Wikipedia talk:User pages

Section "What may I not have in my user pages?" - new subsection: Anything offensive or misleading about the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects

Should we add:

• Content that implies that you dislike or hate the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects.
• Content that shows a clear intent to vandalize one of the Foundation's projects.
• False impression that the account may be officially affiliated with the Foundation or one of its projects.
• Gossip about the Foundation or one of its projects.
• Rumors about the Foundation.

Faster than Thunder (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally, guidelines are updated or changed to reflect actual practice or to address issues that the community has determined are problems. Have there been discussions where content about WMF has been found to be a problem? Have there been discussions that indicated a consensus that content critical of WMF was inappropriate on user pages? Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a bit much. I thought the Wikimedia blackout a few years ago was total BS and as a volunteer, I should be able to say so on my talk or user page. Toddst1 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Broadly, NO.

Userpages are for Wikipedians to introduce themselves. Self expression is part of that. Views about the project are obviously relevant. Psychoanalysing someone else’s comments about their own view, and censoring them, is far worse than letting sleeping dogs lie, or simply respecting others opinions.

• Content that implies that you dislike or hate the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects.

Comment including dislike of things about the foundations is a UPYES. Your userpage and it’s subpages is exactly where you are most welcome to put these things. If you think your views are correct and widespread you can even write them into projectspace. Consider as an example the following very critical dislike of a certain foundation aspect: WP:CANCER.

• Content that shows a clear intent to vandalize one of the Foundation's projects.

No. Let them try, then respond, unless you have perfect intuition or prescience. You may be misunderstanding satire. If you are correct, rely on WP:DISRUPTION, which is fully effective policy as is and will not be improved by forking into the Userpage guideline.

• False impression that the account may be officially affiliated with the Foundation or one of its projects.

Is this an existing problem? Currently, accounts affiliated with the foundation are supposed to be named with the suffix “(WMF)”. If this is not true, refer to Wikipedia:Username policy. Again, policies are not improved by forking bits into guidelines.

• Gossip about the Foundation or one of its projects.

Gossip may be entirely appropriate. Is it disruptive?

• Rumors about the Foundation.

Rumors can be treat the same as gossip above.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed - Wikipedia is not censored. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: In addition to Wikipedia being WP:NOTCENSORED, one's user page on Wikipedia is one of the best places to express one's opinion about the foundation. That's why we explicitly say on Wikipedia:User_pages "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community" is a legitimate use. This is an absurd Orwellian proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Ideological texts and pictures

Is it allowed to include a text or a picture of a political leader responsible for mass crimes, eg. Adolf Hitler?Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the context and why that text or image are being used. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the user accepts the crimes. Xx236 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User pages not in English

While patrolling the account creation log I've found some newly registered editors who have started a user page in a language other than English. I grab a random sentance and run it through a machine translator.

1) Clear cases of CSD U5 or U11 are nominated as such.

2) What do we do with user pages that appear to be good-faith drafting space for an article - but not in English? So far I've left a Talk page message with a welcome and alert to the existance of their native language wiki. We don't have" CSD-Non English".

Blue Riband► 13:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User pages red links

I have found that some long-time editors like to keep their user pages blank, which makes them appear with a red link in pages histories, watchlists and elsewhere. As an editor who patrols pages, I find the practice annoying because I focus my efforts on new users who have red links, ips, when the edit summary is not explanatory enough. Checking uncontroversial edits of experienced editors when I do not intend to do so is for me misspent time that accumulates. I don't know if others feel the same or if I'm alone feeling this way. Maybe editors' user pages after they have extended confirmed rights should stop having a red link, if it is an issue for a reasonable number of editors. Thinker78 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• hang on. You've now created [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] [7] seven user pages of other editors, each time referencing WP:NOBAN where your edit contradicted the plain meaning of that policy. This is also not including the one which was deleted after the editor objected to your intrusion--there you proceeded to argue with the editor about it. You were also told by another editor that this was inappropriate and your solution is to ask that the policy be changed? Protonk (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, totally not cool; some folks have actually had to have their userpages salted to avoid stuff like that. I have deleted those pages; please do not restore them or create more. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanking you both for speaking up, and for deleting my user page. I hadn't registered my strong preference. But this is me doing it now, and thanks for saving me the trouble of asking. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Would just want to note also that quite a few vandals have thought of that: they specifically create a user page in order to create the illusion that they are a longterm editor in good standing. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it would be a bad idea if there was some colour coding to go with levels of experience. This could probably be implemented as a gadget or script if it isn't already. I know there is one that will highlight administrators. However on Wikipedia, a red link indicates that a page doesn't exist, and that's all it indicates. That aside, I would recommend WP:POPUPS which will quickly and easily show you the age of the account and the number of edits, as well as any user right they have. You'll also be able to zoom through the diffs with great speed. You'll soon find that many experienced users don't have userpages, and many vandals do. It's not effective to judge a book by its cover. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No Extremism

Following up on WP:NONAZIS and WP:No Confederates I propose that WP:UPNOT be amended to include the following text:

In line with the above, expressly prohibited are any text, images or symbols that might reasonably be construed as indicating support or sympathy for extremist ideologies and or beliefs closely associated with discrimination, mass repression or violence against whole groups of people. Examples include but are not limited to racism and racial supremacy of any kind, slavery, antisemitism, homophobia, and totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and symbols directly related to them.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as OP and for the sake of consistency in the community's approach to the issue of controversial beliefs and the images related to them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support per OP. We do need consistency in the community's approach to the issue of various extremist ideologies. It is necessary to formulate the stance on that issue, just as it was necessary to create WP:NONAZIS, WP:NORACISTS and WP:NOCONFED, and formulate the community's stance on those particular questions. Wikipedia would certainly be better off without all kinds of political extremism. —Sundostund (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose inclusion of communism in the list but would accept if you substitute the term "Stalinism" or perhaps "authoritarian totalitarianism" or something else. But I would support it without that. Andre🚐 01:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose due to the mention of communism. And would also oppose "Stalinism", as I doubt there are any symbols that are uniquely Stalinist. Furthermore, the problem with Nazis is not that they're extremist, the problem is that they're genocidal. Same with Confederates, who were not at the time particularly extremist. And then on the other hand, Martin Luther King explicitly identified as an extremist in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. This whole proposal completely misunderstands the problem and frankly I think it's quite silly. Loki (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Too broadly and clumsily worded.

   In line with the above,: Archaic writing style, makes paraphrasing difficult, creates an unnecessary barrier. If reference to the above is needed, summarise the limitation imposed.

   expressly: Self-referential text, indulgent, not helpful.

   might reasonably be construed as indicating ... sympathy ... associated with: Loose language like this is completely unhelpful in guiding an objective discussion. This is language of a principle, not a guideline.

   Examples include but are not limited to: Amounts to an open invitation to expand the list.

   Prohibited: text, images or symbols that support extreme discrimination, mass repression or violence. Examples include: racism and racial supremacy; slavery; antisemitism; homophobia; Nazism and Fascism.

   The above contains the core elements, except discards communism.

   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

4. Let's instead ban any symbols or flags associated with genocide or other atrocities against any group or peoples. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

   I'd like to see a clear definition of "associated with" before I support this, TBH. (The problem here is symbols like the hammer and sickle, which are absolutely associated with some regimes that did atrocities but mainly through their association with a much broader ideology.) Loki (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

   No one should support this, it would ban the flags and symbols of most countries and probably all ideologies. It's a whataboutism in the face of whataboutism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

   "This" meaning your alternate proposal Let's instead ban any symbols or flags associated with genocide or other atrocities against any group or peoples. Loki (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

   Well Wikipedia isn't meant to be a social media platform, so banning all political/national affiliations mightn't be an insane idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

5. Oppose "be construed as" is problematic. Construed by whom? One symbol can be seen by different people as having very different meanings. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
6. Oppose I agree with ActivelyDisinterested, the only symbols we should not tolerate are those directly associated with hatred of a specific group, as such discriminatory/hateful behaviour makes other editors feel targeted and unsafe/unwelcome, or specifically calling for violence. Beyond this, I don't think expression of political views should be prohibited on the basis of them being "extremist ideologies", in many cases a subjective and disputed assessment. Two examples: there are plenty of mainstream academics in the social sciences who are Marxist/Marxist-leaning while rejecting the atrocities of communist regimes. You don't need to agree with them to recognise Marxism makes up an integral part of modern Western scholarship, e.g. Benedict Anderson's theory of nationalism, or Eric Hobsbawm's historical writing. Equally, it's not hard to find modern scholars quoting the ideas of avowed Nazi Carl Schmitt, who I personally think was a detestable moron, but who has had a major influence on later theorists. Although it would be a borderline case, I don't think a hypothetical user page statement/UBX along the lines of "I agree with Carl Schmitt's political theory" would be a clear indication of hate. Jr8825 • Talk 23:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
7. Oppose. In my humble opinion, this looks like unnecessary instruction creep. The guideline is already problematic enough for undue censorship. Hell is made of good intentions, says the saying. I err on the side of objectivity and free flow of information. By the way, veganism and the animal rights movement are widely considered extremist ideologies. Thinker78 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
8. Oppose. The terms used are too broad. If possible it should be amended to focus on discrimination rather than abstract terms. In my views, Tomorrow and Tomorrow's proposal below deals with the crux of the issue and should be done instead. Further, the inclusion of the widely broad term "Communism" in reference to totalitarianism is ridiculous and reeks of Cold-War era propaganda; market intervention through Stalinism has been called "Communism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finton the magical salmon (talk • contribs) 02:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
9. Oppose - you are basically mandating political correctness, and the determination of what is acceptable is to be left to what? The body of editors at AN/I at the time? So what if an editor is a fascist? Really, so what? So what if they publicly identify as one? So what if an editor is an anti-fascist? So what if they are a communist? That isnt an attack on any other subset of editors. I can see the cause for barring expressions of hatred towards any other group of people, but this is absurd. Why would it be unacceptable for somebody to publicly display a symbol of communism, say for example the flag of the Soviet Union, but not a symbol of colonialism (at least to a large chunk of the world) like say the flag of the United Kingdom? The idea that, and Im not attacking anybody here, a body of people that is mostly comprised of white men from Western countries should determine what opinions are acceptable and what are not is insane to me. nableezy - 20:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
10. Oppose with some regret. Wholeheartedly concur that hate-based ideologies, and support for them, are disdainful. Genuinely appreciate the non-partisan approach in the proposed phrasing. But ultimately, consider this proposal sub-optimal compared to a prohibition on all user boxes dealing with external issues. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I take a diametrically opposite view… I would rather we allow bigots, Nazis, homophobes, etc to self-identify on their user pages… so we know who they are and can thus limit the damage they can do in actual article space. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  My view exactly. Thinker78 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• The issue with this is that Communism and Marxism are very broad concepts. We have user boxes for Stalin, Tito, Mao, even Hoxha and I wouldn't be against deleting them (and banning people who try to minimise their crimes). But banning such broad concepts should only be done if we are willing to apply it equally to all such ideological / political / national groupings. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that it would be best to completely remove 'political ideologies' and leave it to 'hate ideologies' For example: In line with the above, expressly prohibited are any text, images or symbols that might reasonably be construed as indicating support or sympathy for extremist ideologies and or beliefs closely associated with discrimination, mass repression or violence against whole groups of people. Examples include but are not limited to racism and racial supremacy of any kind, slavery, antisemitism and homophobia - Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  That seems like a constructive improvement. Andre🚐 02:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Extremist ideologies is extremely vague as stated in an above comment and should be specified to exclusively 'hate ideologies' and discrimination. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'll strikethrough extremist, thus changing it to read "ideologies or beliefs closely associated with..."

  Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Looks good. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Alternate proposal, just building on some of the feedback so the concept can be debated on its merits.

In line with the above, any text, images or symbols that indicate support or sympathy for ideologies or beliefs supporting or advocating for discrimination, mass repression or violence against whole groups of people is prohibited. Examples of such ideologies include include racism and racial supremacy of any kind, support for slavery, antisemitism and homophobia.

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Ad Orientem as original proposer. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Also realised I should ping @Andre as someone who particpated in the convo sparking this proposal. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I support your proposal. Andre🚐 01:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Hate ideologies are inherently political. There is no difference between genocide carried out for reasons of race or religion or social class. We are now just picking which political ideologies are most disfavored. Or alternatively which ones we want to protect. Twelve million people murdered = unacceptable. One hundred million people killed = it's complicated. Better to just let the proposal fail than codify this kind of bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm confused by your point. You say There is no difference between genocide carried out for reasons of race or religion or social class - I agree that's why this proposal would condemn all forms of hate equally, rather than having a list of ideologies. THAT I believe would be picking which political ideologies are most disfavored. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Are hate ideologies inherently political? That's a rather abstract point. The statement: totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism, Fascism, Communism contains an embedding of the assumptions and political winds of our present time and context. Which is an inevitability. But, regardless: to Tomorrow's point, by simply talking about the end result of hate in general, we can avoid politicizing the statement and also future-proof it. This all started because users were scaling Nazism to include neo-Confederacy. Then I and others object to equating the, in my view, broader ideology of Communism or Marxism on the same level as Nazism. But the policy does not need to say the word Nazism or Fascism to talk about the harms of racial animus writ large, and Tomorrow's compromise proposal is a way to add the anti-hate clause in a more general way without skewering specific named "isms" aside from racism itself and anti-Semitism: support for beliefs responsible for discrimination, mass repression or violence against whole groups of people. Examples include but are not limited to racism and racial supremacy of any kind Andre🚐 01:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I like this a lot more than the above proposal, but I'd like to suggest replacing "closely associated with" with "responsible for", given the clear presence of people on the project who want to suppress support for any extremist ideology. I also have a few minor phrasing edits: I think it should be "Examples of such ideologies include...", and probably it should be "support for slavery" instead of just "slavery". Loki (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar I agree with those changes, I'll add them now - except I might make "associated with" "supporting or advocating for" instead. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Opposed - as I said above, I would rather let the bigots, racists, Nazis, etc. identify themselves on their talk page - so we know who they are, and can make sure they do not damage actual articles based on their ideology. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Just making it abundantly clear for those trying to gauge consensus that I am for this proposal as proposer. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tomorrow and tomorrow "that indicate support or sympathy for ideologies or beliefs supporting or advocating for discrimination". Then you would find yourself banning Judaism, among other ideologies or beliefs. According to it, they are the chosen people and the religion prescribes for many discriminative practices. Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Appreciate the attempt, but I don't believe this is any better than the previous one. I see this only causing endless whataboutism's on what does or does not fit the definition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Share the concerns raised by Ad Orientem. Some interesting intersections between the proposed wording and at least 2 common ideologies which are broadly considered acceptable. And, ultimately, like the original, above, this proposal is sub-optimal compared to a prohibition on all user boxes dealing with external issues. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. As per the concerns raised by Ad Orientem and Ryk72, I believe that extremist ideologies should be clearly defined as all far-right and far-left ideologies, as the current proposal is too vague on that. It should be more specific. Also, it should include all anti-LGBT sentiments, not just homophobia. Transphobia appeared to be a huge issue in some of the recent discussions that I saw, so it must be named here. I would also propose that users, who post anti-LGBT comments, be candidates for immediate indefinite block if they express such views on-wiki. —Sundostund (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Far-Left ideology should not be included. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)