Wikipedia talk:User pages

• UI Spoofing archive (2007)
• Temporary userpage template archive (2008)

Frist things to read for new users...

Why is it so hard to find this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page

This should be one of the first 3 things to be read, perferealy before the wall'o'text general rules...(which some avoid or glaze over....raises hand).

Yes I know I am a hyperactive moron even then I tend to follow the rules..just not always read walls of text... it should be very very very clear that user pages are for wiki use and not general blogging/personal idiocies.

Not only should a message stating as such be in the welcome message but be on the user page itself as either a foot holder for blank pages or a simple advocatcational warning/recommendation of the rules around the page somewhere.

This noob thought personal space was more for general user info than notes for actives for wiki for said user..

I don't know how much a problem it is with people using user pages for general user info but if its an annoyance its probably more do to noobs not knowing better than whole sale circumvention of the rules.

I do apologize if I am using wiki incorrectly I am a noob after all, heck I just found the easy sign your post command not 2 days ago.... Zippydsmlee (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing warnings

I'd like to suggest that we reword the 'removing warnings' section of the page. When users remove warnings it makes it difficult for those who use Huggle to issue the appropriate warning levels, as well as allowing editors to continually receive level 1 warnings and evade scrutiny for a time.

I'd propose that the wording be something like "...may remove warnings if they are at least one week old, otherwise they must be kept on the page."

We should also beef up the declined unblock requests and sockpuppet clauses; currently the guideline states that declined unblocks may be an exception. This should state unequivocally that declined unblocks and sock notices are an absolute exception to removing whatever you like. //roux   13:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the text on the page explains exactly why removing warnings is and should be allowed. If you find that makes it hard for you to give appropriate warnings, then you should be spending more time understanding a user's history before trying to hand out warnings. Or better yet, engage the user rather than getting caught up worrying about what template to give out in what order. Dragons flight (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The official vandalism policy was explicitly updated [1] 1,102 days ago to reflect the fact that editors may remove content at will from their own talk pages. Every time this issue has been revisited since then, community consensus has very clearly re-affirmed the decision. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

People can edit their own talk pages until they abuse that privilege to the point that an admin takes the privilege away. I think this is how it should be. The problem is that the people using huggle to issue the warnings don't check the history of the user and their contributions to see if they have caused problems with the past. This is something anyone issuing warnings could do that would really help. Chillum 15:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested in reviewing the most recent community discussion on this topic may review it in the April 2008 VPP archive. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Once Huggle has seen a warning be issued, it remembers this regardless of what else is done to the page, so it cannot be fooled in this way more than once -- Gurch (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OLDIP

The page says:

Talk pages of anonymous users may be blanked or deleted as part of routine housekeeping if they meet the following criteria:

1. Never been blocked
2. Not using any unsubstituted templates (e.g., {{SharedIPEDU}})
3. No edits within the last year
4. No talk page activity within the last year
5. No incoming links to the page

However, regarding point 5, there may be two problems with that point: a) there may be no links now, but if one creates a report that involves the IP, a link may not exist now, but will after the report, and b) the IPs do show up in contributions lists (also for range-contributions). Deleting such a talkpage obscures (or makes it simply invisible for non-admins) the fact that there may have been warnings placed on the IP talkpage (whether it was for spamming or POV pushing by a range of IPs), and makes the full broadness of the problem less obvious.

I would suggest to change it to:

Talk pages of anonymous users may be archived (leaving a link to the archive on the talkpage) if they meet the following criteria:

1. Not using any unsubstituted templates (e.g., {{SharedIPEDU}}) (the substituted part of the talkpage can still be archived)
2. No edits within the last year
3. No talk page activity within the last year
4. No incoming links to the page

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would also help if there were some note stating the page had been archived; not everyone will think of looking at the page history.

Deleting talk pages belonging to spammers creates problems (see User talk:MZMcBride#Spam-tracking pages (permanent link) for a detailed discussion of the problems. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding point (a), it's rather silly. :-) While it's of course true that the page could be linked to later on, it's equally true that the IP could edit later on or the IP could be blocked later on. So that's not particularly relevant.

Regarding point (b), in past discussions the possibility of archiving (or even blanking) the pages has been brought up. Do you have responses to the previous points made in the other discussions? (I don't particularly feel like re-typing them. ;-) In particular, the virtue of ancient warnings to an IP that very likely do not belong to the same user any longer (dynamic IPs) is unclear. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I was about to write this on MZMcBride's talk page, but this would probably be better.

What the anti-spam project has is not a tracking system. From what I understand, it works something like this:

• Someone adds a spam link to a page
• You look somewhere (the page history?) to see if other users have added the same link
• If its an IP address, you look at the range contribs.
• You look at the talk pages of each of the IPs to see if they have been warned
• Various actions are taken (blacklisting/reverting/blocking)

If someone adds the same link in a month, the process repeats itself... except, most of the steps consist of looking at information that won't change between investigations. Basically, every time a spamlink is added, the investigation has to begin again. The only thing I can think of that would be less efficient is writing down all the information and physically mailing it to all the members of the project.

As for the proposal here, this seems like an awful lot of wasted effort. I probably said this half a dozen times in the discussion that led to OLDIP, but I guess I'll say it again anyway. The vast majority of these talk pages are completely and totally useless. An archive of template warnings is going to be even more useless. Its going to double the amount of useless pages, and it takes twice the effort. Leaving the warnings causes other problems. People may see old warnings meant for someone else and act overly harsh. Mr.Z-man 22:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)This was discussed before, what it came down to is that the user behind an IP can change quickly. If the user is a spammer, then they will likely have been blocked or have an ip info template on their talkpage, which would prevent it from being deleted. So the talkpages of IPs who did not have heavy enough vandalism for a block or a sharedip template will have the page deleted, but the talkpages of long term vandals are preserved. --Terrillja _talk 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of spammers use an IP, get warned and move on to another IP. So those pages will get deleted under the current rules. In fact, I'd say that most long-term spammers only get one or two warnings per IP before moving on to another IP. It's quite possible for them to accumulate 20 warnings over 30 IPs before someone finally looks a little closer for other accounts. That's why we want to be able to see other warnings.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting here (as I did already on my talk page): the deletion script now checks for certain key words. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Well the contribs are preserved, which are the key part, all the warnings do is show that they were told to stop, you could perhaps lose any comments they left, but as far as long term vandalism, all of their contributions showing any vandalism will still be there. --Terrillja _talk 23:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well my opinion is that these talk pages shouldn't be deleted at all. This is destroying valuable information that's costing the encyclopedia nothing. Why delete these IP talk pages? What does the encyclopedia gain from it, and what are people trying to hide in deleting the pages? They should be preserved to document the history of editing from the IP as this information is very valuable when it comes to fighting spam and vandalism. Themfromspace (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the past deletion discussions? A lot of these points were covered (kind of extensively). --MZMcBride (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the shared nature of most IPs, I cannot image how 12+ month old comments on the talk page are truly relevant if the IP has not edited anything in over a year. Likewise, the concerns about spammers do not really apply here, since spammers tend to get blocked pretty quickly, and being blocked violates criteria #1 above, so that talk page would not get deleted. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Having made about 20,000 spam-removal and warning edits on en.wikipedia and >5,000 on other Wikimedia projects,^[2][3][4][5] I can tell you that:

1. Spammers seldom get blocked, quickly or not. Too often they don't even get warned. As of mid-2007, we were getting over 1000 external links per day, yet on average 4 to 7 accounts get blocked for spam each day.
2. Spammers change accounts when they get blocked. In fact, they'll often change accounts after just a warning.
3. If a spammer's going to ignore the first 3 warnings, there's little we can do to really stop him except blacklist his domains.
4. As noted multiple times already, we need to see if the spammers' earlier accounts and IPs have been warned so we know if their persistence merits blacklisting.
5. Since in some cases, non-Wikimedia sites are incorporating our spam blacklist in their own filters, we are careful about blacklisting a domain unless we're sure they're problematic.

Dirk Beetstra and I do much of the spam clean-up work -- can you just take us at our word that this information is useful? That or help us with some of the spam problem (we're shorthanded)? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Some answers:

• No, it is not silly. If the pages get linked, now or later, if it is a redlink gives the impression that the editor has not been warned, blue links show that there has been communication for some reason, and it is easy to check for admins and non-admins. I'll expand on this in the next section.
• The point is not that the IP is not necessery the same user anymore. But if 50 different IPs add someobscurelink.com, or edits someobscurepage with the same information, then it is very likely that one user has used all of these IPs. If that person got warned on 20 of them, then it means that it might be likely that we a) have to rangeblock, b) blacklist links, c) other methods of protecting. If 18 of those 20 talkpages get deleted, then there are only 2 (obvious) IPs warned, which would result in me having to check 48 other pages to see if they have been deleted and see if there are warnings in the deleted revisions regarding the same edit (a lot of work for admins, impossible for non-admins), which may very likely result in me not blacklisting the domain, not rangeblocking or whatever. If those 20 pages were still blue links, then at least it is only 2 clicks (for admins and non-admins) to see if there were warnings in the past, and the other 30 can be ignored.
• This is not an awful waste of effort, now warning dynamic IPs is a waste of effort, as the information gets lost. Just as for the scripted deletion, archiving these pages is also very easily done by a bot. No waste of effort at all, anywhere.
• This creates more work for admins, as regular editors can not check warning histories, and hence can not show the full story of the edits. If the page is un-deleted, they can help in going through talkpage histories and see if the involved IPs have been warned. Makes it for the admins less effort to just see the evidence presented, and act accordingly.
• Archiving warnings and all such after some time (which can be considerably shorter than 1 year, IMHO), also results that people don't see the old warnings meant for someone else. By the way, MZMcBride also deletes IP talkpages which have a very neat, friendly, welcoming, substituted welcome message on them. I think that that would even be very nice if you encounter that on your talkpage.
• Spammers don't get blocked often, especially those who change IP quickly. Also other users who use quickly changing IPs in vandalism or POV push-sprees do not get blocked, it is very difficult, and those are just the editors where this part of the problem relates to.
• Spammers, POV pushers and a lot of vandals, are absolutely not stupid. I recently blocked a user, who first as an IP was warned, and when those warnings started, stopped but created an account (it only took one warning..). The account did not edit for 125 days (4 months!), and then continued with exactly the same edits. In this case it only took him one edit to earn an indef block because XLinkBot noted it to me: XLinkBot leaves on-IRC warnings for editors who are > 7 days old (its revert limit), but who have less than 250 edits (arbitrary number) .. I see regularly editors there who are way older than 7 days (2 examples from the last couple of hours: '... is 887.13 days old (limit is 7; age autoconfirmed), but has only 10 edits'; '... is 805.41 days old (limit is 7; age autoconfirmed), but has only 2 edits') .. do we realise how much work it is to find if these editors have been warned before as IPs. It is now already almost impossible to do that (my linkaddition db is about 1.5 years old, working on parsing back, for regular vandals and POV pushers all we have is page histories and range-contribution lists to go through), and deleting talkpages does not make this effort any easier.

All in all, I still argue that the pages should be archived, maybe blanked or replaced with a welcome message, but certainly NOT deleted, or at least that the pages should not be deleted when there is any form of a warning (template) on them (being for spam, coi, or whatever form of vandalism. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I am thinking about it (the above was just after a night of sleep). Say, I am an expert in an obscure subject, and am interested in enhancing Wikipedia. I am first editing as an IP, all non-related to POV issues, spam, coi, whatever, so no need for warnings, I'm just one of those IPs who get it. As a part of my work as an IP, I am discussing a change of guideline with some members of the project on my talkpage, and the guideline is changed accordingly (the change is noted with a link to my talkpage in the edit summary, but that is not an incoming link for my talkpage that can be seen). Unfortunately, I don't edit on any other talkpages (no signatures left there), and another editor has only mentioned the discussion somewhere else as 'On the talkpage of user:0.0.0.0 we are discussing this and that, please join us there' (without a working wikilink). Then I change my mind, I create an account and edit on. So after a year, my talkpage gets deleted, deleting the active record of the discussion.

I know, this is not a very likely scenario, but I think we have now several examples where deletion of talkpages leads to deletion of valuable information. I think that this part should be revisited. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as long as the user continues to contribute, then their talkpage will be kept, regardless of activity on their talkpage (see #2). If they do not continue to contribute, then after a year it will go, but I doubt anything discussed a year ago will be relevant to current events. I'm sure there could be some obscure exception, but if there is, the talkpage can be restored, and an unsubsituted template can be added.--Terrillja _talk 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's simply the nature of editing anonymously. If you edit with registering an account, you don't get to "own" your talk page. (See also: Wikipedia:Why create an account?.) This becomes especially true if you edit from a dynamic IP address and no longer are assigned that IP. That's simply the way it goes.

What I'm having trouble understanding is why you believe that these pages should be kept around indefinitely. Especially ones that use templated messages. So in 2007, IP "220.240.36.2" vandalized "Talk:High School Musical." The IP talk page was warned using TW. Now, why does that page need to stay around forever? It's one revision of a templated warning to an IP that likely doesn't belong to the same person it did in December 2007.

While we certainly could move content like that to an archive subpage, there's simply no reason to. One of the reasons the script checks for template usage is to ensure that valuable information isn't lost and work isn't duplicated. Things like {{whois}} or {{indefblock}} or whatever are all kept.

Looking at the section directly above this one, it seems pretty silly to rely on talk page warnings to determine what to do with a spammer. IPs can easily add links without being detected / warned or they can easily remove warnings from their own page.

And, above all of this, upon A. B.'s insistence, any page now containing the words "spam," "promote," or "promotion" are now skipped. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For simple vandalism, no problem. The problem are the IP changing spammers/POV pushers and persistent vandals. Again, the point is not that there now is another editor, the point is that one changing editor has used that IP and in that time has been warned. If in 2 years the whole set of 200.43 / 200.45 talkpages are gone (a huge range of IPs which can't all be blocked), then why keep up the protection of a whole set of pages to which a long-term POV pusher and vandal has edited, a lot of the proof that the editor has been warned is for non-admins invisible. And it is not only spammers that I am worried about. And I can return exactly the same question, why delete the pages? What benefit does that give? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It prevents IPs from seeing incredibly confusing messages not intended for them. It also gives the IPs a blank slate (tabula rasa). Most of these people don't deserve to come to the project with an entirely undeserved reputation that they vandalize. And, if it's been two years without any activity from the IPs (from any range), then what's the problem? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That would also be true for archiving (and replace it with a small, friendly welcome message, including a message that the IP has been used before by (possibly) other editors), and as I said earlier, the welcome message which is on some of the talkpages that have been deleted is not exactly confusing, it is .. well .. welcoming, hardly 'confusing'. Abuse 2 years ago is still abuse (for that way of editing).

But I see we are not going to get to an agreement about this, you find the pages useless, I think that on certain pages important information, or just information without problems, has been deleted. But I'll leave it at this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all the points made by A. B. and Beetstra here, these talk pages shouldn't be deleted at all. --Hu12 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Political/Religious/Sexual Preference Content

Related to this MfD, I would like to get the ball rolling on a proposal to remove from userpages all content that expresses a political/religious/sexual/etc. view or belief. Several people, at least, have commented in support of such an action on the MfD. So I would like to know how widely held that sentiment is. So, what do you think? seresin ( ¡? )  08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This has come up so many times before... And what do you mean by "etc"? Any opinion expression not related to Wikipedia? Being that it would mean the deletion of 90% of userboxes, I doubt that would fly. If on the other hand you mean only political/religious/sexual, ie. the possibly controversial stuff, or in other words, "I think the world should work this way and not that way" views, then that's a little more likely to succeed -- but only a little, since there's such a fine line dividing those from everything else. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:14, 1 Feb 2009 (UTC)

And of course, who defines these things. Sexual for instance. A user can't post on their userpage "I like sex"? Or "I'm gay"? Or "I'm straight", even? They all are sexual but who decides what's allowed and what isn't? Too broad in this context. Indeed, several people have commented in support of your proposal here, at that MFD.. but more people at the same MFD apparently have commented in keeping such userboxes. As for that particular MFD and userbox in question, I as a gay man find it offensive - but I see no reason why any user shouldn't be allowed to have it. The old saying "I may not like it or agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it". Userboxes always have been, and always will be a contentious issue. I say hold the course and handle each one on an individual basis via MFD. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it would gain enough support but I just want to point out that I'd be entirely in favor of getting rid of all userboxes and actually forbidding all userpage content that doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia, as I think was originally intended, including "I am gay" or "I am straight" or "I like sex". If it were all forbidden across the board, I think we'd have less userpage issues to deal with, and nothing would really be taken away from the encyclopdeia. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:30, 1 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I think we'd have less editors too. Why does Wikipedia have to be a stuffy, old library without anything controversial or individual? Seriously. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cause it's just not what we're here for. The people who are interested in leaving their activism elsewhere are really the most desirable editors to have here. Show me someone who doesn't care to make his opinions on the world known to all, and I'll bet 9 times out of 10 that'll be your more balanced and objective editor. I like to be creative and dramatic now and then and I know where to go for it; But here, I'd gladly relinquish my right to personal creative space if it meant cutting out a lot of annoying drama to focus on the real goal. I don't think you'd leave if you couldn't have your personal posterboard to exercise free speech... and I don't think that's much of a draw to any productive editors. This is like a work environment, with other editors being your co-workers. You need to be able to work with them with a level of professionalism, and that means leaving certain aspects of your personality at home. You wouldn't post controversial signs in your office at work, and I think the same should apply here.

Anyway it seems moot since this proposal has come up so much before, while never yielding any clear result. Maybe if we did an RfC with one of those watchlist notifications. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:15, 2 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we may be here to improve the encyclopedia, but people should have the ability to express themselves. If we remove all userpages and just have articles and talkpages, it takes all of the personal factor out of the project. And I for one would be gone if that happened. Personally, I have no problem with an occasional MfD for the userbox or userpage which pushes the rules, but flat out outlawing any non-wiki userboxes (or userpage content) is unnecessary IMO. --Terrillja _talk 04:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

People should have the ability to express themselves, as far as their political opinions? For what reason? It has nothing to do with anything here. You'd be gone if you didn't have your user page? Seriously? If you could continue to edit the encyclopedia and collaborate with other editors and discuss features and policies, but you just weren't allowed a personal page to let everyone know your blood type and gender, you'd have reason enough to leave? I really doubt that. Anyway I'm not actually suggesting the complete removal of userspace anyway, just the prohibition of political statements not having to do with Wikipedia. Your particular page doesn't seem to have much irrelevant content, if any. It's actually a perfect example of the kind of content people should be putting on their pages. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:07, 2 Feb 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter what other people have on their user pages if it doesn't violate the rules? User boxes are optional, so anyone who doesn't like them certainly doesn't have to have one (or fifty). They can be avoided by simply not clicking to view other people's user pages (if one gets particularly upset because of the mere presence of any user box, that's not a bad idea) or even by simply scrolling down to the "relevant" (subjective) information. Or to put it simply- don't like them? Don't have one! I imagine that you will never encounter most of the user pages on Wikipedia, yet would regulate them all because of your obviously strong feelings against them.Gotmywaderson (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, polemic statements are already prohibited by WP:UP#NOT, and have been for a long time. I guess that's just never been enforced? I suppose the real question is whether or not to remove it from the guideline now, since it doesn't seem to agree with how Wikipedia actually operates. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:28, 2 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it very helpful that people with a strong POV say so. It can clarify discussion when people are honest about their concerns. DGG (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review regarding indefinite hosting clause

Template:RFCpolicy There is a deletion review going on at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4#User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers that could have far reaching consequences for this guideline if endorsed as multiple admins and users are essentially admitting they are choosing to ignore the clause of the policy which does not allow for indefinite hosting of content in userspace and arguing that users should be allowed to keep articles in their userspace indefinitely even if such articles would immediately be deleted in a AfD discussion. If this deletion review is endorsed, it will essentially mean that userspace is, in most cases, untouchable. Thought I'd let anyone who was interested in participating one way or the other know. Redfarmer (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing is what is not indefinite? Someone might have a userfied article for years and then actually get around to improving and restoring it. The whole point of having userfied articles is to allow editors to more leisurely work on them. Some may see "not indefinite" as months, others weeks, other years, etc. It is thus something subjectively interpreted. As long as editors have stated objectives for their userfied articles and clear evidence of plans to work on them, and the articles don't fail copy vio, libel, or hoax issues, then it's really no big deal. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline clearly says, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." That is the complete opposite of what you are saying. Redfarmer (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that one editor's definition of "long-term" is likely not the same as others. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But the point is: long term indicates there IS a time limit. Redfarmer (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What the time limit is arbitrary and debateable. To me "long-term" is say a few decades and yes I am serious. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the project hasn't been around a decade yet, isn't it unreasonable to assume that the people who wrote this draft intended a decade to be the time limit? Redfarmer (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, because don't we intend or hope for the project to be around for as long as possible? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all sections that mention any time limits. Based on the "trend of opinion" at numerous MFD's "consensus" shows most editors choose to ivoke the WP:IAR spin off of "Wikiepedia has no time limits" when it comes to mainspace articles on user subpages. It is clearly pointless to have such a guideline when it is not used. it is possible that a majority find is valid however the vocal "consensus" that participates in deletion discussions ignore it thus also using the concept that "silence implies support". The entire section found at "Copies of other pages" should be removed. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Taking into account that DRV has not been closed yet, any RFC is premature. This is looks like forum shopping. Ruslik (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not intended to be forum shopping. As I said in the RFC summary, this is to gauge consensus on the guideline. If the new consensus is there is no time limit, we will remove those words from the guideline. This RFC is sparked by the DRV but not an attempt to circumvent it. Redfarmer (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, for the record, I am not necessarily looking at this RfC for an opinion I like as the guideline for forum shopping suggests. I'm so tired of it all at this point I just want to gauge consensus, rewrite the guideline, and go back to my little corner. Frankly I don't care anymore if this RfC decides there is no time limit; I've just expended way too much energy over this in the DRV than I should have. Also, I've come to accept that the deletion of this page has a snowball's chance in hell at this point so it's useless to continue debating whether the page should be deleted or not and decide what the guideline should be instead. Redfarmer (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I saw this in {{cent}}. "If this deletion review is endorsed, it will essentially mean that userspace is, in most cases, untouchable." That DRV is about one page. Why do you think it has "far reaching consequences"? I don't know why you think it applies to all of userspace. --Pixelface (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Pixelface: While I can't speak for Redfarmer I can speak for myself. This has been building up for a while and more and more I see editors simply come into deletion discussions and vote "keep" with no real reason. I can remember one user who, when I first noticed them, had seemingly cut and pasted "keep: Not doing any harm" over and over again in almost every MfD. Clearly a closing admin should see that that the user has made a valid opinion but used a non-argument, because it says nothing about what policy or guideline supports it. Likewise the closing admin would have no way of knowing that this same user has posted the exact same opinion and argument at several other deletion discussions with unrelated topics. By assuming good faith I can feel the closing admin would "ignore" that users opinion as it is a non-argument, that is unless the nom itself was made about something that was actually doing harm. (Nom: "My eyes started bleeding when I read this article - it needs to go" User: "Keep: it is doing no harm") I have raised the issue of "counting votes" before and been met with "Assume good faith, not all closing admins count votes" but at this particular MfD it struck me as odd that only a few of the "keep" opinions actually discussed the overall article, it's history or the users comments. Comments made at the MfD such as "It's not meant to be part of the encyclopedia yet" and "the very fact that it is in userspace means it is not ready...AfD it when it's an article" indicate opinons that anything in userspace can never be touched because - well, it is not on mainspace, and that goes against Policy and this guideline. There is no indication in the section we are discussing that anything in userspace is off limits for deletion - it explicitly says just the opposite. When I saw the closing admins comments of simply "The result of this Discussion was keep" I went to the admin and, very much assuming good faith, asked them to re-open in order to allow the users who voiced keep to reply to the "how long" questions asked by Redfarmer and myself. (I can not say for sure but it appeared the first "how long" was a direct question to a "keep" opinion that contained an argument of letting the article "bake for a bit". This was also one of the only keeps that actually indicated the Editor had looked at the article and the related discussions and offered any real "warning" - as "keep" "but"...) I also asked if the admin could expand their summary and asked some very specific questions about the discussion. I was answered with no direct answer but an accusation that I did not know what deletion discussions were for. I was also informed that the "votes" were 8 "keeps" and only 3 "deletes" there fore it was a "keep". Further I was told that "all" arguments were valid and "rather persuasive" and that questions about "how long" were too vague to be part of discussion. In saying this it raised my "assume good faith" warning level because it seemed to imply that "keep" arguments such as "I'd be inclined to follow WP:TIMELIMIT" and "I consider this to be a breach of one's privacy" were fine, and not in "violation" of the WP:DGFA, which the closing admin said they followed. So wanting to make sure I was not misunderstanding, I again asked the same specific questions again but also asked to show what policy or guideline backed some of the more wild arguments. I also reminded the admin of what the WP:DGFA said, including "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." I also asked why "how long" was "vague" in the context of the MfD discussion. Rather than answer anything directly I was told, again, that "all keeps had strong arguments behind them", reminded that I had "lost" and told, bluntly, "If you think that opinions of two editors+nominator constitute a consensus to delete (despite serious objections from 8 other editors) you can try your luck on DRV. Otherwise this discussion is meaningless". So I did, although it was not ever based on "delete" in my case. I think at the DRV is where the real issues started to show. I basically restated the exact same concerns I had asked the closing admin about but also added on a question to see if the amdin really did follow the WP:DGFA and re-stated I was not asking for to overturn the "keep" but to be re-open briefly in order to allow the valid "how long" questions to be answered. The closing admin made the first response, again ignoring the entire reason for the DRV, and simply responded that they counted the votes and it was 8 "keep" and 3 "delete". And it has grown from there with several people chiming in that there is no guideline or policy such as is being discussed right here, right now. I even went back and made an "in a nutshell" bold header of what needed to be addressed. Still - people ignore it and simply say "There is no timeline" or "It does not violate any policy" or "doing no harm". Only one editor has actually responded directly to the "privacy" argument but asked what it had to do with anything...and, again, this is a concern. The closing admin made a head count and in doing so counted "votes" that are not based in any policy or guideline. As one of the main issues was this guideline, which is a direct definition of the WP:NOT#WEBHOST Policy (also see WP:NOTWEBHOST subsection of the same Policy that sends people here for "further information") Policy, it does have "far reaching consequences". The discussion below is backing up the "userspace is off limits for MfD" concept. Outside of blatant advertising, copyvios, non-free image galleries and possible userfication where time limits may, or may not depending on this outcome, be imposed anything goes, for however long the user decides to keep it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Question to consider here:

How long should a page intended to eventually be moved to the encyclopedia be allowed to sit in userspace (the indefinite hosting clause) before it is in violation of this clause? Should there be a time limit on how long users are permitted to keep something that otherwise violates WP policies in their userspace before it is considered hosting?

• As far as I'm concerned people can have any old rubbish sitting around in their user space, provided it's not offensive or illegal or being misused (e.g. being advertised elsewhere on the Web). Some day the devs might decide to clean out the servers by chucking out user pages belonging to defunct users, but that's not our problem at the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I say remove the time limit statement. Only things that are advertising, illegal, etc should be removed, and in other cases not so clear, there should be a good consensus from the community to remove the content from the userpage. It's common that people leave works in progress on a userpage for long periods of time and there's no good reason to say "Sorry, you can't edit this here anymore". --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I say who cares. These will be judged on a case by case basis. This whole issue is being presented as a potentially harmful clause in a contract, and that's not what Wikipedia policies are. We don't need to be careful about the language we use in them lest someone is able to get away with something undesirable in the future due to a technicality. We have no technicalities here. If it seems a page has been around a long time with no attention paid to it and no serious objections raised, it'll be removed no matter what the policy says. Similarly if something's been around a while and the author really wants to keep it around, he need only ask, again despite what's in the policy. It's all friendly here; we're not a court system. We don't need to worry about things like this. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:49, 5 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue is not that it is felt this clause is harmful. Quite the contrary, the clause is being completely ignored by admins and users. Most won't even acknowledge a simple "it exists." Instead, what is being advocated is complete WP:NOTIMELIMIT, i.e. there is never a time limit on things in the userspace, and they're untouchable in most cases. This group is not even pretending to acknowledge this clause even exists. Redfarmer (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't wish to be rude, but aren't you taking this issue just a little bit too seriously? Does it really matter? Doesn't WP have more important problems to be solving?--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If the clause exists, it should be acknowledged and enforced. If consensus has changed, the clause should change with consensus. That is the purpose of the RfC. The fact that a certain group of admins are so ill informed that they think this clause does not exist and that userspace has WP:NOTIMELIMIT suggests consensus has changed. Redfarmer (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• I would say five years. I think the vast majority of wikipedians don't last longer than three years. It's kinda like { {PD-OLD}}, life of a wikipedia plus 2 years. Seriously, I've seen this at various XfDs, but haven't really understood what it's hurting (barring copyvios, etc.). My workspace history has the remnants of several articles deemed unsuitable for WP, but I don' think it needs oversighting. Every once in a while I still think about fixing one of them up, and I just might. The problem is I can't remember them, because of the rule of not letting them sit around as an artilce. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've not yet read a valid or convincing reason to describe why effectuating such a time limit as this would be to anyone's advantage. That which does no injury need be done no injury, in my mind. Unless the content has legal consequences or is outside Wikipedia's scope or its policy, there is no such injury. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps there should be more nuance. There really shouldn't be a limit on random drafts, but perhaps we should be a little stricter with previously deleted material to also confirm with the idea we shouldn't be indefinitely hosting deleted material that isn't being worked upon. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• One (1) Hubble time. Note that I'm biased, as a lot of crap hangs around my userspace for quite a while. I started User:WilyD/Amalgamation of Toronto in 2006, haven't worked on it since 2007, but I don't think there'd be any sense in deleting it. I'll get to it when I have time. WilyD 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• This discussion just came to my attention via a thread at WT:NOT (here). IMO, if there is, or is proposed to be, a specific time limit on how long a user can keep a draft in her or his userspace, it's excessive instruction creep. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove the time limit clause, strengthen the clause about "use in the encyclopedia". As we have said above, people can have anything they want in their userspace, so long as it doesn't run afoul of serious problems like copyvio/G10/spam/etc.. BUT, we do have a problem of people just dropping deleted articles in their userpace because they want them "on wikipedia". The easiest examples are the spam ones, but there are other ones which don't trigger an immediate tripwire like that. As long as there is some possibility for reasonable belief that the page will come back to the encyclopedia or the page serves some function for the user or other users (maybe it was a bibliography page or something like that), we should be fine with the page. If not, we should think about asking the user to U1 it or we should MfD it. Obviously, this whole process should respect the fact that userspace should be as hands off as possible. Scouring user sub-pages looking for this kind of stuff should be discouraged. Protonk (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• No time limit; c.f. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sceptre/Mexican girl (which is now at User:Sceptre/workspace/Four Winds); there is no deadline, especially for userspace drafts. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• No time limit. It doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't disrupt the site, - leave it alone. NVO (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Question for the above: is a distinction drawn, WRT this dicussion, between original content in the processes of becoming an article, and userfied copies of deleted articles/other versions of currently existing articles? seresin ( ¡? )  06:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• As Protonk said, "Remove the time limit clause, strengthen the clause about "use in the encyclopedia" ". If there is potential for an article, that's enough. The problem is the ones where there isn't. It is very useful to have this as a safety hatch at AfD. DGG (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse time limits but application should be guided by "do what's best for the project." I would say anything done by an editor who hasn't logged in in over a year is game for deletion, with a note on their talk page saying it can be restored on request. I'd even go so far as to make this a bot-action. For active users, I would say after 6 months of no significant activity, give the user a notice on his talk page and encourage him to db-author or db-user it. Repeat the notice every 30 days. Basically, friendly-annoy the user into improving or deleting the article. After a year of no significant action, send it to MFD or, if the editor is not editing during the MFD, summarily delete it saying it can be restored on request at which time it will go back to MFD if there is no immediate effort to improve it. If at any time a user says "hold on, I'm in the middle of exams, I'll get to it next month" then assume good faith and don't take action until they've had a chance to live up to their word. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse no time limit. As Redfarmer acknowledges, this is the de facto standard in any event. What I look for in a decision to delete such a page is whether there is an attempt - even an excruciatingly slow one - to improve the encyclopedia. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm suspicious that I actually wrote those clauses way back in the day. The intended emphasis was on deleted content, disputed versions, and other things where hosting it in the main space would be inappropriate. In other words, userspace is not a backdoor for hosting content that violates Wikipedia policies, though such content might live there on a temporary basis while people work to make it policy compliant. Beyond that, I don't think there needs to be any urgency in dealing with uncontroversial drafts and the like though. Dragons flight (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose time limit - unless it's a copyvio, covered by some CSD, or used for the purpose of disruption - I see no reason for limiting the time. If it has some potential for improving the encyclopedia, we don't want to delete it even if the user has forgotten about it but will eventually remember it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse time limit: I think a year would be very generous, but would support something shorter. A fair time limit would actually help make sure that it eventually *does* get back to the mainspace, because it would provide a motivation. Even better than a flat time limit would be something dynamic -- something based on effort, with generous allowances for extensions. This isn't a deadline so much as the expiration of a good faith belief, like the wife of a MIA soldier who eventually realizes her husband is never coming home. Randomran (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have a question: whats the goal? Just to scrub old junk that isn't being worked toward the encyclopedia main space, or to keep viewers from coming across old junk that's in limbo? If it's the latter, I'd endorse some sane time limit (a year?) and a mandatory template like Template:Revamping Content or something, which would include {{NOINDEX}} by default; if it's the former, just set a blanket NOINDEX on all User: and User talk: pages. rootology (C)(T) 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would say it is a mixture of both positions. A reader with no knowledge of how Wikipedia works can easily come across "articles" like those in the deletion review referenced, especially since the user advertised for help on various talk pages. This could give a user the impression that these are the standards we set for articles. I like your idea for the template. Redfarmer (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I am generally against any specific time limits. Users should be a allowed to work on article content in the user space at their own pace, and even if it is very slow, it is still possibly of benefit to Wikipedia in the long run. Copyvio/spam/BLP violations/web hosting and similar should obviously dealt with separately when it arises. As for WP:NOTIMELIMIT, as I have pointed out at WT:NOTIMELIMIT, this essay was primarily written for issues of the main space, not much thought was given for the user space. Though the concepts it gives do, I think, hold some relevance here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep wording as it is: There shouldn't be a specific time limit, but User pages show up in google searches, and should not be used as a way to permanently host content forks that better push a POV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure many people like that wikipedia is getting that extra traffic making it number 8 site in the world. it can be disabled with 'noindex,nofollow' instruction in html meta tag, as is done with many other pages. 212.200.241.153 (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• COMMENT. having a time limit is silly. one can make few edits just before 'expiration', and therefore it is extended. 212.200.241.153 (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Point to ponder

Google indexes pages in User space, and often prioritises them fairly highly. If we're going to revise that section, what should we do about POV-forks and similar content hosted in user space?

Discuss. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• What? Why should Google index userspace? Talk: and User: should have a robot.txt to exclude spiders from indexing them. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

yep, quite easy to modify! [6] 212.200.241.153 (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

the rahm emmanual bio is not neutral

Hello. I think the Rahm Emmanual entry in Wikipedia is biased. It is focused on his Jewishness to an extreme extent. I have not seen another bio in Wikipedia that is so focused on the person's ethnicity. It may be mentioned, but then the piece goes on to talk about the person, not his nationaliy or ethnicity. Most of this article is devoted to Emmanual in the context of his being Jewish and his interests and actions from that standpoint. This is biased, and I feel strongly that it needs to be changed and made fair. Thank you. rachaelraps@copper.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.24 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the incorrect place to discuss issues within a specific article like that. This talk page is for discussing the guideline on users' pages. I suggest you bring up your concerns on the talk page of the article here. That's the place for discussing article problems. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)