Forum:Deleting talk pages

So for the last, I don't know - year? - IP talk pages have been deleted when the associated IP is perceived to be vandalizing. I would like to know what the hell that's supposed to accomplish. Is it to get rid of the welcome message? Because their edits aren't actually welcome? Deleting their talk page just causes them to receive another welcome message the next time they edit, repeating the process. And, ignoring the occasional non-welcome message that's actually deleted (as in, a user is actually trying to have a conversation with the IP), deleting the talk page does not double as a warning to the user, which I assume is to be a secondary purpose.

Can we stop doing this, or is there some other benefit I'm not seeing? ~SnapperTo 05:50, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * It does seem relatively pointless, doesn't it? I can't find a purpose or benefit of it either.Ryne 91 (talk) 05:53, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw this began being done after I started massively reporting people to Jacce. I think it was done as a middle ground between doing nothing and blocking someone for something that a warning should be enough. Over at Avatar wiki, a template was made for such situations. If someone vandalised an article, just put the template (it was done with the subst thing so the code would go on the page as well) and the person was warned. If they kept going, they'd be blocked. It allowed us to have an official warning. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 21:24, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * A warning would be far more effective. The welcome message can even be removed when the warning is being given if it seems necessary. But deleting the talk page doesn't solve anything. ~SnapperTo 23:11, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I'm pretty much the only one who has been doing this; the idea of deleting the talk page is not to make the vandal feel unwelcome, it is to keep an eye on a vandal. An IP that makes one or two bad edits is not worthy of being blocked. But I can't watch 3 948 pages, and there is still a chance that they make a fanon/vandalism page. However, no matter how they do, they get a welcome message from Wiki. And since I watches their talk page, I notice what they have done. A warning feels less effective, an IP vandal can be a computer used in an internet café or a library. The next vandal who is using it will probably not even notice. The vandal that it is directed to might not even notice it, or even care. But if it bothers you so much, I will stop. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 16:58, April 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Never considered that approach. Anyway, will we create/import/use a warning template or do we keep deleting talk pages/blocking people. Either way works for me, but until that is settled, I'll just warn and block as I see fit. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:54, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * If deleting the talk page helps keep tabs on the IP then that's a legitimate reason to do so, but I'm not following how the two are connected. Is it the deletion log? ~SnapperTo 01:40, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, you can set to watch a deleted talk page, this way, should the vandal edit again, the Wikia script would recreate the page, and since that page would have been watched when it was deleted, it would simply stand out in the recent changes, alerting that the vandal edited again. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 02:34, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * It alerts that someone at that address has edited, not that they've vandalized again. But the explanation works for me. I don't think it's worth the extra effort, but I won't put up a stink about deleting talk pages anymore.
 * While we're on the subject, maybe we can officially decide upon what qualifies as vandalism (as in, something deserving of talk page deletion and/or blocking)? The IP that prompted me to bring this up was not airing their grievances in the correct way, but they were trying to improve the wiki. Which I don't think justifies the same treatment as someone adding "Naruto and Sakura kissing in a tree, doing other things of a physical nature in the privacy of their own home." ~SnapperTo 05:02, April 15, 2011 (UTC)