Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Inappropriate content: Extremely offensive material

Is anything that is allowed on Wikipedia mainspace, such as Image:Doublepen.png, allowed to be on userpages? Also is a picture of a American flag burning is somehow extremely offensive? I didn't know because offensive is very subjective and I would consider the American flag not burning extremely offensive, so I didn't know how Wikipedia considers what is offensive and what is not. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • A lot would depend on context. Personal attacks are definitely not allowed, and making a user page deliberately offensive would be strongly frowned upon. That said, one man's deliberate offense is another man's freedom of speech. As I recall a userpage with a burning flag on it was recently nominated for deletion, but consensus opposed said deletion. The rule of thumb is: when in doubt, (1) kindly ask the user in question, and when that doesn't help, (2) ask a third party to comment. >Radiant< 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A colored userpage notice

Silly question...how do I make my userpage noticed colored? Thanks. Bardofcornish (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate to update defunct user pages?

Is it allowed to update a user page of someone no longer editing Wikipedia, so that it does not contain inaccurate statements (due to elapsed time)? -- Zanimum (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you mean? --MCB (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That they hold a position at an organization, when in fact they have not held it for multiple months. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Friday removed a substantial part of the right to vanish [1]. Is there any consensus for this removal? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with this deletion. The reason given ("removing bit about "right to vanish". it's not relevant to deleting user talk pages") contradicts the meta right to vanish article linked in the original text, so I've restored it. Avb 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It's useful and relevant and should be restored. Tyrenius (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't go around deleting user talk just because a user asks for it, do we? Right to vanish has precious little to do with deleting user talk pages on request. Anyone can hit "log out" and vanish any time they want- this "you must delete my talk page because I say so" nonsense is not helpful in any way I've ever heard of. I don't care what meta says, and I don't care what meatball says- I care about what is mostly useful to this wiki. How is it helpful to help users cover their tracks? Keep in mind of course, that people who claim to be vanishing very rarely actually vanish. Friday (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
PS. Also, for those who do care what meta says, it does not appear to be saying that user talk pages should generally be deleted. Friday (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It is discretionary, but generally a courtesy extended to editors who wish to leave that their talk page is deleted if they request it. If they then return, their talk page can be restored, whether they want that or not, as its deletion was based on their leaving the project. Tyrenius (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that people do it sometimes- a practice which I don't find useful. How does it help to delete the talk pages of editors who claim to be leaving? Friday (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think this bit should go. Anyone see a reason to keep it, other than status quo? Friday (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Giving the option might help vanishers draw a mental boundary between themselves and their user identity. It might decrease whatever drama sometimes accompanies a user's choice to leave. Just speculation of course, I have no direct experience of vanishing. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok.. and re-reading it, I guess it doesn't really encourage deletion of user talk pages. It just says there might occasionally be a good reason for it. I still don't agree that claiming to leave the project is a good reason to delete someone's user talk page, but I guess that's a small point. Friday (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I make a page of info?

How do i make a page of info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeganHealey (talk • contribs)

Er, what do you mean? Put the info on a page, and voila, there it is. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk page font

Are users required (or expected) to use certain types of fonts, or can a user use any type of font on their talk page? --Son (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is not hard to read (very small, or mixing colors that may not be contrasting in foreground and background, like white and yellow, or blue and purple, etc) or just disrupting (like simulating hyperlinks with blue underlined fonts, or just too big), it should be safe. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Using more realistic example names

This has been a bug bear of mine for a long time. I get fed up with explanations which employ self-referential examples. This seems to be a consistent oversight on behalf of techies who know the material so well that they cannot see just how confusing such practices are. Suppose a writer decides to give the user an example of how he/she can start up a user page for themselves. Now, is it good policy to name this example “Example”, as the writer does in the article? No, it is not. To use ‘example’ as an example for an example is not a good idea. In fact it is, from about a hundred billion possible words, probably the LAST word you would want to use. It is quite likely that the reader will become confused as to whether the word Example, so used, POINTS to an example to come, or is in fact the example itself. There are any number of wacky, zany user names in WP, and a writer on such topics would be well-advised to choose, as a hypothetical example, the wackiest name possible, so that there can be no mistake as to whether such a name is an example of a user name, as such, or the official name for a field, or a generic name for all such similar fields.

Ironically, it is the text concerning in-house WP procedures, written by WP insiders, which consistently provides readers with material that is stylistically and grammatically amongst the most inferior in WP, and typically transforms what should be straightforward procedural matters into damn hard work.

Here’s an idea for WP big brass. Why not have a fictional WP user called, say, kimdoe? Readers can follow this guy/girl’s adventures as they set up pages, edit articles and all the rest. Now wouldn’t that be a lot clearer than trying to deal with someone called ‘example’? This is a people’s encyclopedia, so let’s try writing clear, concise English, not the semi-literate geek boy jargon often found here. I’d have a go fixing it up myself, but it’s kind of Catch-22. To do that, I’d have to understand it a lot better, and frankly, a lot of this stuff just doesn’t make good sense.

On a final note, why does the writer of the piece start with informing the reader that ‘Example’ will be used as the example name, but then provides no such explanatory note for the companion example name ‘Mypage’ And if we accept Example and Mypage as names of pages of a hypothetical individual, then what the hell is ‘lipsum’? My brain hurts. Notthere (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Question (that I have to ask)

Stupid Question:

Why can't people put whatever they want on a User Page? It's a User Page, not a resource for information, and even for explicit materials there's no risk of linking to the pages by mistake (unless they set-up a link on a normal page which would just be vandalism). At most, I think that User's found to have "explicit" material should have some sort of warning attached to their user name, sort of like a spoiler warning. Other than that that the only other rule which makes sense to me is a ban on large file sizes, which is just for practical reasons.

Now...why am I wrong?

McBeardo (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. Everything that is given by the foundation is to advance their goals (in this case, to build an encyclopedia). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No personal info, interesting:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:IFeito http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:SOPHIA http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Nat http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Evercat http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Andrew_c http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:C.Logan all from the first page of the editing history of a single page...

However, this does raise a new question: If I put a snazzy disclaimer like this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Strothra on my User Page does that change things?

McBeardo (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the {{userpage}} template? That template only says that the page is not an article but a user page and that the original is found at a determined page (useful when mirrors also pick user pages even though they don't need). As for the personal information, it is not necessary to give it, and if you give it, it is under your own responsibility and is usually to help people reaching there to learn about your interest or experience. For example, my personal page details my tastes, and from there you can infer which articles I like editing, which languages I understand, and which ones I could help with. I post the information there to help others note that I can help with manga, anime, metal (gothic and symphonic) and Argentine topics. What people can't do is to use the user page to promote their own works outside Wikipedia without helping it in any way (like this one), or using the page like a blog or webhosting (even keeping a diary of what you do at Wikipedia per day may be considered unnecessary).
If you are a minor, though, all posted personal information will be deleted. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That just raises further questions (which may Segway into speeches):

1)Can't you determine what a person's interests are by looking at their contribution list? The point of finding people with common interests is obviously for collaboration on topic, but there is no search function based on interests (that I know of, again I'm appealing to those more...invested...in "wikipedian law" here) and so collaborations arise semi-spontaneously through various people (often strangers to each other) editing articles which interest them as individuals (I think it's called open content). This means that posting interests is in fact unnecessary based on your justification for it, but that's ok because I think I have a better one: Wikipedia obviously has some degree of a community, and while it's stated purpose is not to be a social networking site, allowing people the freedom to make one page that is about them, or is just funny, would not detract from that, while helping to strengthen the community. It may also help to REDUCE vandalism, as one of the things that attracts people to screwing with Wikipedia is that it provides them with anonymity plus a huge audience (larger than any one forum), for free.

2)Of what encyclopedic value are User Names?This relates to the first question, just recording someone's IP address is enough to allow Wikipedia to stop vandalism (and the prevention measures are usualy an IP ban, not a User Name ban), and while you could easily assign "topics of expertise" to User Names, like I said before, even that isn't necessary if you consider that the open content formula of Wikipedia means that it's not organized, people make their contributions, and consensus determines the value of the contribution. Now, Wikipedia does have formal rules and regulations in place (and there seems to be more all the time), and that's fine, because as we all know, consensus on is no indication of truth (Argumentum ad populum). However, these rules all dictate how input is to be handled, the input itself is still left up to thousands of anonymous users submitting whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like submitting it, with no interaction between them required so long as the rules of Wikipedia are enforced by the more dutiful users. My point in all this, is that in choosing User Names, posting interests, and using the phrase "engaged community" (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#The_.22hive_mind.22), you've already acknowledged that in order to support this group of dutiful user's which Wikipedia relies on to enforce the rules, you have to allow them some latitude to..."socially network"...which will include content neither factual, nor worthy of an encyclopedia, but nonetheless important to THIS form of data accumulation.

3)Basically, can I please make my User Page a joke without it being taken down?

McBeardo (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For 1), we have Category:Wikipedians and subcategories to find users by what they use/like, and Wikipedia:WikiProjects to find users who are editing articles you may like. For 2), I don't usually reply to questions with implicit answers, or questions that use Latin, but didn't you notice that usernames allow users with dynamic ips (in my case, my ip changes every 22 hours; in AOL case, it changes every time you navigate to a different page) to be universally identified in this Wiki. And for 3), it depends. If you write a list of jokes that serve nothing at all, just to remind you of good jokes you have heard in the last week, no. If you are using a joke to define yourself, it may be acceptable. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1+2)Those more invested in Wikipedian law have spoken, thank you 3)I'll take it. McBeardo (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy from user page

I understand that one editor cannot go to another editor's talk page and restore a warning once it has been deleted by the owner. That makes sense because deletion by the owner amounts to acknowledging the warning.

However, what if the warning is to an IP address? I know some IPs are single user machines, but many IPs are for multi user machines. A user wanting to create mischief might not already realize that the IP has been warned multiple times, and that a single incident leads to a block.

I'm just thinking that on these IP accounts, often times there really is no "owner" of the Talk Page. Is there a strong reason as to why warnings should be able to still be taken down by any user who happens along? LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason to keep them? If the messages were not intended for the user of the IP, why can't they be removed the same as if they have been read? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think many IPs don't have a single user. One user may come along and delete them, while another user shows up later and sees nothing. Something like: user #1 causes some mischief and gets warned .... user #2 comes along and takes down the warning. User #1 comes back and never sees the warning that was intended for them. I wanted to ask and see if I was missing something about the intent of the policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
But if user #2 reads the message intended for user #1, then user #1 will never see the orange message bar so is unlikely to ever see the message. This is unavoidable with shared IPs. It's one reason why AIV insists on recent warnings. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I had not thought of that. This makes a lot of sense. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Fake bios

I know a lot of editors use their userpage to have bios of themselves. But what about people who make bios with false info, like saying they won a championship or worked for a certain company. User:Animal91 is claiming he's worked for TNA and WWE and won titles in both organizations, all of which is BS. The editor is presenting this information as if it's real. Should I contact the user, or take this straight to WP:MFD? TJ Spyke 07:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No credential policy

I clarified this over at WP:No credential policy and there's currently a dispute over the article. If you could check it out, that'd be great. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting just a subpage deletion

I have two subpages right now (one is a sandbox). I want to have this one deleted to make way for a larger project (I don't want to hog space and I don't view the page in question as significant). How do I go about requesting that? -- §HurricaneERICarchive 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just blank the page and put {{db-author}} in place of what's there. It will be deleted routinely by an admin. But don't worry about space; if it's part of something you're working on, you can leave it until the project/article is done. --MCB (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ennh...it's an encyclopedic project (as in not just goofing off) but it'll never make the article namespace because of POV issues. Plenty of the research included in the pages could definately be used in the articles though. I know who my sources are. It's sort of like a list of the Greatest Tropical Cyclones of All Time, with a summary for each storm. I believe it complies with all the User Page guidelines and I'm trying to keep the size down. I broke it into two pages so it won't be just this one big file. I hope that's okay, I've put a lot of time into this. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 19:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. --MCB (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

UP#NOT - "Reasonable" time frame

Beyond the sturm und drang of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments, an important issue has emerged. Wikipedia:UP#NOT says that impermissible content of a user-space page includes:

"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."

The issue raised at this MfD concerns the definition of "reasonable time frame". So what constitutes "reasonable"? Presumably this is more than one hour and less than one year. Riana closed the MfD with an outside time limit in a quite reasonable assessment of the matter at hand.

Going forward:

  • What constitutes a reasonable timeframe?
  • If the page owner pleads special circumstances (I'm busy in real life), does this count?
  • User sub-pages can be created with no links from other wiki-pages, thus somewhat hidden from notice. Does the reasonable time frame extend from the time the page was first created, or from the time the existence of the page is first brought to light?
  • Is it acceptable to create a page to make an ongoing record of a subject editor's behaviour?
  • Is it acceptable to use the page to compile notes on the subject editor's response on learning of the existence of the page itself?
  • How do we prevent gaming, where I can repeatedly and quietly create sub-pages, invite my friends there, and coordinate a "clean kill"?
  • And to a particular argument raised at the MfD, when does the argument of "efficiency" (easier to make the page on-wiki) gain precedence over the counter-argument of "discretion" (store it in Notepad and copy/paste to Show Preview)?
  • Apparently, User_talk pages are searchable by external engines (ie. Google), is this an additional consideration for page lifetime? (added 10:26 09Feb08 UTC)

This is not an attempt to again raise the particular MfD, however it serves as a case study to illuminate the issues at hand. Comments? Franamax (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Case by case judgement, but should be definitely tied to a judgement based on the user's activity level. If you have time to be on WP and do lots and lots of stuff, shorter (if it were me, or BQZip, for example). If someone does 400 edits a month, is not on daily, longer. 2 weeks short, 6-7 weeks long for a ballpark? Lawrence § t/e 06:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Reasonable on its face, but a field-day for the sock puppets. Franamax (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant "external" as in from inside wiki, but that is an excellent point, attemtping to modify above. Franamax (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Franamax, I concur with your change 100%. Just spitballing here, but perhaps we could add something to it to indicate what you should do if someone exceeds this time. Perhaps defining it as an attack page at that point? I'm not interested in instruction creep, but general guidance as to what to do could be instructive here. What do you think? — BQZip01 — talk 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
To use an example, this page in your own userspace, if not used in Dispute Resolution, would have have been an attack page, given it's ripened age. It would should have been speedy deleted as an attack page, had you not cleared it just recently under scrutiny. And, uh, "STAY THE FUCK OFF OF MY USER PAGE!!!" is a good example of why pages like this are an absolute disruptive waste for all of Wikipedia if not used exclusively for swift and prompt Dispute Resolution. For example, I had a similar page related to the ongoing Waterboarding RFAR in regards to disruptive sockpuppetry and trolling by American nationalists. Once I submitted the evidence, I blanked and cleared the data. Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
LC, you know better. I already retracted/spit & polished/renounced that behavior at my RfA...and you know it. — BQZip01 — talk 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't an RFC on BQZip, so lets just take the point that the page mentioned could stand as an example of an attack page if it was allowed to persist. Lawrence, could you edit your post to remove the quoted foul language? Readers will be able to find it by following the link, it doesn't have to show up here. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Franamax...twice in the same page? isn't that the sign of something? — BQZip01 — talk 22:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography on Userpage

Userpages is not ....., but what if somebody creats a userpage as the only contribution to wikipedia and uses it as personal webpage? What happens than? I ask because I found the Userpage of User:Dark_Horse_King.--Stone (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that this kind of use is not permitted and the user is asked to change their user page and then it gets deleted. Franamax (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Polemical

I've removed the relatively recently added, undiscussed addition of the qualifier "extensive use of" before "polemical". Any use of a user page of polemical purposes is a de facto abuse of Wikipedia, and is not permitted at all. --TS 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Tyrenius (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have adjusted the text to clarify that it is talking about non-Wikipedia-related polemical statements. Polemic means "of or involving dispute or controversy" and it is currently-accepted practice to have a limited amount of controversial statements on userpages, especially if contained in userboxes. Actually, I think that particularly bullet point can be safely removed, as it is adequately covered by "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI I just re-removed it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying someone elses userpage

Is there anything against copying another persons userpage? User:Cimmo basically just copied my userpage and pasted it on his (he even left in the userboxes saying he is 21 and from New York even though he says he is 13 and from Australia). I have left him a friendly request to change it, but what if he refuses? Some of the userboxes are achievements which he hasn't earned (he had nothing to do with getting Wii to FA status while I was one of the biggest contributors, he is not an "Experienced and Established Editor" since he only has 500 edits while that Service Award requires 6000, etc.). TJ Spyke 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I have four or five guys who copied mine :) You could edit it and remove the information that becomes blatant information yourself, though. And if you have stated you are releasing the information under another license (like public domain or creative commons) it may be necessary to remove those statements from his page, at least until he puts them himself (as a good faithed effort to prevent the dude from releasing his edits under licenses he may not know about). If he refuses to change that, edit it yourself. If he restores your copy, try again, leaving him a note that by using your user page he is impersonating you, which may be considered disruption. If he restores the page again, inform that at the admin board to have someone change the page with a final warning. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your user page, along with all your contributions, is released under GFDL. This means that others can use it, as long as they follow GFDL requirements, one of which is acknowledging previous authors. You have copyright on the exact design of your page. Unless your authorship is acknowledged it is not covered by GFDL release and is therefore a breach of copyright. I would be quite happy to delete the copy on this basis, if you wish. Alternatively, you can ask the user to acknowledge your original authorship. Tyrenius (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with him copying the basic style, I just think he shouldn't use the userboxes which don't apply to him (like being 21 years old, or being a Experienced and Established Editor when he needs another 5500 edits for that). The ones that bother me though are the ones about getting Wii to FA status and No Way Out 2004 to GA status, I worked hard on those articles and earned the right to display those, he has never even edited the Wii page. TJ Spyke 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of politeness, you could go ahead and remove those that are clearly wrong (I'm not sure how you know the editor isn't 21, except via a statement from that editor, which could of course itself be wrong). If the editor puts the incorrect information back, I'd ask at WP:EA for suggestions; that might bring another editor into the mix. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal info

With reference to User:Sgt.Boris is the inclusion of personal info (in this case a cell phone) removable by an admin, or is all I ought to do just advise him/her strongly that they are being rather foolish if that is their number... and even if it isn't that number might belong to someone, and it is going to get called. SGGH speak! 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dick"

This is a Wikipedia guideline. Can we please avoid references to WP:DICK? It's offensive and unnecessary, and contravenes WP:BEANS to boot. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--George (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nude images

Should pornographic images be disallowed in user pages, perhaps only in certain contexts? In which contexts should they be allowed? This came up recently here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:WebHamster&oldid=196464772. This edit has been reverted twice as of the posting of this RfC. This strikes me as an issue that will come up more in the future. Accordingly, there should probably be some mention of it in this guideline. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:38, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

What are we being asked to discuss here- nude images or pornographic images? They are not the same, except to some people. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would cite Wikipedia:Pornography#Vandalism. People shouldn't be clicking Webhamster's userpage link thinking "man, let's see who this guy is" and get a nice view of sexual/nude images. Great pun, but pornographic/nude images really don't belong in userspace, at least not like that. I don't see the need to distinguish nude from pornographic at this point - it's an issue either way, and trying to play this as "but it's not pornography" is a non sequitur. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That's why I mentioned "in certain contexts". A context of obvious appreciation of art might be fine. In the context of humor, especially the bathroom kind, or immature titillation, I'm not so sure. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:09, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)
A good point, I think we're in agreement more or less. I feel like Liberty Leading the People might be acceptable for a userpage. Whereas the image "Image:Foreskin Penis Descript.jpg" would not be. I think I've come up with a good rule of thumb: consider the image, and consider two hypothetical users, X and Y. If User:X were to (in an isolated incident) replace User:Y's page with Image:Z, it would be inappropriate/vandalism. Now, if User:X deserves a warning or 24 hour block, the image is probably not too bad. If User:X would be indef blocked on sight for use of Image:Z in such vandalism, then I don't think anybody should be using the image in their userpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can put a picture of your dog on your user page then you can put a picture of your penis on your user page. We're not censored, but I wouldn't mind politely asking (not demanding) that people consider toning it down. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Out articles aren't censored -- any photo that appropriately demonstrates the topic is allowed. For user pages, it isn't necessarily a question of censoring, since censoring is the act of blocking something that would otherwise be helpful, in my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:16, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Equazcion. WP:CENSOR is a part of a content policy. Userpages fall outside of such a policy. WP:USERPAGE gives us wide latitude to be creative with our userpages (although I'd hope people tend to add content only relevant - even tangentially - to building Wikipedia). But it is not carte blanche and we don't have freedom of speech on any part of Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say that Wikipedia is required to be SFW (safe for work)? I hear where Cheeser is coming from, but ganging up to keep this guy from displaying an anonymized, softcore porn image (and one from Commons, no less) on his userpage is making my teeth itch. Dppowell (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The "safe for work" argument was brought up by just one user at ANI and it's not the reasoning anyone is discussing here. I personally disagree with that argument. Wikipedia was never safe for work, and most users have no interest in making it that way. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:06, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's making that argument. The point is that nudity, profanity, etc. are all allowed - we want our content to be the best, most inclusive, most neutral, so we do not censor the content of our articles, the images we use, etc. We do have codes of conduct, etiquette, etc. We also expect nude/sexual images to be used responsibly and appropriately - a user (say a child) may know to keep away from this content, or may be monitored or restricted by some guardian or some software, but to stumble onto somebody's userpage and, surprise! vagina! is not appropriate. I've pointed to the right place at Wikipedia:Pornography#Vandalism. Use of sexual/nude images outside of articlespace is not a free-for-all. Common sense and a bit of temperance is required. --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
So by same reasoning, a user can stumble on fuck, cunt, motherfucker and be very offended as well. No? Igor Berger (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes (following up Cheeser) -- WP:CENSOR is meant to enable Wikipedia to always use whatever images or language are necessary for its articles, not to make sure users can express themselves in their userspace, or have freedom of speech. Free speech is something that doesn't exist on Wikipedia, as we've all been told time and time again. People hear the word "uncensored" and automatically associate that with American free speech, say what you like 'cause no one can bother you about it here, etc, but that's not what it means on Wikipedia at all. It's only a rule to make sure no one can remove article content purely on the basis of it being offensive, so that our articles can be truly complete. It has nothing to do with how our editors can interact or express themselves -- that is something that's most assuredly limited and yes even censored, on Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:44, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Users are allowed to put what they want on their userpages. If someone has an issue with it, they can bring it up to that individual. If it needs to go larger, an RfC should be brought up. I'm not a fan of people being expected to tone down anything for the "sake of the children" or any other such audacious argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"what they want"? A joke about pubic hair seems to fall into the "Other non-encyclopedic related material" part of "What may I not have on my user page". — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. You (EVula) might be against censorship on userpages, but regardless, it does exist on Wikipedia. Userspace isn't a free place to put whatever you want. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:18, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, WP:UP isn't a reason to remove stuff that you don't like. If I put a joke about pubic hair on my userpage, you'd probably have to just deal with it. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, I'm just illustrating that, traditionally, stuff is only removed from userspace if it's actually disruptive to the project; off-color content is decidedly not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, decided by who? In the WebHamster instance the content was removed by a user and that act was upheld by an administrator. If you just mean decided by you, then I'd say okay, that's your opinion, now who else agrees? The point is that it's not decided at all yet, hence the need for this discussion. If you're only backing up your opinion with the "fact" that the issue has already been decided, that's a weak argument since it really hasn't yet, as that's what we're here to find out. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:36, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I think someone should be WP:BOLD and put the image back until the consesus has been established for its removal. Igor Berger (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, in this case that's not quite feasible since the image itself was deleted for free content policy reasons (CSD:I4, no license or source data). --MCB (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Nude female deleted Let's check all nude and controvercial images for licenses. Igor Berger (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Good lord, don't strawman us with that. This image got a huge amount of administrator attention, and somebody noticed it had bad license information. Your suggestion is great if we tweak out the sarcasm: Let's check all nude and controvercial[sic] images for licenses. Way to assume good faith. Back to the issue at hand, I find it quite inappropriate to include objectionable content "until the consensus has been established for its removal." Precedent is clear that images containing sexual or nude imagery are not things to be posted around everywhere (I've cited it how many times?) - such images should be restricted to pages in which they have encyclopedic use, otherwise they are open to misuse (vandalism) and (more relevantly) they wind up visible on pages that people who should not see (and do not want to see) such things will have to see them. If I replaced my userpage with a sexually explicit string of profanity, would you honestly expect it to genuinely meet WP:USERPAGE?? If someone objected, how on earth would I possibly defend such content - totally irrelevant to the encyclopedia - being on my userpage? Honestly? Userpages are for content related to building the encyclopedia, and we give people a great amount of license, but people find themselves staring at genitals (and believe me, I have no objection personally, to the nudity or the political message, I couldn't care less) when they may not want to - or it may be inappropriate to be showing them such material - by coming to a userpage? No, that should not be happening. A userpage is not the place to be making bad puns with graphic images to boot, with all due respect to Webhamster - the pun is funny (if unoriginal) but I just don't think it's an appropriate use of his userspace if he throws in an objectionable adult/sexual/nude image. We, as a community, tend to let that stuff slide because it doesn't really matter or harm anybody ... until the pun comes with adult content, content that users don't expect or necessarily want to see when the land on somebody's userpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I think the best way to approach nude images on user pages is the same way we approach spoilers--they're allowed in the proper context, and people should expect to read spoilers in the article on Citizen Kane, but they shouldn't open up user pages only to find "ZOMG ROSEBUD IS HIS SLED LOLZ" in big bold print (yes, I skipped over the more obvious candidate for a reason). The idea with nude pictures is roughly the same--we allow it and will fight tooth and nail to keep it where appropriate, but we're not here to trick our users into seeing something they didn't expect.
Incidentally, a number of galleries of nude images in user space have been deleted at MfD. I'll see if I can't go dig up the discussion links. --jonny-mt 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems that not everything got deleted--the most recent discussion on labeled userpages designed to hold nude images is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Esskater11/Dirty images. --jonny-mt 02:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
People find spoilers where they don't expect them all the time, and sometimes in the intro of an article. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That's just because our policy currently is to give complete info in an article regardless of whether its a spoiler or "expected". That has nothing to do with userspace. We don't say people can post whatever they want in usrspace lest the public not get... what... a complete idea of what's going on in the user's head? That's just not a priority, nor would it be in the same vain as the reason we allow spoilers. CENSOR and SPOILER are both to ensure complete coverage of topics in articles, not coverage of users in userspace. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:24, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not the image that was deleted. The image that was deleted is still deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:27, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • I will vouch for that as well. It was a completely different image. I looked, and as I recall, it did not have adequate source or license information, although I did not check that thoroughly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's similar in that they're both images of shaved vaginas, but they're not remotely identical. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:33, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    • I also added the link to the image on User:WebHamster user page We should leave that link there. And come to a consensus as to how to treat nude images on user pages. Igor Berger (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • What on earth for?? He already added a new vagina image and the one you're adding was not the one in question - stop insisting that it was. The one that was originally used was deleted, Igor. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The one that he had and has now because of your revert of me here is different than the original image, allthough it may be similar, but the one I got from commons is what he wanted to display originally on his page. this is what he has now, it is just a link to it from his page I will let him decide which link he wants to keep. Igor Berger (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Again, why on earth did you think it was necessary to replace the 2nd image with something that is not the first image, to assert some factually incorrect point about the licensing of the first image. Especially when you're the one arguing against modifying people's userpages?? He put the 2nd image there - why change it on his behalf, to an unrelated image, to make a factually incorrect point about the licensing of the original image??? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Igor, the image you posted in not the one he wanted to display. It's just an image you found and think is the same. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:03, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    • The immage is similar in dipiction as the original image that was removed from his user page. Yes the original image had no license attached to it, but I am sure being that it came from commons as he stated to us, it has a license. Netherless the new image, that is if it is new, but it is similar in atribute and depiction has a license. Igor Berger (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

break 1

What we need here is one of those armpit pictures that looks like a woman when zoomed in. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Best solution I've heard so far. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:24, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Well this is about respecting user space, that does alow us some latitude as per guidelines. But in this case even that the image is legal we are told we cannot have it on our user space, because it is polimic. It is the same thing as saying the editor is violating WP:CIVIL - disrupt! Igor Berger (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No it's not. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of wikt:polemical. Further, no one has mentioned WP:CIVIL as far as I know. Please stop misrepresenting our perfectly valid points in this discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No one said anything about polemic. You're confusing this with recent edits to this guideline, which have nothing to do with our discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:31, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    So if your political opinion picture on your user page is not polimic, than why is a nude picture polimic? Igor Berger (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    It's not. Nobody said polemic but you. It's inappropriate because userpages are still only for content related to building Wikipedia. While we give users great latitude in putting content into their userpage, when it is objectionable, adult-only, graphically sexual, etc. we can step in and ask that they user their userpage for Wikipedia-related things only, or at least things that will not upset and possibly harm people coming to their userpage expecting things that are Wikipeda-related, not pictures of genitals. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    The picture is not pornagraphic, but it is art. If it was pornagraphic, it would not be on commons. You are confusing pornography with nude art. Should we censor all nude art because you object to nudity? Igor Berger (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    My post does not contain the word pornography. Once again, and I will ask you for the last time, stop misrepresenting other people's statements. It is tantamount to tendentious editing. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place to publish or display art, especially userpages. If I want to create an art website, I should do it on my own time. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    Please do not WP:TEND me. We having a discussion not enforcing a discussion. Whatever the outcome that is the outcome determined by consensus. Not by your POV or my POV. Others can contribute and have contributed to this discussion. Igor Berger (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    Nothing that you just said made any sense. Please stick to the issue at hand, and please (as I've asked) stop misrepresenting what people say. I would also consider elaborate and repetitive use of tautology to be just as unconstructive. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    I feel for the sake of WP:CIVIL we are censoring user pages. I said what I had to say. It is my POV, others have theirs. Hopefully we can come up with NPOV, but at times it seems very illusive. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    Igor, you're arguing against us. You don't get to decide that our rationale is WP:CIVIL - it's not. If you have nothing more to add, as you've said, than I suggest you stop (non)contributing to this (non)discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

← Cheeser, I beg you, don't waste your time. Sorry Igor, but really, this is ridiculous. You aren't saying anything coherent. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:30, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

My two cents? This is shameful behavior. It's completely, and totally unbecoming of an encyclopedia. Displays such as this make me frightened for the future, and of the kind of behavior we're encouraging in children everywhere. This is sick, and must stop. Now. Think of all the harm you are causing with this disgusting display of prudish censorship. — Coren (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC) For the rhetoric-impaired, this was hyperbole.
Sarcastic hyperbole or regular hyperbole? Would you care, perhaps, to express your actual opinion? It would be alot easier to establish consensus if you provided a rationale for your opinion (whatever it might be, for or against) based on policy, precedent, and community-accepted practices. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite regular, I would have expected this to be obvious given my original intervention at the AN/I thread, but I suppose that could have been lost in the noise. Basically, I think we've gone collectively nuts if we go bonkers over the image of a human being simply because it isn't covered by cloth (or hair in that case); as far as I'm concerned, this is no worse than a picture of a naked flower, or a naked kitty (hu-hu, pun). It's a high quality free picture, and the editor chose it to embellish his user page— this is something a great many user do and nobody blinks.
As for the subject matter? Well, we don't usually make allowances for the putative psychological hangups of onlookers, and this particular image is not even close to being borderline— we're not talking prurient sexual depictions here, but a simple picture of a human female. There can be no rational case made for requiring the editor to remove it. — Coren (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Equating a naked flower with a naked person is perfectly valid from a philosophical standpoint, but in practical terms, about 90% of the world doesn't see it this way. Yes we do usually make allowances for the hangups of onlookers, hence the mention of "disrepute" in this guideline. There can and was a rational case made for the removal -- it's inappropriate. Again, from a philosophical standpoint, you're fine, and I can even somewhat agree with you. But there's a time and a place to practice your philosophies. Showing naked pictures in conjunction with a joke about pubic hair, on a page that's supposed to describe the author of an encyclopedia, just isn't one of them. Most of the world would feel that way, and regardless of the reasons they feel that way and whether or not you agree with them, we do conform to current social climates. Except where our article content is concerned. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:44, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. The argument is rational iff the premise that the image is inappropriate is, which I don't concede. I do understand that you feel that the strong stance against censorship in articles does not extend outside that namespace— but I think that is what's misguided and irrational. My argument is philosophical only insofar as it is an argument about ethics— that allowing ornamentation of user pages in general but selecting "proper" content matter is not a self-consistent position to hold at all. The argument has been made and accepted that unusually divisive material can be removed; but not simply disliked material. The leeway given on political and social argumentation needs to be applied across the board.
I'm sure if I spent some time trawling userspace I would find a great number of images of violence, which I beleive to be more objectionable. I'm sure that for any image you find on a user page you can find a significant fraction of the world population that would object (I'm not even talking about the marginal nutjob here).
So? Try to be consistent. You could argue against any ornamentation of user pages. I wouldn't agree (for entirely different reasons) but the argument would be cogent and supportable. You could argue for fairly strict limits to "offensiveness", and that would also be reasonable, but then you need to apply that consistently and fairly and take into account multitude of social criterion across the world, and barring pictures of flowers, puppies and kittens you'd almost end up with the same net result is the former case. — Coren (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I never argued that a "significant fraction" of the world's population would feel this way, but 90%. It doesn't really have to do with offensiveness either, it's just appropriateness -- which are often used interchangeably, yet there is a difference. A naked picture in this context, ie. within a joke about pubic hair, is just not appropriate for a page meant to describe the author of an encyclopedia. Varying societal norms notwithstanding, this is something most societies that have use for encyclopedias would agree on. Even those who wouldn't find nude photos and jokes about pubic hair offensive would still say it's not something that belongs on a page meant to describe the author of an encyclopedia. Even "significant fractions" of people wouldn't agree to that. People who walk around naked for most of their day, if they read encyclopedias, would even agree there (even people who read encyclopedias while naked :) ). Yes it's a subjective issue, but Wikipedia's application of rules is usually subjective. "Ignore all rules" -- when? There's no cut-and-dry criteria, you just use your judgment. What's allowed on userpages? What counts as a personal attack? It's all very subjective, and meant to be, because the alternative is taking a vote on everything, democracy and bureaucracy, which we seek to avoid. We do seek to be consistent, as much as subjectivity will allow, and we work on the assumption that it is possible. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:26, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Well, 90% is significant. But that is neither here nor there; you think 90% of people would find that image inappropriate. (I don't even think 90% of Americans, who are notoriously prudish, would, by the way). What is "significant enough" to forbid in userspace? 90? 80? How do you establish that? For that matter, how can you even evaluate how big a fraction you are talking about?
That is my point. You cannot hope to establish whether an image is appropriate or not, save by your own subjective evaluation on how many other people may or may not find it so— that's not a fault of yours, that's an unavoidable property of the problem set. There are only three cogent positions: allow anything, forbid everything, or set some arbitrary cutoff point. The problem with that latter point is that it is arbitrary. There can be no objective criterion to set the cutoff point, or to decide on which side of that point a specific image falls (except the obvious extremes, which aren't a problem either way). Are you proposing that a tiny self-selected subset (those who take the time to comment) of a minuscule and unrepresentative fraction of Wikipedia readers (the editors) decide what is "appropriate" for the world at large? (Incidentally, this is veering way off the immediate concern of that specific image for which my position is fairly clear by now— perhaps we should take this to your or my user talk, or another more suitable venue?) — Coren (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Equazcion that you are taking a real-life problem and waxing philosophical instead of addressing this issue pragmatically. I respect that this is how you choose to address the issue, but I feel like it's creating two incomparable issues - one of philosophy, the other of practicality. I would say, however, that you are quite wrong. If I am to choose a number between 0% and 100% (inclusive) what makes 0 or 100 any less arbitrary than 59? Furthermore, you refer to "the obvious extremes," which is in direct contradiction to your "allow everything" approach, which again contradicts WP:USERPAGE and seems to be an appeal to WP:CENSOR or perhaps the right to free speech, neither of which apply here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You've misunderstood me; 0 and 100 are indeed just as arbitrary, but at least they can be applied objectively. The quip about "obvious extremes" referred to other percentages, where an image falls clearly so far on one side or the other that there can be no dispute. For instance, if you set your criterion at "over half the people would find the image acceptable", then a cute kitten image is an obvious case. — Coren (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
And you've not only misunderstood but totally missed my point: Wikipedia is not an objective place. Our rules are totally subjective in every way. Nothing here is objective. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:38, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you've correctly pointed out the flaw. The solution at this point is not to wallow in it, but to do our best to correct it. — Coren (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's subjectivity isn't a flaw; it's intentional. The alternative is democracy, bureaucracy, and lawyering, which Wikipedia intends to avoid. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:59, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • I've just got two things to say. 1)A recent edit to my userpage by someone did not cause the iamge to disappear. I'd already tried posting that image somewhere else with the same result. To me that says that someone with admin privileges and above has invoked a filter on the name of the image in question. Most probably inserting a colon so that the image link becomes just a clickable link. To me this shows sneakiness and cowardice in that they haven't admitted what they've done. I have replaced the image temporarily with the one Igor suggested, though it isn't the one I wanted due to it being much less subtle than the 'waxing' image. 2) Wikipedia is either not censored or it is. You can't have it both ways, you can't 'advertise' it being non censored if half of it is censored. User space is still part of the project. It's the project that is uncensored. You either censor all of it or none of it. Simple as that. --WebHamster 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's really not (that simple). Wikipedia could very well be censored in article space and not userspace. You insisting that it be either all one way or all the other is valid as an opinion, but doesn't "make it so". Equazcion •✗/C • 17:20, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
It is very simple regardless of what you assert. The user space is part of the project, yes? If the user space is censored then so is the project regardless of whether the article space has no censorship. Non-censored is a different animal to partly censored. "Non" meaning "none", yes?. So again you can't have something that is simultaneously non-censored and partly censored and censored. Wikimedia is either censored or it isn't. If you censor one single page anywhere in the project then the project becomes censored. It's a very easy concept, I don't know why you are having such difficulty with it. "Non/none" is an absolute. Even you must understand that? You'll be telling me next that even a vacuum has a little something in it.--WebHamster 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That's really not true. WP:CENSOR is a content policy that governs the content of articles. By your argument, everything at WP:NOT applies to the entire project and we have to delete FAQs and how-to-use-Wikipedia content from project space. Your argument is based on an invalid premise, and while I appreciate that you do not want to be censored, keep in mind that there is no free speech on Wikipedia - userpages are only here to help build the project, and despite the latitude often given, userspace pages that serve only to display nude images are deleted -there is precedent and due cause for this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And for the record, the vacuum of space is constantly filled with small amounts of particles and anti-particles that pop into existence and immediately annihilate each other. See vacuum. Although I don't particularly know why I'm addressing an analogy when it isn't really adept. Nothing on Wikipedia is "absolute" and even if WP:CENSOR were totally absolute, it still only applies to article content, and taking it to absolutes on userspace contradicts our policies on userspace. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:CENSOR quite categorically states that "Wikipedia is not censored", it does not say "Wikipedia articles are not censored", in fact it does not separate out article space and/or user space such as you assert above. It mentions articles, but it does not specifically say articles only. It also quite clearly says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." It also states quite clearly "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." (my emphasis). Where you got the assumption that WP:CENSOR only relates to articles I have no idea, as nowhere does it state on that policy document that its contents refer only to articles. In fact many times it also refers to images. Additionally there is nothing on there to say that it doesn't cover user pages. --WebHamster 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:CENSOR, which is a subsection of the section Content of the policy WP:NOT. It is a content policy. You are completely incorrect here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No I'm not incorrect. If user space is part of the project then user pages ARE content. I'm sorry but you'd make a lousy lawyer. --WebHamster 22:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we're all taking about WP:CENSOR, let's quote it for everyone to see:

While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

Here's the problem - emphasis mine to highlight the two issues. 1) These images are not here for fun. They are here to illustrate relevant content. They are not supposed to be places where they are not relevant to the content. 2) Use of this image on a userpage is not relevant to building the encyclopedia and has nothing to do with Wikipedia (in this case, it's here to make a funny pun about the president of the US). That violates WP:USERPAGE. So on both counts, this image is not allowed, per WP:CENSOR. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Images aren't for fun? Sorry mate, but the images are under a GFDL license and can therefore be used for any purpose. 2) No user page is relevant to building the encyclopaedia, so why pick mine out of many? For example how can Image:Altbier.jpg be construed as "building an encyclopaedia"? There is no embargo upon making puns (political or otherwise), there is no embargo on nude pictures. There is no embargo on humour on user pages. Personally I think you are making this up as you go along. You see my comments are based on what is or isn't in the documents, whereas you are merely interpreting the documents to suit your own agenda. Perhaps you should go ask someone who actually does have a power of veto instead of grasping at tenuous assertions. --WebHamster 22:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I had hoped that you were interested in having this discussion in good faith, but that is apparently not the case. I am sorry for that. Good day. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
By that I assume you had at some point expected me to agree with you rather than disagreeing with evidence? So now you get the hump? Way to go. On the bright side at least you didn't have the audacity to accuse me of incivility for having the gaul to disagree with you, for that I thank you. I've had far too much of that lately. --WebHamster 22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have expected a discussion of WP:CENSOR and the policy laid out there (which I even quoted for your convenience) instead of an insistence that we are out to censor you, which is not allowed, so there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh no problem, I'll do it: WebHamster, you're being uncivil. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:36, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting close the argument

I've pointed to the policy that has repeatedly been used to (with consensus support) delete userpages that are collections of nude images:

While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

The fact that Igor disagrees (or something, I can barely make heads or tails of his Alice-in-Wonderland rhetoric) and WebHamster doesn't want to remove it (obviously) hardly constitutes an unsurmountable opposition and consensus-stalemater. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What BLP policy is it violating? What policy does it violate (definitions not interpretations please)? What law does it break? Get some perspective will you, this is hardly hard-core porn we're talking about, nor is it tasteless, graphic or offensive to anyone in their right frame of mind. If you have a problem with a modicum of skin being on display then frankly I feel very sorry for you. Go to your local (nearest) beach in summer, you will see far worse. FFS people, get a life. --WebHamster 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that personal attack. The obvious decline in your good-faith participation in this conversation is quite troubling. I explained myself above as to how it violates the two clauses I emphasized. Use of an objectionable or adult-content image outside of where it is relevant to article content is not appropriate. Use of a userpage to take bad-pun pot-shots at politicians is inappropriate, and use of such adult-content images should not support such inappropriate use of a userpage - people may afford you the latitude to make political puns on your userpage, but using objectionable nude content to do so is just as inappropriate. I'm glad you're liberal about human sexuality and human nudity. So am I. But that's a personal opinion I will not assume supersedes the existing policy, nor the existing precedent. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You are forgetting something in your affronted-laden rhetoric. "Inappropriate" is a subjective term. Your argument that the page and the use of the image on the page is "inappropriate" is based soley on what you deem to be inappropriate. Again, and I have no idea why you can't see this, it's your definition that you are using, not one laid down in any policy document. Each of us have our own ideas on what is inappropriate, yours is this and you are using the policies to bolster your definition. You couldn't do this in article space as you'd be accused of POV. It's your POV that it's inappropriate, it's my POV that it isn't. Every single one of us can have a different viewpoint. Like I said earlier, you are arguing based on YOUR interpretation, not on what the policy docs actually say. By the way, I specifically chose the word "people" so that it wouldn't be aimed at you personally. But there you go again with interpretation. That's why it's better to follow the word of a policy, not your interpretation of what you think it means. Next time try reading what it says, try noticing what it doesn't say then take out your mental embellishments and see what's left. I work part time in a solicitor's office, in that office I see lawyers reading law books and following them to the letter because as any lawyer will tell you it's the wording that makes all the difference. You accused me of philosophising earlier, I beg to differ. I'm coming at this logically and literally. You're the one who is trying to use viewpoints and interpretations to win the discussion. In a nutshell, there is no policy document in Wikipedia that says that I cannot have a tasteful nude on my user page. There is no document that specifically says that I can't make satirical jokes at the expense of a politician. Just because you wish they did does not make it so. There is no document that says humour is banned. The fact that it is quite obviously humour should negate any polemic accusations. --WebHamster 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, inappropriate is subjective. Just like most of our rules. Wikipedia is not a place where objectiveness rules. We do remove things and block people based on reasons like "inappropriate", "offensive", "attacks", and sometimes we "ignore all rules". Based on what? Pretty much our own judgment. What's a personal attack? Well, that could differ from culture to culture, person to person, so it's far from objective criteria. Do we specify certain "key words" that must be present in order for a statement to be a personal attack? No. You just use your judgment, just like with any rule on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is subjective. It's how we apply all our rules, and it's how we avoid becoming a democracy and a bureaucracy with voting on all decisions and lawyers to argue detailed rules. Heck, we even have places where we say that certain things need to be "encyclopedic". How much more subjective can we possibly get? Equazcion •✗/C • 00:46, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Well I've checked the broadsheets and there's not one report of a maiden aunt catching the vapours due to a millisecond's viewing of my page. Now, why don't you take the advise you gave to a certain editor with less than perfect English and go edit some articles instead of spending all your time attempting to change policy. Perhaps you should have checked out your own contrib list before throwing that one in the mix. Now you should know by now that yes I do bite, but only when bitten first. This whole business should never have gotten this far. That trolling ****wit started this, so I hope you've had a good time giving him a reason for a swift one off the wrist. perhaps your ire should be at pillocks like him, rather than someone like me. I never start it, but I'll do my damn best to finish it. --WebHamster 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, good for you. To address the only sentence of that that had something to do with this discussion, again, offensive or shocking isn't the issue, as I stated above. It's appropriateness. A nude photo in conjunction with a joke about pubic hair is not appropriate for a page that's supposed to describe an author of an encyclopedia -- meaning that it just doesn't belong in this particular place, nothing else. Even people who aren't offended by nudity would attest to that. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:29, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Since when you do get off deciding what I think describes me? It describes my sense of humour and it describes my outlook. Don't get above yourself.--WebHamster 01:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What you think about the content on your own userpage is hardly relevant when it's being scrutinized. What everyone else thinks is the question. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:49, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Make your mind up, one minute it's about whether or not it describes me, now it's about what other's think. No it fucking isn't. It's my page and I'll choose whatever method I like to describe myself. What others think is neither important to me nor under my control.--WebHamster 01:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "it's mine and I'll do what I want" is much of an argument here. Your userspace is most assuredly not yours to do with what you like. Hence the rules governing what's allowed there. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:59, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
It's my page for the purpose of describing myself. How I choose to do it is up to me, not some yank drummer.--WebHamster 02:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not entirely up to you, in that there are rules governing it. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:26, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Webhamster, almost every one of your comments recently has contained a personal attack or other sort of hostile, inappropriate language. Please refrain from turning this into one giant display of hostility and incivility. If you cannot contribute to this discussion without posting attack after attack, please stop. This is a policy discussion, and that's how everyone is going about it. No one has made this a personal issue but you, and stooping to personal attacks is going to make things much worse. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

break 2

Since I have twice been accused, by two different editors, of not being a good enough lawyer to participate in this discussion, I quit. I have pointed to the policies in question, and despite the fact that this is not a court of law, I am being told that the consensus-backed policies and the precedents we have mean nothing because I cannot cite them in proper litigious fashion (and let's not forget the personal attacks). Webhamster, feel free to continue to stir up trouble in order to assert your freedom of expression. Because that's really important and a great way to build community while using your userpage to help build Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but if WebHamster is one of them, just know that he accuses lots of people of lots of things. It's just his way, and he does it often, especially to people to disagree with him, and even more especially in heated arguments (which, if he's involved, they will always be). So rest assured, "it's not you". Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
At least I don't follow them around incessantly trying to wind them up, now do I? I keep my thoughts and feelings to the discussion and nowhere else, unlike some skin bangers eh? --WebHamster 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I came here before you. You followed me, if anything. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:21, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Who said anything about here? Given that I was roped into this then I had no choice in ending up her. I'm fucked if I'm gonna let a pissant star chamber decide what I can or can't have on my userpage without me having a say. --WebHamster 01:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
WebHamster, please, try to keep a cool head here. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:30, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
You've got to be fucking kidding me? --WebHamster 01:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not kidding. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:55, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Well give the rhetoric a fucking rest and go do something else that is no doubt far more important than this storm in a tea cup. Go edit an article and give me a fucking chance to. --WebHamster 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
When I'm ready to, I will. But do go ahead, no one's keeping you here. If you are going to stay here though, you should stop with all the violent outbursts. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:00, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Violent? Don't talk rot. I'll use the language I wish to use, as per usual I don't need advice from you. It seems that it's not just images you wish to censor. Take the advice that was touted earlier. Give it up as a bad job. You know damn well that you piss me off royally, and you know damn well that you do it deliberately. My talk page and its archives are full of it. I realise it will be far easier for you if I blow a blood vessel and tell you exactly what I think of your and your fucking opinions. Give it a fucking rest. the image is staying. Simple as that. If you want to get Jimbo over to have a look see then do so, I'll tell him the same thing. --WebHamster 02:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the image stays. This discussion isn't about your page. Your page was just an example of the issue at hand. Do what you like, I haven't tried to stop you. If you feel pissed off by me, I'm sorry, I don't know what I did to piss you off. I'm just requesting that you remain civil. And I won't leave here just because you want me to... but again, no one is stopping you from discontinuing here. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:30, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
If the troll link was aimed at me, then your aim is well off. This was indeed all started by a (who has been particularly successful in this instance) and it ain't me. You want this all to die down? Simple, leave me and my page the fuck alone and go edit an article. --WebHamster 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect more people would leave you alone if your user page didn't appear to be a juvenile pubic hair joke. That isn't what we're here for, and WP:USER is clear enough that such things are inappropriate for user pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Webhamster, please try to remain civil. Cussing at people is not going to help anything. Since this is Wikipedia talk:User page, would you care to explain how your userpage meets the definition of what a userpage is: Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. How does your userpage facilitate communication that helps the project of building an encyclopedia? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: If nude images are blocked from user pages, will images of the prophet Muhammad (very offensive to many people) follow suit?Bless sins (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, no. But I'm not arguing in favor of blocking nude images entirely. The thing that makes WebHamster's page inappropriate isn't the nude image, but the entire content of the page considered holistically. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography were to choose a nude image for a userbox, that would be fine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    In the same way that a participant in a Islam-related Wikiproject could easily display such a picture and say "I am a member of Wikiproject:Islam" but somebody could not have a userpage consisting of that image and some remark or joke like "omg muslims are dumb." --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am going to be bold and remove the photo while you folks try to figure this out. Good luck --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I object to pornographic images in userspace, though I didn't examine the particular instance under discussion. I tolerate WP:NOT#CENSOR only for articles where it is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, profanity and pornography are absolutely unacceptable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, but out of many possible nude images, am I the only one who thought it was at least tasteful (as far as nude images go)? And it's highly subjective if nudity is a bad or good thing. There are many cultures that walk around nude or mostly nude, and have done so for hundreds of years. If this was an image of some guy ejaculating on something (which we do have an image of, as well as a video file), or someone taking a dump, then I think that would be more "universally offensive". The image on Hamster's userpage right now doesn't really bother me, at all. I wouldn't even call it pornographic. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The image is quite tasteful. The context is not. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:38, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Because it's a political joke? Wha...? -- Ned Scott 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree (again) with Equazcion. It's not a matter of whether nudity is bad, or whether the image is not tasteful (universally or relatively). It's a matter of WP:USER, which is what this is the talkpage for. The question is, given that WP:USER makes it very clear that userpages are only for the purposes of building Wikipedia - it's not a page for you to make whatever you want show up on the internet, should we allow users the latitude to use such pictures on pages when they are clearly, without a doubt, not being used to build the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Clearly, the answer is "no" if we follow the letter of the law strictly, but we don't - users are given great latitude in what they put on their userpages, however there are problems when the content becomes something that some users shouldn't be seeing at all due to the age-appropriateness of the content. And no, this is not the place to argue things like children should be allowed to see non-pornographic nudity or nudity shouldn't be shameful or the human body is not offensive. These are not issues relevant to WP:USER and go faaaaaar outside what we can determine or address on Wikipedia policy pages. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
"however there are problems when the content becomes something that some users shouldn't be seeing at all due to the age-appropriateness of the content" That has to be the most absurd thing I've read tonight. I mean no offense, but do you honestly think that some random child is going to be any more likely to stumble across Hamster's page vs a userpage with the word fuck, or with a detailed explanation of what double penetration is, or on any given web page on the internet? We do have WP:FUCK after all, why not try to AfD that? What are the chances of them even link jumping to Hamster's userpage? We are not here to babysit little kids or take the place of their parents, especially when we have no evidence, whatsoever, that there is anything to be seriously concerned about. If this is a discussion about someone having an image where two chicks are having a pissing contest, or where someone decided to really whore it up with some raunchy stuff, then I can understand, but this is a modest joke using a modest nude photograph. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I still think the nudity isn't the main issue (I realize other people are concerned about it, but I'm not). I don't see why "modesty" is a concern, either; it still seems to focus on the actual image rather than the spirit of the page. Regardless of the image, this sort of user page betrays misunderstandings of the point of Wikipedia and the point of user pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that's what I would call a reasonable argument. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you heard of the principle of charity? Or how about read my past comments. I've made it clear that my opinion in this matter is based on the fact that people who don't want to see nude images avoid penis and double penetration, and indeed, the more important point is that Wikipedia is not censored: it allows for all sorts of content to be used in building an encyclopedia. Furthermore, it forbids the use of userspace (in specific) for unencyclopedic ends, and goes as far (in some instances) as to prohibit the use of nude and other types of images outside of particular articles. This was my argument, and I believe I made it unambiguously, the least you could do is afford me some courtesy and charity. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Exception to WP:BLANKING

The one case where policy prohibits a user from removing a comment on their own talk page is for a declined unblock request. The request cannot be removed while the block is active. As I understand it, this is in order to prevent abuse of the unblock template. I have added this info to the guideline, as I believe it is merely a clarification of existing policy, rather than a change in policy or guideline. Correct me if I am wrong. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't sockpuppetry notices also not supposed to be removed? I've seen them restored on several occasions as "you aren't allowed to remove these from your own page." --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Good edit, agree with Cheeser that there are other items that should not be removed. (1 == 2)Until 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If there are more than just the one, then probably my add should be changed to be non-specific as opposed to listing them all, although I'm not sure of how to say it succinctly... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is the type of tricky wording one needs when we allow people to blank their userpages when they don't like what is there, yet we still need to enforce some types of markers. (1 == 2)Until 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I object to the "suspected" part. That's open to too many abusive applications, not to mention that more than a few trolls will throw around groundless allegations of sockpuppetry when people oppose them. If there is to be an exception I suggest it be for confirmed sockpuppet notices only, please. Dragons flight (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Frivolous, bad faith, and blatantly wrong sockpuppetry allegations are closed in a timely fashion, and if they are truly so obvious and incorrect, that will be transparent. No established, good-faith editor should be afraid to have a sockpuppetry template on their user/user-talk page if it is blatantly false and will be closed within a day - no one would take such a template seriously anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Frivolous, bad faith, and blatantly wrong sockpuppetry allegations have driven away more than a few newbie editors who were mistaken for someone they were not. We have a reasonable checkuser process, that is an appropriate manner of resolving suspicions; fighting over sockpuppet tags is not. Dragons flight (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
We've also had five trillion unblocks, but that doesn't mean that block templates should be removed at will, does it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, if a template it truly frivolous then ask someone uninvolved to remove it. If you cannot convince someone uninvolved to remove it, then it is best to just let the investigation carry on. In fact if it really was a frivolous template then I would ignore the rule and let someone remove it. (1 == 2)Until 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Per WP:IAR and many other policies, if a certain thing on your talk page is clearly in bad faith and/or it is clear the community won't stand for it, there would never be a problem in removing it. I look at it similarly to the exceptions to WP:3RR -- if the change you are reverting is obvious vandalism or is otherwise something that the Wikipedia community is not going to tolerate, then you can revert the whole livelong day.
Anyway, this discussion brings up a very important point, and why I initially added the exception: Wikipedia policy is not clear on this. I was not attempting to modify any policy or guideline, I was just trying to make sure that WP:BLANKING did not contradict other policies -- and we can't even figure out how to do that. heh... In fact, I have so far been unable to locate any policy or guideline that says unblock templates shouldn't be removed -- the template says not to remove it, but hell, I can make any template I want and put "do not remove" in the text of the template. heh...
If I Were King(TM), WP:BLANKING would be severely modified so that warnings could only be removed under certain circumstances, but the community has rejected this many times in the past, unfortunately... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Here's a revised version, since there have been several changes recently I figure I might make them here instead of making more changes to the page:

Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests (while blocks are still in effect) or sockpuppetry notices. In this case it may be legitimate to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to display important information about blocks and confirmed or suspected sockpuppetry. Notices of this type that are patently and unquestionably made in bad-faith, or that do not have a corresponding block or sockpuppetry/checkuser page, may be removed by appropriately ignoring this rule, although it is recommended that an uninvolved third party remove such notices. But it is not required that they be removed, and it may be easier to leave them in place, avoiding arguments about whether such a notice was left in good faith.

I don't know if that's too verbose, but I'm trying to hash out here what people are saying in this discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. (1 == 2)Until 15:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No way. A) IAR is a fail-safe for when policies are broken, but policies themselves should never be written to depend on it. B) Again, you'll get no support from me over any "suspected" language. C) I disagree with recommending that bad faith notices be left in place, after all if they are bad faith they shouldn't be there, right? Which leads to D) any policy that depends on interpreting the perception of bad faith will lead to conflict, which is exactly what the language allowing removal is intended to avoid.
Unblock notices while blocked and confirmed sockpuppetry form a bright line that is tangible and not weighted in personal perception. These I am prepared to accept. Grey areas that depend on personal perception of the legitimacy of a tag are historically sources for major conflict and should not be reintroduced into this policy in any form. Dragons flight (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to sound out of line or anything, but you sound pretty angry about all of this, and seem to be making demands and ultimatums, not working with us to craft a policy that we all can support. Several other people believe that this version or something like it is appropriate. Do you have any suggestions and constructive comments? PS. This is not a policy page... are you confused on that matter? --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I am angry that we go through a variant of "shouldn't we keep tags" every three months. Which as you may or may not be aware was tried. It was abandoned because people at ANI grew tired of seeing ridiculous tagging-related edit wars every week. Can we agree that we don't want to encourage people to edit war over tags? If so, then I've already made a suggestion of where a bright line on the subject is: i.e. ongoing blocks and confirmed sockpuppets. Given the failings of the past, I am opposed to introducing any subjectivity into this issue. (PS. I used "policy" in common English sense of a "rule", "guideline", etc., not in the Wikipedia-centric sense. And you can be assured that whatever the template at the top, people will treat such language as a "rule".) Dragons flight (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
We apply common sense to all our policies, it does not require the application of IAR, more it is based on the same spirit as IAR. The idea that we can use our brains. Consensus can change, so I see no point n being upset at this new discussion. We already have a rule against edit warring and this proposal does not change that. (1 == 2)Until 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem isn't that consensus can't change it's that more often than not a few people (often with little appreciation of the history of the issue), decide that we obviously need to change away from what dozens and hundreds of people have discussed previously. If you really want to address this I suggest you invite wider community participation rather than assume the four of us alone have any right to change things that have been a source of broad discussion for a very long time.
Actually, you raise exactly the point, but in a tangential form, we already have rules for people that actually game the system and hence this proposal is largely unnecessary. We don't need special rules to deal with people who merely remove tags. If they remove unblock requests in order to "try again", then we can deal with that. If they remove it merely to get rid of it and then sit out their block, then there is no harm. By creating rules about these tags, we create situations where people feel entitled to edit war in order to put them back. We don't need any extra rules for dealing with these messages, since the real issue is whether we can deal effectively with people that game the system, and from my point of view we can already handle that situation directly. Dragons flight (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well policy is supposed to describe our best practices, not prescribe our practices, and I have seen in practice that we don't let people remove certain types of tags. The details of course are up to debate.
I really think that those who wish to participate in policy formation need to keep an eye on the policy's talk page. I agree that a wider audience is a good thing, and you are welcome to seek it by posting a neutral message in one of the common places. But there is nothing wrong with a group of people seeking policy change on the policy talk page, that is where it is supposed to be done. (1 == 2)Until 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
DF, I'm concerned about how upset this issue seems to have made you. You cite dozens/hundreds of prior users who support you, but Wikipedia is not static and nobody but you seems to be so voraciously opposed to these changes. I suggest you take a break, let others weigh in on the issue if necessary, and if you remain the singular opinion against this change, I'd hope that after a break you could provide a more constructive/consensus-building dialogue regarding this matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, I said dozens/hundreds who discussed these issues. I'm not going to assume that they all do or do not agree with my particular position. I may be a singular opinion among the four here, but unless I'm mistaken I'm also the only one here who repeatedly dealt with the fallout of the previous policy on removing warnings. I understand how you can think these things sound like a good idea, but in my experience they simply aren't.
Anyway, I'm going to post a few notices and go away for a while. Dragons flight (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


(edit conflict)

I think I need to reiterate here that this discussion is not about changing policy -- it's about writing down a policy that seems to already exist. The unblock template says "Do not remove this template," but I can find no policy, guideline, or essay anywhere (until I edited WP:BLANKING and WP:DRC) that says you cannot remove an unblock template. Even the instructions on unblocking don't seem to say anything about it, as near as I can tell.
So either the unblock template has incorrect text, or there is a gap in what is spelled out by policy, or else I just can't find the relevant policy.
So -- are people currently allowed to remove suspected sockpuppet messages? Confirmed sockpuppet messages? I'm just looking for clarification here.... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, this little debate between DF and Cheeser is exactly the reason why I am only seeking clarification of policy. rather than a change in policy. Cheeser, DF is right, in a way: Any change you suggest to Wikipedia policy, I guarantee you that if dozens of people will come out of the woodwork and raise objections to the change -- but not until you actually modify the policy page. Wikipedia is too large to ever achieve consensus on a policy change anymore. You can not get enough people's attention at once in order to get a positive consensus on a change, and believe you me, if you actually try to make a change, you will immediately attract enough people who are opposed that a negative consensus is inevitable. Sorry if that's too jaded, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Policy changes every day, by consensus. I have personally seen it happen numerous times. It is true that there is often objection, but if the community truly embraces the change then such objection is drowned out, or even better a better version is thought of that lets all agree. (1 == 2)Until 19:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused ... did we not already modify this page, and no one (or rather, only one) has come out of any woodwork? Furthermore (and 1==2 makes this point better than I), this guideline is shaped by standard, consensus-built community practices, not the other way around (as DF seems to suggest). Sockpuppetry notices of all sorts are left because they are important not just in notifying the user, but in notifying others who come to the user's talkpage. That's how they work, that's why people commonly insist that they remain until the case is resolved, and our guidelines should reflect that. The same with unblock templates - even if a blocked user has no intention of gaming the system, the templates should stay. IAR allows us to ignore "do not remove this unblock template" if such a rule hinders our building an encyclopedia. IAR isn't carte blanche to do what you want unless it hurts Wikipedia, it's carte blanche to ignore rules if those rules are explicitly and undeniably in the way. There's a difference there that I think needs to be understood. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In my mind, while we changed the policy page, I don't think we have changed the actual policy. I am pretty sure Wikipedia community consensus has for years been that you cannot remove unblock notices. It's just that the policy page didn't spell this out, and in fact in the section we modified, appeared to contradict the established de facto policy. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. I assumed you meant "all you have to do is edit WP:UP and people will start objecting" - what you meant was to change it to say something other than standard practice. Understood now (I think). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1 touched on a point that I wanted to make too. In what sense does WP:IAR apply to User and Talk pages? Putting the question another way, in what way does the removal or otherwise of messages assist or prevent anyone from "improving or maintaining wikipedia"? This is a useful question to consider because, in a way, IAR is the zeroth law of wikipedia. Clearly there are cases (such as unblock requests) where consensus is clear that message removal would be harmful to admin efforts to maintain wikipedia, and there is also consensus that most other messages (including warning templates) may be removed without being harmful in that respect. The question, then, is where and how we draw the line. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently IPs don't count as users

I keep running into addled people who seem to think IP editors don't count as "users" and that therefore the admonition to stop being contrarian paper-pushers about warning removal doesn't "count" because it's on the "User page" guideline. This is both incorrect -- IP users are of course users and entitled to basic courtesy and fair treatment -- and even harmful -- revert warring with users on their own talk page about worthless template messages does nothing but breed animosity and contempt (if anything encouraging vandalism), put off potential editors and donors, waste time, and clog the servers. The community has repeatedly determined that warnings are not worth edit warring over. much less blocking over, at venues such as Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, Wikipedia:Removing warnings, and even Wikipedia:User page. Oh-so productive template messages warning users for removing warnings were deleted some time ago, for these very reasons. Still, I have a feeling that so long as the relevant text remains on this particular page, it will continue to be willfully misread by those with nothing better to do than play cops and robbers by taunting caged tigers.

In short, this needs to be rectified. It's past time to get this over and done with. Either IP users should be explicitly mentioned in the text, or the particular text segment on warning removal should be moved to another page. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As there's been no objection within a perfectly reasonable time-frame, I've gone ahead and made this edit. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
As all of the discussion has been at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:User page and IP's, lets wait to see how that turns out before we change the guideline. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You say "all" as if this hasn't been discussed and decided several times over the past year. =\ – Luna Santin (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If the issues were all well and settled, this guideline would have already been updated to either explicitly include or exclude IP addresses / unregistered editors. As recently as October there have been AN/I reports [2] for admins that did not know it was ok for users to remove messages, let alone IPs. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"Users... let alone IPs." That sort of statement is appalling. The language about removal of warnings was added here for lack of a better place, not because IP editors are bastard children we can do with as we please. I challenge you to find a single discussion that either supports to notion that IPs aren't included when describing "users," or more importantly that IPs are counted as "non-users" when it comes to the numerous prior discussions where it was determined there is no good reason to edit war over utterly unimportant template messages. Read the discussions I linked above, point out to me where the phrase "except IPs" came up in any of their conclusions. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you appear to have totally misunderstood what I was trying to say. Please forgive my lack of clarity and let me try to be more clear. When I first started editing here, there was an entire series of escalating {{wr}} template warnings that got slapped on editor's talk pages when they deleted messages or warnings from their own talk pages. Even though these templates were deleted in 2006 and even after WP:USER was updated [3] in early 2007 to clearly state that users may remove messages at will from their own talk page, many people continue to be confused by this change. While most Wikipedia editors understood that registered editors had been explicitly given the right to delete messages, mistakes continued to happen for months afterward (as evidenced by the above report of an admin to AN/I). When I said "users ... let alone IPs" my intention was not to treat IPs as "bastard children" but to show how even admins were getting it wrong for registered editors nine months after WP:USER was updated ... and while there may be some disagreement or confusion as to if WP:USER applies to anonymous editors, there is no doubt that it definitely applies to registered editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I do remember the {{wr}} templates (thanks for reminding me of the name), but I also remember when and why they were deleted -- specifically because there was no policy or guideline backing them up, and they caused far more disruption, animosity, and bad blocks than they were ever worth. While I appreciate that you have the best of intentions in attempting to exclude anons from this section of the guideline, the fact remains that doing so would systematically harass and deprive them of basic fairness and dignity. Since the question begs itself, again I'll ask you to point out any consensus that specifically determined IPs should be excluded from the ability to manage their associated talk pages; I'm asking again to emphasize my feeling that this is a novel interpretation not supported by prior or current discussions. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Archiving?

On User talk:Kei-clone, Kei-clone has stored a copy of MyAnimeList, an article fairly deleted through AfD for failing WP:WEB (by his own statement, it has now been deleted three times though only once through AfD). He first put this article on his talk page back in January, then removed it on March 17th when he recreated the page. The page was nominated for AfD on March 25th, at which point he archived the page to his user talk page again[4]. The page was deleted, along with a related page. I left Kei a note suggesting he now remove the article, per WP:USER or move to a subpage if he intends to work on the article to try to meet notability (which was never able to be established during the entire AfD). He said he can leave it on his main talk page if he wants to because it doesn't violate WP:USER. So my question is, does his archiving of a deleted article to his user talk page the way he has violate WP:USER? AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's working on it or whatever, then it shouldn't matter if it's on the talk page or a subpage. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, he isn't and doesn't claim to be. He's just holding it with the stated intention of just recreating it later. Since archiving the page, he has only made one minor edit to it to add : to the categories. A second editor, an associate of Kei's, also has it archived and never edited her archive at all, just let's it sit there. I also have asked about this at ANI. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see what's going on here. He basically made a revision of his talk page contain the contents of the page. I wouldn't worry about it, but to be honest, it's something I've done myself when I've been worried that we might be losing something useful, and would like a quick and easy option to recall it. (This was before I knew how to export articles and then import then on external wikis, and then work on them there) That part of his talk page has been removed and only remains in the history, where it will have very little life, and won't be indexed on search engines and such. The deletion wasn't really controversial or anything, nor was there a strong push for deletion (at least that wasn't the impression I got).
So it might violate something.. but eh.. seems pretty minor to me. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How many?

How many user subpages is one allowed to have? T.Neo (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no theoretical limit, although if you are asking the question I would wonder what the reason is. It would be inappropriate to try and build an entire website using UT space on Wikipedia, for example. On the other hand, if you had a lot of in-progress pages that were eventually destined for article space, for example, that would be fine. So the question is not so much "how many" as it is "what for?" --Jaysweet (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to get rid of a whole lot of fancrufty original research on the Prehistoric Park article. Basically it's a show where a a guy called Nigel Marvin goes back in time and captures dinosaurs to put into a zoo. Of course, like so many wikipedia articles on television shows, It attracted OR and fancruft like a magnet. And so I am trying to get rid of that, that is why I have made these subpages, here: User:T.Neo/Prehistoric park and User:T.Neo/List of animals in Prehistoric Park for test edits. By the way, I know a user called Dora Nichov. He claims to be a fennec fox in the sahara desert, but that is besides the point. He has a subpage User:Dora Nichov/Stories. Is this allowed? Just asking. T.Neo (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As you're using the subpages to work on the article, they're fine. Basically, if the subpage in question is helping you to edit Wikipedia, then it's allowed. (assuming it's not inappropriate in some other way). The guideline states that you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. The community tends to be somewhat lenient with editors who are making a genuine contribution to the encyclopaedia. If an editor has userpages filled with unrelated content, and makes no contributions to Wikipedia, then they are likely to be deleted. --BelovedFreak 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The User:Dora Nichov/Stories subpage is not really allowed, though. I would recommend the user store their stuff somewhere else. Nobody's likely to make a big deal out of it, but I would recommend against it. I mean, you don't want to come back one day and find that somebody filed an MfD while you were gone and all the stories are deleted, right?
Try Google docs. [5] Free, probably better for this sort of thing, and it keeps revision histories just like Wikipedioa. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Content?

The not criteria says that one may not have "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc" and "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia." Would the politic sections on this user page be considered polemical and extensive personal opinions? AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that is exactly what qualifies as extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc (1 == 2)Until 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal details of people not involved in WIkipedia

I see that "personal information of other editors without their consent" is to be avoided on userpages. What about people who are not Wikipedia editors? Are there any policies or guidelines that address the issue of personal information about other people not on Wikipedia? I have seen a userpage that has information on the editor's family members including full names, birth dates & birth places and details of their personal lives. I have not contacted the editor in question about this yet because I wanted to see if there were any guidelines.--BelovedFreak 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty clear corollary to me. I suggest changing the page appropriately. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:51:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:37:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I have removed the material from that editor's user page. --BelovedFreak 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Default "stub" and "template generator"

It may be a good idea to create a default stub and a bot to insert it on all users. This esentially would cause a script that is currently running every time a user accesses an uncreated userpage to be replaced with a script that would run once for each user. While it sounds like the same thing, it would make a much friendlier environment for the users, as you could put up a basic template there that would be editable.

Additionally, a template engine for generating userpages without fuss would also be nice. I'm not quite up to stuff on the Wiki layout yet, so I would not be the best person to create one, but having one could give new users a good tutorial of more advanced Wiki features. I know I could use one and I've been a periodic commenter for years. --RuediiX (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Screen shot

I have a screen shot of User:Example's page. Could it be used on the page? WikiZorro 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here It is

My userpage

I've reported User:Tiptoety following the locking of my userpage. [6] and [7] Lugnuts (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

UI Spoofing again

I'm not going to re-hash the "freedom to shout Fire in a crowded theatre" argument. Rather than deleting the "offending" message, a better way to defuse this might be for an outside editor to change its background, colour or font. Personally I think that the "it's my userspace" argument becomes rather weak if the user insists that their message must be easily confusable with a legitimate system message. Say what you like, just not in a box that looks official. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like it but I don't see a big problem with it. It doesn't cause irreversible damage--if anything wastes a few seconds. But, let's just make it clear if it's okay or not so we don't get really silly drama over it. gren グレン 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems like a pretty appropriate response:
Seems pretty apt in this case, too --Dragon695 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Do they serve a purpose other than to humiliate someone or make them feel like an idiot? It's not like a practical joke that you play in person and can see the reaction so what purpose does it serve? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you be humiliated when no one in the world knows you clicked on it and a simple click of the back button brings you back?--Cube lurker (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal navbox

Are users allowed to have personal navboxes on their userpages or is it inappropriate? T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 10:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, just name the navbox in the userspace as well. For example, {{User talk:Ned Scott/archive}}. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of articles-: Sir William the Templar and the Black Madonna at New Norcia

The previously uploaded short article was about Sir William Ferrers, the 5th Earl of Derby, Lord Tutbury. I was priviledged in 2004 in correctly identifying his effigy which is located in the small Gate Church of Our Lady of Merevale in Staffordshire. The effigy has been incorrectly assigned to a descendent and does not mention the fact that Sir William was a Crusading Knight Templar who actually died while supporting King Richard Lion Heart's military operations leading to the siege of Acre in Palestine in ca. 1195. The effigy is remarkably similar to the one of his coeval Templar-companion, Sir Geoffrey de Mandeville, located at the Temple Court in London. For those who wish to look at photographs and to read more about this amazing discovery, please go to http://wwwgensferreria.blogspot.com or contact me by e-mail on gensferreria@bigpond.com

To-day I wish to relate another interesting discovery I made in 2007 when visiting the Benedectine Abbey/Monastery located at 120 KM from Perth, Western Australia, called New Norcia. Since discovering the effigy of Sir William in Staffordshire, I seem to have become very receptive to Templar's voices and knowledge. At New Norcia which has been founded by spanish benedectine monks in the nineteenth century, i.e., Father Ildefonso Salvado, who was actually elevated to the dignity of a Bishop, one can witness the presence of several art works of a not-diminutive size, dedicated to the tradition of the Black Madonna. There are in fact striking presences of symbols which relate the art works at New Norcia to more primitive works in France and at Montserrat north of Barcelona, on the Costa Brava. Again I am going to upload a series of photos of these art works in the above mentioned blog. Please contact me by e-mail if interested. --Ferrerix (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC) signed-: Ferrerix

Question

To put personal pictures (which is allowed) seems to be some kind of personal blog (which is not allowed) to me. Bennylin (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fine line. A few pictures of an editor is normally okay. It's nice to see who's behind the name, and gives you a little more info about who they are. This helps the sense of community, lifts moral, as well as reminding us that there are real people behind these names. Stuff like that. It's just a matter of how much they do it, and if they're doing any actual work at the same time. -- Ned Scott 23:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WebTrain company article in userspace

User Gary WebTrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written two articles which have been deleted three times as per the blatant advertising WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion criterion and the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING policy (see WebTrain Communications and WebTrain deletion logs) about his company. After the deletions, he began re-writing his article on his main userpage and solicited assistance from more experienced editors to help him bring his article into compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

(There are other issues such as his conflict of interest and the username which reflects that, which have also been discussed on User talk:Athaenara#Deletion discussions and on User talk:Xavexgoem as well as on the user's own talk page. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Gary WebTrain.)

His working userpage is not in compliance with WP:UP#NOT #6. Should it be speedily deleted as the articles were, prodded, or simply moved to a subpage of his userspace? — Athaenara ✉ 21:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

in the first instance I would discuss with the user moving to a subpage of his userspace. I have delinked the cats for the time being I assume since his stated aim is to bring his article into compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines we should give him the space to do that for some time - not sure how long. --Matilda talk 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
personally, I just think subpaging is friendliest. He is trying to establish notability (see sources at User_talk:Xavexgoem#RE_Discussion:_User_talk:Gary_WebTrain near the bottom), but none really qualify as reliable (and even if they do, I can't think of how to fold it in the article atm). What I would do for a decent third-party source... Xavexgoem (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
As per the discussion here and on COI/N, I moved it to the User:Gary WebTrain/Sandbox subpage.
The deleted article was re-created by Micov: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebTrain‎. — Athaenara ✉ 17:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Быдло —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.124.217 (talk) 17:48, 22 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 [8] and 899 [9] 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 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)

These are often deleted as attack pages rather than through MFD. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive449#Phil_Sandifer_deleting_pages_in_my_user_space_without_permission for a recent example. Given that, I think the claim that these pages are "generally OK" isn't right. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "can be viewed as an attack" is important, because the user who created the page will often argue the page is not actually an attack page. The key wuestion is whether it appears that way to other people. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What if it's a section? In my experience, a section of a talk page cataloging the wrongdoings of another user, even if it is intended to remain indefinitely, is tolerated by the community. I am not talking about a specific instance where I have been attacked (nobody has created such a page about me, to my knowledge), I am talking about multiple pages which have been raised at WP:WQA and for which, after failing to reach a compromise between the users in question, we tried to get a section removed via the point in question. On at least four occasions this has failed (in one case, I did get admins to remove the content, but then another admin came back and restored it).
It is fine if the community is going to allow a section or page which permanently catalogs the wrongdoings of a user or users. But the policy page should reflect this. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As per http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User_talk:Posturewriter, I believe that WP:UP#NOT/9 is a problem and would be better off if it weren't there. Offensive userpage content is better treated as a dispute, covered better by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. See the advice there. These things should not be attempted to be resolved by administrative avenues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I partially disagree, in that I think sections such as the one in question (and I can bring up other examples) are divisive and run counter to the collaborative spirit of a Wiki. I think we'd be better off if folks were at least asked to archive such information. However, if we're not going to provide an enforcement mechanism (and that does appear to be the case) we should not have a policy. So on that level I agree.
Regarding your point about WP:DR, there are some disputes where the best way to resolve it is for the users to just leave each other alone -- and allowing userpages such as this is disruptive to that effort. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I take your point. I suggest adding "Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." This provides appropriate direction to users, without falsely implying that the community will necessarily intervene. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, with good reason, I like that. Chillum 01:29, 2 August 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)
Per Will Beback. The long-standing consensus is that user talk pages should not normally be deleted. They contain useful information, plus of course posts by other users. Deletion of them can make nonsense of conversations. It needs wider discussion than the instance cited. Ty 01:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Should User talk:Spartaz and User talk:FCYTravis be restored? Kelly hi! 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with those particular cases. Why were they deleted in the first place? Ty 04:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.242.229.4 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, user talk pages need to have their history preserved unless the account is not going to be used anymore. If the person comes back then it should be undeleted. We need the history to have a record of the user's behavior if the account is to be active. Chillum 01:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Better in many cases would be to move the utalk page into some central area in either a blanked state or excluded from search in robots.txt. There is rarely a compelling reason that an entire talk history should be removed, it seems more to be an arbitrary courtesy extended by individual admin opinion. Deletion by fiat can cause problems for non-admins, I'm thinking in particular here about some letters of the alphabet, namely "Z" and "SG". Franamax (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:PROD on User pages

There is a discussion as to whether {{PROD}} (proposed deletion) should be allowed on User pages. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Prodding user pages. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Guestbooks

I've come across two users today who are maintaing "guestbooks" on their user talk or sub pages. This violates the policy one using user pages as a personal website. if I ask the user to delete the page and s/he doesn't, do I still have to list them on MFD? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the guestbooks being used by established wikipedians? Are they encouraging a wikipedian community? Are they encouraging newcomers to participate? Or are they using wikipedia as a webhost for external purposes? A guestbook doesn't violate WP:MYSPACE per se. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

viewing your subpages

Someone should write a section on using Special:AllPages to view or list your subpages. How can someone use {{db-userreq}} to cleanup their subpages unless they remember the page names, find the page through User Contributions (which they might not find, if its a lost Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Temporary_review), or someone else made the subpage? It took me too long to figure out how to do it with Special:AllPages. Patcat88 (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV about user pages for editors with 1 edit

Please see here as this relates directly to this policy.

I'm perplexed. So some people believe that if I register an account of User:ChicagoWestGuy, make a user page that says "I'm from Chicago and I'm on Wikipedia," and then never edit again, I can have my user page deleted at some random point in the future? What if I just registered to get things like watchlist? What if I made one edit to Chicago or Talk:Chicago--does everything change, and I can have my user page forever? rootology (C)(T) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I knew, user pages are for contributors to the project. We regularly deal with user who only contribute to the user space with their hundreds of subpages for ridiculous secret page games (there was one user who probably made fifty on his/her own for this very purpose). While it was very likely that the canvassing at ANI where it was suggested that the accounts be blocked which got a lot of inappropriate attention to the topic, as far as only one edit or 500 edits just to the user space are concerned, the user page should be deleted because it does not improve (nor really detract) from the project. If we need to amend user page policy to reflect the general treatment of such pages, then let's put it in writing instead of continuing a nonsense bureacratic process.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's why I posted here, to get that ball rolling for future cases. I'd say if they've only done User page edits, it's fair game to MFD them after a reasonable amount of time, say 6 months? But for the one off cases like these where it's a lone edit, and not with links outbound or advertising language/username, it's probably best to just leave them be indefinitely. If promotion is also a concern, NOINDEXing user pages is an option too... rootology (C)(T) 19:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see why the MFD is necessary in those cases. Usually, if all they do is edit the user space, then you warn them to start contributing to the articles and then you just outright delete the pages if they continue to abuse editing priveleges (a block is usually the last thing I do now with those). For those with only one edit, again, MFD is not necessary, and just a speedy deletion could be done (6 months is giving all of these people a lot of leeway). All of the user pages involved in that MFD had a single edit over one year ago. One year is way too much time to just have that one edit and no other contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just not getting this? If my only contribution was to make a test user page, or user_talk page, why delete it at all or even worry about it? It doesn't help or hurt anything. It's akin to taking out random unused sandbox pages that someone may have created one day with one edit in 2005 and then never touched again. What is the benefit to remove these pages for us? rootology (C)(T) 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why worry about it indeed. Why need to go through a process at all for what is essentially a house cleaning deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thats what I'm not getting. What policy says we should delete defunct, idle, or forgotten user pages like this? rootology (C)(T) 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And what is the threshold before their user pages should be immune to deletion? One edit? Two? Ten? This stuff seems too dramaz laden to not figure out so it's all routine, instead. rootology (C)(T) 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think that time from that one edit to when it is found should be taken into account rather than there being an immunity. If all that someone did was make their user page, with a few edits to it, and then disappear to never edit Wikipedia, again, then it could probably be deleted without any need for an MFD. If this user has been here for some time and is continually only editing their user page, then MFD may be needed if not a warning.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
And if they've edited anything out of their userspace, you'd be fine with leaving the user page be? So if I had never done anything but make a user page and left one person a note on their talk, or article talk, or one lone edit to Fish, my user page would be there indefinitely? rootology (C)(T) 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Updating to reflect MfD practice

The DRV is closed. There was not unanimity, but I think it is fair to say that the community is not especially concerned about userpages of never-active wikipedians.

I suggest adding WP:UP#NOT/14

Material that is, in total, excessive compared to your good faith contributions to the encyclopedia.

In the case of users that have only added information about themselves to their userpage, their userpage material would obviously be in excess. The statement would also cover cases where users of some past good faith activity begin to produce vast quantities of non-productive stuff in their userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Nah That's too harsh. We just need a note somewhere that says that userpages which were the significant location of a user's contributions may be deleted after a period of prolonged inactivity. The way you have it written I could read that as license to delete someone's page per the 90/10 rule. I don't think we want that. Just something gentle which indicates that the community accepts deletion only after a significant amount of time has passed (barring some other userpsace no-no). Protonk (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

laugh94♥

laugh94♥ here I really love laughing and having fun I also love to read to thats why I'm here!!!!♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laugh94 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How did you do the heart thing? Zheliel (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC) just a symbol i assume ATMarsdenTalk · {Semi-Retired} 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I create a user subpage? doesn't answer its own question, clearly

The section "How do I create a user subpage?" doesn't say how to create anything...It merely discusses how subpages fit into the hierarchy of namespace and what a user might use a user subpage for. ChococatR (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


You have a subpage and you can explain how to create a subpage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zheliel (talk • contribs) 13:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Vanket (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)by entering create new subpage

Political positions

How about goint finally all out and outright clarifying point 8 ("Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia") as outright forbidding explicit statements pro- or against- any real world political, religious or philosophical conflict?

I've yet to hear a single argument showing any usefulness to encyclopedia building, and those statements (whether specifically in a userbox-like format or not) are divisive and polarizing, helping to canvass and reinforce edit warring in controversial areas (the Troubles, I/P, Macedonia, etc.)

I'd be entirely in favor of removal on sight and swift blocks for disruptions for editors who persists in restoring them— there is no excuse for attempts to turn userpages into soapboxes or rhetoric platforms. — Coren (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion Forums?

Is it appropriate to have user subpages that are intended to be pseudo-discussion forums about both wikirelated and non-wiki related topics? (specifically looking at User:Negabandit86/Forums and possibly User:Negabandit86/Trivia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change

I am proposing the following changes under the "What may I not have on my user page?" subsection. (Changes in red)

The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, Community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed as well as a statement of personal achievements 1. , especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption.

==Notes==
1. "statement of personal achievements" is anything a user has done that they consider notable to themselves as long as it is not blatant spam. The statement "I founded and eventually sold a business, a publishing company that used recycled paper." is allowable while the statement "I own a business, a publishing company, that sells books on a website, for low prices" is not.

discussion

This is based on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman which showed a consensus that, based on What may I not have on my user page?, a user page may consist solely of outside work. Notability of the user was discussed and was shown that having Wikipedia article on yourself or your business's is not a factor in allowing these types of user pages. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Simulating the MediaWiki interface again

From User talk:Bishzilla:

[10] If you revert me I won't edit-war over this, but I think the guideline is clear. If you'll forgive my reverting you without touching base, we can discuss any disagreement.--chaser - t 02:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Chaser. I guess it's not clear, then. The way it's formulated, "The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided except when necessary for testing purposes", is a compromise after a hot debate on the matter some time ago. Some people wanted the guideline to say that SMIs, such as joke message bars, are verboten, and anybody can remove them; the other faction was as strongly against such encroachment on the traditional Wikipedia "wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit" (quoting the guideline text from a little higher up). The text which was finally agreed on does not say "feel free to remove them", it says the "community generally frowns upon" them. Not everybody frowns; and those who do, merely get to go ahead and frown. Not to use brute force. "Should be avoided" is not the same as "is not allowed"; it's simply some more frowning. When the matter was last made a big issue of, I argued against forcible removal, because I feel that users should not be overridden in the management of their userspace for such trivial reasons as "the joke isn't funny" (who gets to decide that, seriously?). By contrast: some users have removed content on NWA.Rep's userpage that they considered sexist or aggressively nationalist; those are non-trivial matters, and I have not restored any of it. But the New Message bar is trivial; it's really not necessary to humiliate the user further over such a thing. I'm restoring it. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC).
I take your point about the compromise wording and trust you on the intents behind it. That the candidate has now withdrawn from the ArbCom election renders the issue moot for me. Cheers.--chaser - t 16:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to needle this too hard but interface spoofs are nettlesome because they're time-wasting hoaxes and as such they're little bits of vandalism which I don't mind saying, are more often than not meant to waylay the heed of volunteers. Put them up on joke day but otherwise they're disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought this conflict has been gone through and through Dengero (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it has, I only wanted to say what I thought about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's only appropriate to be put up on joke day, but seriously I don't see what's the big deal about it. I was annoyed when I fell into the time wasting trick (As I'm sure we all did), but other than that we should leave him for now and worry about more important things (ie, personal attacks on his user page, the crazy amount of backlog needing attention in Afd). Dengero (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the personal attacks are much more worrisome and there are many more helpful things to do here than talk about the (nettlesome) new messages spoof. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_4&oldid=1160937685"