Forum:Discussion on TP policy, Warning Tabs, etc

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Discussion on TP policy, Warning Tabs, etc

Following the recent referendum on TP policy, it was decided that the status quo would be maintained. However, it was clear that it was far from a consensus, and many alternatives were scribbled. The purpose of this page is to open up a place where such alternatives can be properly discussed and fleshed out. I've divided the page into two main categories, namely the ones that present amendments to the current system, without outright departing from its principles, and another that would supplant the current system altogether. Please feel free add to, or to propose any new ideas here by creating subsections underneath them. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 17:28, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Amendments to the current policy

Allowing the users to request from administrators a premature archival, AKA Clean Slate Rule

This is something I discussed with Sigma earlier, it basically would allow users to request from an administrator the permission to prematurely archive a 'dirty' talk page. Some of the concerns raised were that new users felt discouraged after having warnings over newbie mistakes stuck permanently on their talk pages. This rule would give them the opportunity to have a fresh start so to speak, provided the admin in question is convinced of the good faith of the request, which I believe would solve the main issue with the no-removal rule. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 17:28, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the policy does allow for exceptions already. All a user has to do is politely ask, and we'll take it into consideration. ^Skål! 17:36, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it allows the admins discretionary power to remove content, but what this proposal is about is to officialize the channels to those who feel bothered by the official warnings. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 17:56, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Limited removal rights

I know some of this is coded already, and the rest typically assumed to be okay through common sense, but presuming we're keeping the presumption that you can't remove stuff I'd like to codify a limited right to remove certain items from a TP:

• Welcome Messages and Talkback messages
• Self placed content (eg "Welcome" messages some of us place at the top)
• Messages constituting harrasment.
  

I don't expect any of these to be seen as contraversial in any way, and I think it just reflects current best practice anyway. Agent c (talk) 18:04, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

This is so much common sense it wouldn't even need to be spelled out, but naturally I have no problems with doing so either, so I'm behind this as well. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 18:19, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

General discussion amendments to the current policy

If the only issue with blanking talk pages is the fact that admin warning are also removed, I would prefer to see a policy directed at that, instead of a blanket policy. Something along the lines of admin notices can not be removed or archived for a period of 1 month. 19:32, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

If a "warnings" tab policy does not replace the current one, I would fully support this modification to the current policy. The Gunny   20:36, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives to the current policy

Warnings Tab

My alternative proposal to the existing talk page policy would be to add a sub-page to the effected user's userspace titled "Warnings" or "Notices", e.g. User:FalloutBob1123/Warnings. This would act as a virtual "permanent record" to record all official communications from admins, chat mods, etc. It would necessitate first leaving a message, either hand-written or automated using one of the many notice templates we have, on the user's talk page. This will allow the user to be informed of the message by the talk page message notice we all get. The notice writer would then copy the same message to the user's "warning" page for a permanent and easy to find record. I understand that Ghost has written some javascript code that can add a "warnings" tab to the userspace, so the page will be very easy to navigate to, and there are ways to limit the ability of users to edit these pages, or make their edits easy to see in recent changes.

This proposal would solve the stated problems both sides of the argument have:

1. Admins will have easy and quick access to any prior warnings, without the worry of the user deleting said warnings.
2. Users will be able to enjoy full freedom of the talk pages, which many view as their "property", as they are in their user space.

This proposal will shift the burden of time from having to possibly search talk page archives and watch recent changes for talk page message removal to having to add the messages to two pages when written and only having to watch recent changes for edits to warning pages. I personally feel the trade-off is more than equitable, with the bonus of solving the stated problems of both sides of the argument. The Gunny   20:16, August 13, 2012 (UTC)