Forum:Defchris

Defchris has been being stubborn lately. Just check his edits. He is purposely removing legitimate comments from talk pages just because he considers them "trolling". Any removal of talk page messages, unless vandalism, are treated AS vandalism on this wiki. He even ADMITTED he didn't care, even after several warnings from SeaTerror, Galaxy9000, and I. I suggest putting him on a block up to a week. -- 22:53, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Well if this doesn't go to vote it can still serve as a serious warning. You can notice he considers anything I say trolling which is why he removed it. He would probably try removing any edit I made if he had his way. SeaTerror (talk) 23:07, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

If you want to ask for a ban, you should at least bother by adding the links to the edits that you consider worthy for a ban. I'm sorry, but I'm lazy and I love things neat, "just check his edits" doesn't work. You are the one who opened this forum, so you are the one to report his edits (obviously another user can also do this, if he wants). By the way, which kind of "talk pages" are you talking about? Article or user ones? Because if it's article talk pages, then I think every comments that it's not concerned the page itself should be removed. We remove occasionally comments by users who use the talk page like a blog indeed.

I'm really too lazy to link 30+ edits so here's just his contributions levi, check out the ones concerning his talkpage http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Defchris And weirdo is referring to the editing (removing of messages) of user talk pages (in this case Defchris) which I think after the ninjasheik thingy we decided was unacceptable. A ban seems a bit harsh (especially a ban done by a VTSF member without a prior forum) but he was ignoring the rules. 14:18, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'll investigate his ban... anyway in my opinion in his talk page he can do whatever he wants. If I remember correctly, the whole NinjaShek-gate was about her deleting her talk page (asking an admin to do that), not blanking out or removing messages. Or do I remember incorrectly?

Kind of the same shit isn't it? And I'm fairly certain that after the sheikgate we had a forum where it was laid out what you can and can't do with your talkpage. 14:36, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

I think the forums were this one and this one, but we voted only about deleting and protecting the pages (as whole). Undoing an edit on a talk page or removing something doesn't go against any policy as for now. Also, I think there is nothing wrong with that. Deleting the user talk page was a problem because a) you prevent other users to contact you; b) you remove the page history; c) the red links in the recent changes/history are an eyesore.

"They have a right to blank it and remove what they want. Removing the entire talk page removes everything, even the history. The history should never be removed. SeaTerror 00:36, April 21, 2012 (UTC)" I just found this gem while looking at the forum. Guess he didn't vandalize then? :D 14:55, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

If that's the sole reason of this forum to be no, but I'm investigating why Callofduty4 banned him in the first place.

I was under the impression that besides spam/vandalism, you couldn't remove messages from your talk, and I think many other users are under this same impression. I thought because it was because the messages people leave there are a matter of public record so we can figure out who said what in situations like these. I know it applies to things like rule reminders such as the IGR or an admin's warnings so we can keep track of who's been warned before, but I'm not sure if that's stated anywhere. Perhaps we should clarify this in another forum.

As far as what actually happened, I'm not sure it merits a ban, since the rules are unclear. The only thing Defchris did that I think merits a ban is to add the ban template to Coffee's user page in revenge for when Coffee added it to Defchris' page and warned Defchris that he would do just that here. Defchris never attempted to challenge Coffee's idea of what the rules were, only said he didn't care, and that just made the whole situation worse. 18:02, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

"...a matter of public record so we can figure out who said what..." Through history you can access any revision of the page. That said, it's not exactly a "rule", just "wiki spirit". About the fact he added the ban template, well I don't see how's that is severe. Sure, it was a bit childish, but some users were actually annoying him, that's something in other wikis may be considered ban-worthy.
 * In a situation like this, yeah the history still works. But if I was going to give another editor some advice on how they've been editing something incorrectly, I'm not going to check the history to find out if they've been talked to about the same thing before, I'm just going to skim over what's on the page.


 * And I do agree that the ban template thing isn't wholly ban-worthy, but I think that's the only thing I've seen that actually merits a ban. 18:58, January 28, 2013 (UTC)