Forum:Resolve conflict between RS:DP and RS:DDD

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Resolve conflict between RS:DP and RS:DDD
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 3 November 2012 by Thebrains222.

I noticed recently that there exists a conflict between RS:DP, which states, under "Cases where a page can be deleted", the following: "If a user has been indefinitely blocked, the user and talk pages should be deleted." This is in direct opposition to RS:DDD, which states that "...Spam, or an utterly pointless message, however, is the only thing which can be deleted...". I see this as a problem, and would like to propose that the User talk page on RS:DP be shifted into the section below it. I personally don't have a problem zapping User: pages, but IMHO, unless the account was just a spammer/sockpuppet/disruption-only, User talk: pages should be kept. Michagogo (talk) 21:45, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Support DDD taking precedence - Except when the user was indefinitely blocked very quickly and has mostly, or only, warnings on his/her talk page, in which case I support deletion taking precedence.

 a proofreader ▸ 

21:55, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

More formally, I suppose: I support DDD taking precedence when the talk page is essential to understanding the reason for the block. For established community members whose actions near the block are crucial to understanding the block, the discussion on their talk page should be preserved. For persistent vandals and spammers who have no history of involvement with the community, the block reason suffices to explain the offences for which the user gets blocked, such as "Spam", "Persistent vandalism" or "Secondary account of indefinitely blocked user User:Example". DDD would usually prevent any user from deleting warnings, but in this case, the warnings become unneeded after the last possible action to be done to the account, which is the indefinite block. The user's block log then becomes the documentation for the prior shorter blocks.  a proofreader ▸  22:26, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support DP overriding DDD - Excluding cases in which the user in question is an established editor with a talk page that has accumulated several messages over time. Ronan Talk 22:03, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support DDD first - If the talk page is established it should be subject to RS:DDD. If it's a few warning messages I'm not hugely bothered.

As a side note, VSTF will delete talk pages of globally blocked accounts. Do we revert said deletes based on the proposed policy, or leave them to it? I don't like the idea of kicking up a fuss about it every time it happens. cqm 22:05,20/10/2012 (UTC) (UTC)

IMHO, restore deleted talk pages if they fall under the criteria for not deleting -- no need for there to be a fuss. Michagogo (talk) 22:08, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
edit conflict If the VSTF delete a talk page, we should follow the consensus of this discussion and restore it if it would go with the consensus. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:10, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to add some notice activated when attempting to delete User talk pages in a similar way to the big header seen when editing Update namespace pages. Nothing long just asking the deletor not to continue if there is evidence of discussion on the page with a link to the policy if they want to read further. cqm 22:33,20/10/2012 (UTC) (UTC)
I don't know about adding a message to Special:Delete, but that wouldn't stop VSTF anyway -- they have a button to nuke a page globally, without stopping to read every wiki's policy. (information source == ty, complain to him if it's wrong) Michagogo (talk) 09:50, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support DP unless account has history - If the user has history, it makes sense to keep the stuff, otherwise lets just get rid of it. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:10, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support RS:DP > RS:DDD except if there is discussion - Pretty much the only accounts that ever get indefinitely blocked are sockpuppet and disruption only accounts, so if their talk pages get deleted, who really cares, because there wouldn't be any discussion on it. However, for accounts like User:Jeffwang16 and User:Cakemix, their talk page (and archives) weren't deleted, which I think we should continue to do. Just delete the relevant talk pages if there is no discussion, keep them if there is. Simple. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 22:51, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

What about BrenRS? MolMan 22:53, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
They're the reason this thread was made. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:53, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Do any other users exist though? Just curious (and snoopy). MolMan 22:54, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Bren's talk page got archived: User_talk:BrenRS/Archive_2 User_talk:BrenRS/Archive_1. He actually wanted them deleted when he left, but a_proofje removed the tags because of DDD. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 22:56, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
That is true. BrenRS's block was requested, not caused by bad faith actions, and the circumstances surrounding the block were still being discussed on his talk page. That's why I thought DDD applied.  a proofreader ▸  22:59, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Pretty sure he still had stuff on his main talk page, or did someone move it? MolMan 23:04, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
I can't see the deleted revisions themselves, but there seems to be 2 messages worth of discussion from looking at Special:Undelete/User talk:BrenRS. cqm 23:39,20/10/2012 (UTC) (UTC)
Well, I know what those are, but not everyone has an eidetic memory. :x MolMan 23:41, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
(reset) All contents of Bren's talk page were the last 2 sections on User talk:BrenRS/Archive 2. There's no remaining discussion that's deleted atm JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:19, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support DP over DDD - keep the pages if it's vital to understanding something such as why a block was made, but mostly it's just vandal accounts with nothing but welcome templates and warnings, not really worth saving What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 07:51, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support DP and not feeding the trolls. If there is some really dire need to see what was on their talk page, there are admins and custodians around here that can restore it. ajr 13:11, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support DP, even if user was established - Permanently blocked accounts cannot edit their talk pages for appeals. Why do we need to keep them? The information will still be there if deleted, so if a discussion comes up and someone needs to reference a permanently blocked account's talk page, it can be temporarily undeleted. I don't see a reason to keep such ugly and heinous pages (assuming it's full of junk that caused the permanent block) to remain after someone's blocked. It's like we're keeping mementos of people long gone. We should just delete their crap and move on. I also think Bren's talk page archives should be deleted (I didn't know there were any), no one needs them right now. And if they did... temporarily undelete. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 13:58, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

You do realize not everybody can see deleted pages like you? It's hard to need to reference a talk page if you don't know what's on it. You also say that talk pages are "full of junk that caused the permanent block", but what you don't realize is that the vast majority of messages on that deleted talk page are made not by the blocked user, but by others (especially admins rationalizing the block). ʞooɔ 05:35, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
Umm, are you expecting me to say no? If people don't know what's on the talk page anyway, obviously it would be useless to keep around, so why not delete for the reasons I stated? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:37, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
It's a rhetorical tool, dear Wink The reason people don't know what's on the talk page is precisely because it's deleted. That doesn't make it useless. ʞooɔ 16:52, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
I know but it was annoying. -.- Anyway, I still think it'd be better to just delete and move on. It's not like we're missing out on valuable information, more like gossip. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:30, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
I'm nothing if not annoying, fridge. But at least for the five I listed below, most of the messages were left not by the blocked people, but by others. A number of them were (relatively) important members of the community before their demise, so there's useful stuff on there if you care about the old days. ʞooɔ 20:19, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support DP - Urban said it all. There's no need to keep blocked users' talk pages around, and if there is, temporarily revert it. Simple. Blaze_fire.png12.png 01:13, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support DDD in general - Unless there's actually something on the talk page that's offensive or problematic, it's a vast overreach to delete what are basically the messages of other people on their talk page. Obviously this is only relevant if there's some discussion on the talk page, not just messages and warnings -- people like User talk:Blankothe3rd, User talk:Total Rune, User talk:Gertjaars, User talk:Earthere, User talk:Bob Bobertson. ʞooɔ 05:35, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

DDD > DP - Unless it's offensive or pages and pages of spam. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:19, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Pages will be kept as per RS:DDD unless they do not contain valid discussion. Pages that are simply spam, warnings or otherwise do not contain legitimate discussion will be deleted per RS:DP. Discussions deleted by external administrators (VSTF) will be restored/remain deleted in accordance with our local policy. 222 talk 01:24, November 3, 2012 (UTC)