Example-A's user talk page? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A request to not post on one's User Talk page does not have the force of a ban - your User Talk does not belong to you; it is merely associated with you. Making such a request in response to harassment does increase the likelihood of a repeat offender being sanctioned, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient for such, and no one should sanction any editor for posting a polite notification message. That's my understanding, anyway. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring comments

While I know it's OK to remove comments from your own talk page (and that it implies you've read it), how much is WP:TPG used interchangably with user talk pages? I've recently had an editor (who's not a newbie) refactoring a number of my comments (on their page) into childish toilet humour. While this is their own page (and they have removed various warnings/cautions etc), how does WP:TPG apply to situations where it appears that I've been making unconstructive, childish remarks? Booglamay (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much wrong, to the point of taking it to WP:AN/I if it continues; you may want to try WP:WQA first. Removing, that I'd be OK with, but changing the wording is in bad taste and disruptive if it continues. If you're not getting any constructive dialog, you might want to consider simply removing the comments wholesale as at this point the only response you're getting is uncivil. WLU (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you know how one can change his username? Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing username for instructions. Best, MCB (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Users whose first contributions were to their own userpage

Has anyone ever run into a situation in which a user's first edits were to put a bunch of stuff on their userpage, e.g. telling all about themselves, or about something they're interested in; and then later they went on to become a productive contributor outside userspace? I notice that on WP:MFD, many people nominate userpages to be deleted because a user has made no other edits outside userspace; but often this is right after the user joins Wikipedia. Could it be that some of them would have become active contributors if we hadn't deterred them by deleting their userpage? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be wary of anecdotal evidence pointing either way on this. Let WP:AGF determine our approach to such editors. In other words, give them time to get used to WP; if after a reasonable time they don't start editing articles, post on their User Talk to gently nudge them out of the nest; if that doesn't get a response, move on to warnings (e.g. WP:NOT#MYSPACE) and then MFD. Perhaps this is too slow for some editors, but I don't see the harm to Wikipedia, and clearly there is a potential upside in editors retained. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, or what happens in a lot of cases is that they post a userpage, disappear for a month, and someone MFDs it. I personally know of a lot of websites where I start an account and then don't visit again for awhile; but I'd like to have it there for when I come back. So, in the interests of being nice to newcomers, I'd rather just have a policy of "we'll leave the light on for you."

It is, unfortunately, one of the negative consequences of notability policy in general that the innocent get caught in the friendly fire. That is to say, some people use userspace as a dodge to avoid deletion resulting from speedy deletion, AFD, etc. (E.g. they will write an article about themselves that is deleted; and then repost it in userspace so it still shows up on Google). Therefore, in order to effectively seal off that possibility, we have to preemptively delete people's user pages when it's not even clear they're trying to use it as a dodge. They may just be putting it there similarly to how many other users post their bio; and they'll make some more edits to the mainspace later, with acceptable content.

How, then, do we make that decision? The only ways to avoid being subjective about it are to go completely to the extreme of inclusionism, and just keep everything; or else go to the other extreme of deletionism, and not allow userpages (or at least not allow non-Wikipedia-related content). But for those not willing to go to either extreme, blanking the page of non-active users might be a reasonable compromise, perhaps leaving a message saying something like, "This user has not edited since _____, and therefore their page has been blanked. Click here to see the most recent version before blanking." Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, be aware that sometimes an editor's very first contributions are in their "deleted contributions", only visible to admins. You can't assume from looking at the public contribs list that their first contribution is indeed their first. They may have started an article that got deleted, and only later started their user page. I would say give people time to learn the ropes (some people do this by reading, not editing), and only take action if they are constantly editing their userspace and doing nothing else. Carcharoth (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change CSD G7

A proposed change to when and how user pages can be speedily deleted is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal to change CSD G7. That proposal and an associated one (linked from the proposal) concerns the action of blanking user pages. Something should be added to this page about when and why blanking might be appropriate in userspace, and making clear that deletion requests should be made explicitly, and that blanking is not enough. Carcharoth (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking and deletion requests

Based on discussion at WT:CSD (see here), I've made the following change:

"Blanking of user subpages is interpreted by some as a deletion request. If you are blanking one of your user subpages and wish the page history to be kept, it is best to leave a note to that effect on the blank page (eg. "blanked to page history - please do not delete"). If you want a user subpage deleted, it is best to use {{db-userreq}} to specifically request it, rather than blanking the page."

Please comment here if there are any objections. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute WP:UP#NOT/9.

WP:UP#NOT/9 States:

What may I not have on my user page?

Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. Examples of unrelated content include:

9. Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process. This exception is subject to common sense, but as a general rule, two weeks is a reasonable time to prepare such a page.

WP:UP#NOT/9 seems a tad unreasonable. It is not consistent with the preamble, as it is not about material that is unrelated to the encyclopedia, and in this respect it is unlike the rest of the list. It is an out of place oddball in the list. "can be construed" is both too generous to the complainant, and too poorly defined. On it's merits, I believe WP:UP#NOT/9 is bad because it is not necessarily a bad thing for users to record pereived flaws, including of other editors, especially important editors. Reference is made to exceptions. When and where are these exceptions, or is this self-referencial (ie pseudo scholarship, which we should get rid of). The recording of perceptions can easily be considered as work in progress for the improvement of the project, so why should time limits apply? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

XIMENA VALERO

Ximena Valero (Born Jimena del Carmen Valero Jarillo, on May 26th, 1977), is a Fashion Designer and entrepreneur. Valero was born in Mexico City, lived and grew in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, studied Fashion Design in San Diego´s Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, lived in San Diego, New York and currently based in Los Angeles, California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsunday (talk • contribs) 08:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of user talk pages

Should WP:USER#How do I delete my user talk pages? be modified to remove the first sentence? Recent discussions at the admin noticeboard regarding FCYTravis (talk · contribs) (on Wikibreak) and Spartaz (talk · contribs) (still editing) seem to indicate consensus is that users should be allowed to delete their talk pages, or have them deleted. Kelly ^hi! 01:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Blanking in lieu of archiving isn't a problem. But outright deletion is another matter. I don't think there's ever been a consensus to allow the deletion of user talk pages, except for the right to vanish (and even then it's dependent on the user staying vanished). Active users, and especially admins, should not make it impossible for other users to see the feedback posted on user talk pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)