Wikipedia talk:User pages

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

Simulating the MediaWiki interface (joke banners redux)

In practice, I think the "Simulating the MediaWiki interface" subsection is mainly aimed at joke "You have new messages" banners (the orange bar). To clarify that, I have made an addition to it. The community doesn't so far as I know "strongly disapprove" of such banners; most people don't like them much, but we're definitely divided on whether it's appropriate to remove them from other people's pages, per many earlier discussions on this page and elsewhere. (Here's one from 2008.) The guideline should reflect the lack of consensus on that matter better, and should definitely mention the joke banners specifically, since the technical term "simulating the MediaWiki interface" doesn't mean much to most people. The wording I have added (reinstated from an earlier version) is that the community "frowns on" such banners. Please note that the guideline specifies disapproval of "formatting codes that disrupt the Wikimedia interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable (other than by way of commenting out), or replacing the expected interface with a disruptive simulation". I agree with disapproving of all that, of course, but to call a simulated new messages banner linking to Practical joke disruptive would surely be a devaluation of the notion of disruption. A fake banner linking to malware or goatse would be disruptive, but perhaps that obvious point doesn't need to be in the guideline? (Please add it if you disagree.) And if you feel we need another of the hardy perennial joke banner discussions right now, go ahead, of course. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

• Agree that calling a joke banner plain "disruption" is to devalue the term, but it is a degree of disruption. It is a simulation of the interface intended to be a bold messaging mechanism, and to jokingly simulate it is to disrupt the concentration of the reader and to devalue the importance the of the new message notification. To my memory, any time a nomination at MfD appears relating to a simulation of the interface, inclduing joke banners, it results in either deletion, or the simulation being removed with the clear message that otherwise the page would be deleted and/or the user blocked. I think the guideline should be more strongly phrased than "frowning" on joke banners. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. We need to make these a blockable offence. They do not contribute to discussion, have no encyclopedic value whatsoever and are just a straight-up pain in the rear end! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with SmokeyJoe that at MfD, the prevailing consensus is to disallow these joke banners. I have never seen a single MfD where a joke banner was allowed. The joke banners serve little purpose. They irritate others more than they amuse. I have reworded the guideline using SmokeJoe's phrasing, which is stronger than the current wording and which better reflects community consensus at MfD. Cunard (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• My revision was reverted by Bishonen who wrote that the wording was opinionated and that there was insufficient consensus. I have removed the wording about the orange joke banners because the weak wording does not accurately reflect community consensus at MfD to disallow them. That weak wording was cited at User talk:Bishonen by Heimstern (talk · contribs) and Hans Adler (talk · contribs) to demonstrate that such banners cannot be removed. Both users stated that they believed the banners should be "prohibited" and "illegal", but that there was insufficient community consensus.

  What are other editors' thoughts about how to word the guideline regarding the joke banners? Should an RfC be initiated? Cunard (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have a joke banner, and nobody is going to confuse it with a MediaWiki user notification message. Please be careful on any future wording. Reading this discussion sounds heavy-handed and authoritarian which is not the way we keep users around long term. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Be assured that somewhere, sometime, a Wikipedian is frowning on your joke banner. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• The original wording was to frown upon "joke 'You have new messages' notifications (the orange bar)". The wording of your joke banner does not deceive the user into believing s/he has a new message, so it would not violate the original wording of the guideline. I would be open to any suggestions about clarifying the wording to avoid misinterpretations. Cunard (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why an outright ban can't be implemented and enforced here. User pages belong to a specific user insomuch as they somehow further the encyclopedia's aim or they're benign. If someone's user page is actively disrupting/annoying other users, I'm not sure why it has to be tolerated.

bugzilla:12681 is a software solution that I've long been in favor of. But this could be considered fundamentally a social problem, not a technical problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these irritating pages should be outright banned. How should an RfC about the issue be framed? Cunard (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I read "Joke "You have new messages" notifications (the orange bar) are frowned upon by the community." as true, whether accurate or understated, and think it should be put back. Disagreement about how to word a more accurate stronger statement is not a good reason to remove the sentence entirely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak wording unrepresentative of community consensus at MfD should not be restored. Because there is disagreement between Bishonen and me about the wording, I have reverted to the revision prior to the disputed wording. The current wording:

  The Wikipedia community strongly discourages simulating the MediaWiki interface, except on the rare occasion when it is necessary for testing purposes.

  is inclusive of Joke "You have new messages" notifications. It should suffice until there is consensus about how to word the discussion about Joke banners. I welcome suggestions about whether an RfC should be started and how it should framed. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, yes. The current wording is inclusive, and fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should "new messages" banner hoaxes be prohibited?

"New messages" banner hoaxes simulate the MediaWiki interface. Many direct readers to unexpected locations such as the practical joke article and non-Wikipedia websites.

Proposed: "New messages" banner hoaxes in the user and user talk namespaces are prohibited.

Note: This proposal covers only banners that in both wording and color closely resemble the one listed at Wikipedia:User pages#User talk notification. Joke banners that do not mislead editors into believing they have new messages are not included in this proposal.

Notifications

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines (tag) (list)
• Template:Centralized discussion (list)

Cunard (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. See my view below for an extended comment about this proposal. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Enough is enough. It's time to end this disruption once and for all! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 05:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Imzadi 1979 → 05:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
4. That I don't laugh at trolling doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor. Get rid of these. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
5. I have great respect for Malik Shabazz and agree with him on most matters. But this I see as a hoax rather than a joke. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
6. It's clear that these hoaxes bother some people, and it's simply not collegial to tolerate something that disrupts the experience of using Wikipedia for others.  Sandstein  07:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
7. It was funny the first time it was done, but the joke was used up after that. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Not funny, just distracting. Nobody Ent 11:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Simulating a official message means that people may ignore actual messages. Washuchan (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
10. No fake messages. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Could be quite distracting to see fake messages. Not funny. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Not finding deliberately irritating 'jokes' to be funny is not indicative of a lack of sense of humour. Kill these stupid things with fire. → ROUX ₪ 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
13. The worst one of these I've seen was directing people to Special:UserLogout, forcing them to log in again. Stuff like this is not original or funny, just annoying. Jafeluv (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
14. We don't tolerate jokes that are actually disruptive and this particular joke ceased to be funny a long time ago. Hut 8.5 14:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support; this was disallowed a long time ago in my home wiki. — AlexSm 15:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support – there aren't many of them in my experience, but those that I have come across have been annoying, and the whole matter would be even more irritating were these things more widespread. Ergo such banners are intrinsically annoying (and have not been bothering me too much only because there aren't many of them around, not because they are in of themselves funny/whatever), and should be banned. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support – there is no reason to deliberately annoy other users. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support prohibition of banners simulating the "You have new messages" one. Not funny, and confusing to new users. JohnCD (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Support—there is a line between humor and just plain disruptive. Whenaxis about | talk 22:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support - If they are going to be "highly discouraged", you might as well go one step further and say they are not permitted. Nothing wrong with the odd joke here and there, but these are clearly disruptive and should be disallowed. CT Cooper · talk 00:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support The first of these fake notifications that I saw was amusing while also being a distracting irritation. That was a long time ago and it is time for them to be removed as they serve no purpose other than to confuse new users—when an old joke is copied many times, it loses its humor. Fooling around with the user interface is a very bad way for a new user to focus their attention, and permitting fake notifications sends the wrong message to such new users. We should be saying this is an encyclopedia where collaboration and respect are important. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support - joking around is OK, but sometimes when I'm expecting someone to edit my own talk page, these false positives aren't needed. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a site to post disruptive, lame and utterly unfunny "jokes" such as this one. Edison (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Support. Nothing to do with building an encyclopedia; security risk; disturbing to a high number of people without any redeeming value. Shrigley (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support as security risk and unnecessary biting of newbies. Seems like the basics of it are already covered by not replicating the MediaWiki interface. It just needs to be enforced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support I have a sense of humour, but confusing newbies isn't a good thing. As for seeing them too much because one is looking at user pages rather than articles? Yeah, that's called being an admin. Those people who spend time worrying about what goes on in non-article-space are there to ensure the article creators don't have to deal with socks, trolls and vandals so much. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Look, I have a sense of humor just like everyone else here but in my book these fake messages are just annoying. Yes, some people find it funny but at the end of the day it's a detrimental distraction. The ultimate purpose of Wikipedia is not to allow autonomous user-pages, it's building a free encyclopedia. As I see it (see the arguments above) these "jokes" boil down to an irritable nuisance to committed editors. </magister's-rant> Magister Scienta^talk 23:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Support. Those things are downright annoying, and while after awhile one can learn to ignore them, I think around these parts people probably really do have better things to do than stop and mistrust any userpage where they seem to have new messages, because that's what it comes down to. Also makes a place that much less welcoming to new users, who will have a whole whack of other stuff to get used to even without that... -— Isarra (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. They are very annoying, as well as misleading. I get very annoyed when I am waiting for a response on my talk page and click the hoax banner, only to be disappointed. Suitable material for Encyclopedia Dramatica, but Wikipedia users should be more mature.--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. While I appreciate the humor, I think there are more appropriate ways to express humor that do not lead to undue confusion. Furthermore, if the humor is at the expense of the poor newbie who falls for these fake messages- isn't that newbiebiting? Nightenbelle (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support - I have a sense of humor (I swear!) and appreciate the April Fool jokes and whatnot, but when a joke actually upsets people it's no longer acceptable. -- Atama頭 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Grow a sense of humor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Draconian nonsense. That a mode of expression is personally unfunny or distracting to some editors is in absolutely no way an acceptable threshold for its prohibition. To endorse this censorious frivolity would be to set an ill-judged precedent blind to the inevitable unintended consequences. Skomorokh 14:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3. I am philosophically opposed to excessive policing on user page content. That said, the joke is stale and annoying. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
4. Get lives, people. This is what we do on Wikipedia? Debate a line of trivial code in userspace? Write articles, for heaven's sake—stop beating a dead horse and nitpicking at irrelevant shite. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Obviously the support votes are too busy looking at User Pages than contributing anything meaningful. Lugnuts (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Per Malik Shabazz. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
7. It's damn irritating, but it's not particularly disruptive either (ie if your editing experience is significantly impacted by this, the problem is not the "joke"). And making more rules on Wikipedia is taking coal to Newcastle. Danger ^{High voltage!} 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
8. What a waste of time debating something that really doesn't matter. -DJSasso (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Beyond prohibiting downright offensive content, content that's problematic for copyright reasons, and content that's subject to speedy deletion, we have no business telling someone what may not go on a userpage. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Can't say it better than Schmucky.--Kubigula (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
11. What a waste of time! (This here and future enforcement if implemented).TMCk (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
12. See my comments, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
13. Does it actually stop you from improving the encyclopaedia? Von Restorff (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - None of the opposers to this proposal have said banner on their user or talk pages... Why? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the users do have such banners. User:Lugnuts and User:Fetchcomms/Miscellany have two of the banners that this proposal would prohibit. User:SchmuckyTheCat and User:Stifle have joke banners on their user talk and user page, respectively, that would not be prohibited by this proposal.

  Some of the opposers are philosophically opposed to imposing restrictions on the userspace though they dislike these banners ("stale and annoying" and "irritating"). Although I do not subscribe to that philosophy, I find these arguments to be the strongest to oppose this proposal. I have discussed User:Danger's Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep comment below. Skomorokh's concern that this would "set an ill-judged precedent blind to the inevitable unintended consequences" is a slippery-slope argument. This proposal is narrowly defined; further changes to the user page guideline will require another discussion. User:Nyttend's comment that "we have no business telling someone what may not go on a userpage" except for "prohibiting downright offensive content, content that's problematic for copyright reasons, and content that's subject to speedy deletion" is a valid opinion. But it is one that does not correspond with Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?. The guideline includes other prohibitions such as discouraging "writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals". "New messages" banner hoaxes that serve only to irritate fall under that section.

  I find that the rest of the oppose votes only cast aspersions on those who support this proposal and are ad hominems that should be accorded their due weight by the closer. Cunard (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think you're spending too much time on this trivial issue ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One important factor behind the vibrancy of this project is that every volunteer to free to volunteer their time and aptitudes in whatever way they choose. Volunteers are not constrained by what others think are the leading priorities. To tell someone else that they are using their time poorly is so close to casting a critical judgement on their value that it really is best not done.

Here, Cunard is cleaning up loose ends, ambiguities in the rules, and is thus contributing to improving the project in terms of professional appearance and efficiency in function. Silly games, skylarking, pressing doorbells and running away to laugh, are not worth the time for the police to respond to. However, Cunard is not asking others to enforce the mature-behaviour-rules. He is clarifying an old, simple rule: Do not deceptively simulate the WikiMedia interface. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

One important factor behind the vibrancy of this project is a sense of humor and a spirit of fun. Blah blah blah insert condescending and irrelevant crap here blah blah blah. I am offended by your use of "WikiMedia", too. Another important factor behind the vibrancy of this project is the correct use of its name. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Got me on a point or two there. Normally, I'm a dedicated supporter of many things humourous. However, I expect some originality. The discovery of a new perspective on something old is fantastic. Your joke banner I find unfunny because the "new message" turns out to be the same old page I've previously be tricked into loading. As it is, it only serves to trick the newcomers. Now if your joke new message banner took me somewhere unexpected, or even interesting, I'd appreciate it.

By the way, I found the fourth joke original and very funny. In many ways the merge is well underway. However, I think the first shows many signs of damaging bloat, and that splitting would be beneficial for those trying to maintain as well as the external audience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Cunard

Wikipedia:User pages#Simulation and disruption of the MediaWiki interface currently states:

The Wikipedia community strongly discourages simulating the MediaWiki interface, except on the rare occasion when it is necessary for testing purposes.

CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the Wikimedia interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable (other than by way of commenting out), or replacing the expected interface with a disruptive simulation, may be removed or remedied by any user. Inappropriate internal or external links that unexpectedly direct the reader to unreasonable locations or violate prohibitions on linking may also be removed or remedied by any user. Text, images, and non-disruptive formatting should be left as intact as possible. Users of such code should consider possible disruption to other skins and to diffs and old revisions.

Some Wikipedia user pages contain joke "You have new messages" banner hoaxes (the orange bar). An example of such a user page can be seen here. The guideline currently states that simulating the MediaWiki namespace is "strongly discouraged". Joke "You have new messages" banner hoaxes are covered under this wording. I propose that this wording be strengthened for "You have new messages" banner hoaxes. Rather than saying that the banner hoaxes should be "strongly discouraged" or "frowned upon", I propose adding a sentence that says they are "prohibited", "banned", or "disallowed".

In December 2011, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep was closed as "delete". The user page contained a fake "new messages" banner. The consensus was against allowing them; see my discussion with the closing admin at User talk:28bytes/Archive 16#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep. SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) writes above:

To my memory, any time a nomination at MfD appears relating to a simulation of the interface, inclduing joke banners, it results in either deletion, or the simulation being removed with the clear message that otherwise the page would be deleted and/or the user blocked.

I agree with him that the prevailing consensus at MfD is to disallow these joke banners. I have not seen a recent MfD where a joke banner was allowed. This proposal is prompted by the above discussion and the edit war at User talk:NWA.Rep to remove the "new messages" banner.

The above proposal covers banners that closely resemble the one listed at Wikipedia:User pages#User talk notification. Joke banners such as the one at User talk:SchmuckyTheCat that do not mislead editors into believing they have new messages are not included in this proposal.

Such banners were extensively discussed in 2007: see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AF#Practical jokes in "new message" boxes, Wikipedia talk:User pages/UI spoofing, and Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 3#Crafting a guideline on "new message" joke banners. See also David Levy (talk · contribs)'s removal of a number of the banners.

I have read the above discussions about the banners and have listed arguments opposing them below. They have been edited for clarity, concision, and spelling. For context, the diff for each comment is appended at the end of each comment.

Arguments for prohibiting the fake "new messages" banners

Faking the UI is intentionally creating confusion where something looks like clicking on it will give you one thing when it gives you another, or producing a page that looks like something it isn't (like creating a user page the looks like the page you get when there is no user page by that name). Decorative changes that don't impact how someone interacts with the UI wouldn't meet this criteria ... Adapted from Doug Bell talk's comment at 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment We tolerate silly user page content up to the point at which it becomes harmful. Deliberately misleading people in this manner impedes their efforts to build an encyclopedia. These pranks are flagrantly harmful, and I would have attempted to outlaw them long ago if I'd realized that so many others agreed. Adapted from David Levy's comment at 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment There is no positive, or even good-faith, reason to put fake UI on your page. Its only purpose is to harass other users. Given that it is also a potential security risk, we might as well say that it "may" be removed. It is true that there is great lenience about user pages, but it seems reasonable that the guideline can ask users not to engage in behavior that is broadly offensive to the community. This is underlined by the potential phishing risk of fake UI - it should not benecessary to doubt every UI link when editing a user's talk page. Adapted from CMummert · talk's comment at 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment WP:BEANS is always a Catch-22: if there is no written guideline, then it is much harder to argue in favor of removing things, but every guideline in oppositon of some behavior violates WP:BEAN ... Adapted from CMummert · talk's comment at 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment I'm still amazed by all the angst this proposal is creating in the name of freedom on user pages. We're not "creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour"—we're talking about a very specific, practical and non-content-based prohibition on spoofing the UI. There's not lots of gray area here or some dangerous slippery slope. Even without the bot issue I would think this is a no-brainer; with the bot issue this should be a slam dunk. Adapted from Doug Bell talk's comment at 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment I consider that this div class (usermessage) has been abused, and that its abuse should be curtailed by enforcement, not by a “please don’t” message on WP:UP. Most importantly, the community is able to be elastic about interpretation of WP:UP in murky cases. If consensus is against such orange user messages, which appears to be the case, then they shall be removed. There may also have to be an MFD for all of the user subpages of the general note “Sign here if you’ve been fooled, lol!” Adapted from GracenotesT's comment at 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment Two cents here... when I was a newbie, I clicked on those joke "new messages" banners. Now that I've been around a while, I get the joke and don't click on them. Heck, I can go in my monobook.css and make my real "new messages" appear some other color or whatever. But, for the sake of newbies (per WP:BITE), these practical jokes should not be allowed. Adapted from Aude (talk)'s comment at 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment I've got yet another con. When I'm on a slow computer (read: public one) and am just logging in for a few minutes (you know, just to make sure no one is calling for my head, maybe copyedit something, maybe make a follow-up comment on some talk page) these fake message bars can be really disruptive and time-consuming. They serve no positive purpose, yet they serve multiple negative ones. Luckily, I'm seeing consensus to remove them based on this thread, and will do so. Adapted from Picaroon's comment at 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment

Comments (edited) from current discussion

Agree that calling a joke banner plain "disruption" is to devalue the term, but it is a degree of disruption. It is a simulation of the interface intended to be a bold messaging mechanism, and to jokingly simulate it is to disrupt the concentration of the reader and to devalue the importance the of the new message notification. To my memory, any time a nomination at MfD appears relating to a simulation of the interface, inclduing joke banners, it results in either deletion, or the simulation being removed with the clear message that otherwise the page would be deleted and/or the user blocked. I think the guideline should be more strongly phrased than "frowning" on joke banners. Adapted from SmokeyJoe (talk)'s comment at 07:16, 1 December 2011; see link to comment We need to make these a blockable offence. They do not contribute to discussion, have no encyclopedic value whatsoever and are just a straight-up pain in the rear end! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Adapted from Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me's comment at 01:33, 14 December 2011; see link to comment Not sure why an outright ban can't be implemented and enforced here. User pages belong to a specific user insomuch as they somehow further the encyclopedia's aim or they're benign. If someone's user page is actively disrupting/annoying other users, I'm not sure why it has to be tolerated. bugzilla:12681 is a software solution that I've long been in favor of. But this could be considered fundamentally a social problem, not a technical problem. Adapted from MZMcBride (talk)'s comment at 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC); see link to comment

The following table is adapted from Gracenotes (talk · contribs)'s table. It has been expanded with arguments from the above quotes.

Table summarizing the arguments

Summary of the pros and cons of false new message boxes
Why to prohibit	Why not to
Users often click on them without thinking, resulting in possibly downloading a virus or being directed to a malicious site. A user may also find him or herself in the security-threatening situation described by CMummert Impedes users' efforts from building the encyclopedia People find it annoying and disruptive Disrupt the concentration of the reader Confusing to editors. Violates WP:BITE for new editors. Disruptive and time-consuming to editors using slow computers Many bots are coded in various languages to look for this div and possibly desist functioning until further instruction is given An editor may be doing a systematic task (like reverting vandalism or tagging talk pages) when they are interrupted to consider a false talk page message Devalue the importance of the new message notification system.	The Wikipedia community is tolerant, and shouldn't crush jokes just because they're irritating The bot issue can be worked around, with some extensive recoding (?)

Users who endorse this view

1. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

   In reply to Σ: The comment about the "new messages" banner interfering with bots is motivated by this comment:

   I would also agree with disallowing this sort of practical joke. I think there was a situation in which one of the userbox migration bots kept stopping because it came across fake new-messages banners and thought they were real, so this is more important than just the annoyance value. (It's kind of ironic that users sporting such banners had their userboxes gradually degrade due to the bots not being able to replace them, but this interfered with other users too.) --ais523 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

   And this comment:

   I don't think that a fake new-messages bar is worth complicating bot programming for. I also don't think that there's a query.php uihasmsg check built in to the popular bot frameworks, so it would mean changes to existing bot code (which can be a bad idea; imagine if a new-messages banner was confusing an adminbot, it would have to go through a new RfA so that the uihasmsg check could be implemented!). By the way, Tra, you probably want to change the output format of that query.php check from the human-readable xmlfm, which has to be screen-scraped, into something more useful for bots. --ais523 11:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

   Complications, while not present in the bots listed by Σ below, may occur with other bots. As ais523 noted, recoding those bots to work around the div class "usermessage" problem will be a waste of precious time and resources. Cunard (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

   Those bots were old and dependent on query.php, which no longer works. It should be noted that like the current API, query.php also had the ability to check for new messages.

   Downloading the source of an article and searching for '<div class="usermessage"' would waste more resources in the long run than recoding the bot to download the text returned from a query (which should be trivial anyway - make the bot search the text of the API query instead of the article) and then downloading the article if there are no new messages. →Στc. 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for the explanation. I have stricken the mentions of bots from the table. Cunard (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

   In reply to the Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep argument: CMummert (talk · contribs)'s comment about WP:BEANS is applicable to WP:CREEP. Paraphrasing CMummert, WP:CREEP is always a Catch-22: If there is no written guideline, then it is much harder to argue in favor of removing things, but every guideline in oppositon of some behavior violates WP:CREEP. The community has, in the past, spent much time discussing the "new messages" hoax banner: Wikipedia talk:User pages/UI spoofing. There have been edit wars and conflicts since 2007 involving the hoaxes.

   These hoaxes are harmful: They (i) pose a security risk, (ii) confuse and give new users the impression that Wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia, (iii) may cause people to disregard actual messages, (iv) wastes the time of users on slow computers, (v) impedes encyclopedia building by disrupting the reader's concentration, and (vi) is a detrimental distraction that annoys rather than amuses.

   In my view, prohibiting these net negative banners is not a violation of WP:CREEP but a codification of the community's willingness to, as Sandstein (talk · contribs) said above, no longer "tolerate something that disrupts the experience of using Wikipedia for others". Cunard (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Σ

Searching for the div class "usermessage" is uncommon in most bot frameworks. It can be done through the API. If there are new messages:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<api>
  <query>
    <userinfo id="1234" name="Σ" messages="" />
  </query>
</api>

If new messages have been read, then the bold text is not in the query.

As far as I know, ST47's Perlwikipedia, Chris G's botclasses.php, and Cobi's wikibot.classes.php do not use the API to check for new messages at the same level Pywikipedia and Wiki.java do. But I am sure that none of them use the div class "usermessage" to check for new messages. →Στc. 07:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

View by Bulwersator

WP:BIKE Bulwersator (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Bulwersator (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) - as proposer

View by TransporterMan

While I'm not pointing fingers at any of the proposers or supporters in this debate, I would note that if you look into the history of many lighthearted elements of WP such as the Department of Fun and, indeed, any which don't serve a strict nose-to-the grindstone purpose you'll find attempts, sometimes dedicated attempts, to get rid of them. Fortunately, such attempts ordinarily fail, as should this one. Sandstein's comment that, "It's clear that these hoaxes bother some people, and it's simply not collegial to tolerate something that disrupts the experience of using Wikipedia for others," can be seen, though I doubt that he means it to be, a call to arms in that direction. I have a fake banner at the top of my user page in the form of a warning that "This page contains text or images which may be disturbing to some. (Because everything is disturbing to someone.)" That is true and indeed, for reasons which I have explained at excruciating length elsewhere I find the term "wikilawyer" to be offensive and it disrupts the experience of using Wikipedia for me. Should we ban the use of that term, too? As much as I'd like it to be banned, even I am forced to say "probably not" because that term has a marginally useful purpose here just as the presence of humor also does. It cannot be questioned that we need to stick to our mission here, but neither do we need to allow this to be such a dry and humorless place that only masochists and those who would relish working in Ebenezer Scrooge's pre-Christmas workroom enjoy working here.

There is however a valid issue to be raised here. It's one thing to make a mild joke, but entirely another to do something seriously disruptive. A banner which takes you to the Practical joke article or to some similar inoffensive place is nothing more than a "gotcha" but it needs to end with the gotcha. A banner which takes you offsite at all, much less to one which is virus-ridden, or to something potentially offensive onsite such as a link to an image of an extended middle finger (to provide a relatively mild example) should not be condoned, not for a second. We don't need to prohibit all banners just to fix those problems when they arise, however; if the current tools are not sufficient to deal with those cases then focused tools should be adopted, but the Bozo should not be thrown out with the bathwater. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of user talk pages

I've been looking for an answer to this question, but can't seem to find one. According to this policy, user talk pages are generally not deleted, as they contain valuable history. But what about when a user talk page consists only of a redirect and absolutely no other history? (i.e., because the user has been renamed.) Is there any good reason why deletion shouldn't be possible in that situation? Robofish (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the only reason to not delete talk pages is the concern that project-relevant discussion may be recorded only in that talk page. A counter point to that is that project-significant material should be moved/copied out of userspace.

Another concern might be that if a talk page is deleted, non-admins can't know that there wasn't anything of significance deleted. This concern can be attended to by explicitly noting in the deletion log summary the absence of significant content.

I think that it is reasonable to delete a talk page if WP:CSD#G7 applies. This could mean a reasonable assumption that you are acting on the user's behalf, and in the usual assumption that minor and bot edits do not stand in the way of G7. It sounds like you could delete this talk page per G7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If the page has never had any talk on it, then it isn't really a talk page so the rule doesn't apply. However, if they have been renamed there is generally some sort of pointer to the user's new name. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe - No, also a warning history can be of interest in some cases, especially in the anti-spam area. Note that is not just the current version of a talkpage, it may also be the edit history of a talkpage.

Robofish, why would you want to delete the talkpage? Generally, there is hardly any reason to delete a user talkpage, they do not free up database space, and deleting may remove, even for not often occuring or obscure reasons, valuable information that is there (especially for those who do not have access to deleted records). Generally, archiving is the way to go (there is a bot doing that). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The renamed editor may have been referred to (or had that page linked to from) elsewhere on Wikipedia discussion and project pages using their previous name. Except in privacy-related and legitimate other RTV cases, a redirecting link from the previous user pages will always be beneficial. Franamax (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dirk. Yes, of course a warning history should be kept. Warnings in the history should mean that G7 doesn't apply. G7 should require that the only contributor in the full history is the user himself. Sometimes it happens that a new user fills up their user talk page with their own work, not appreciating the purpose of the user talk page, and such things can be readily deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think one should just standard say 'don't delete user talkpages', except for some excessive things (only plain spam edits, attack pages etc.). All that does not fall under those categories should not be deleted, even if one does not see what possible use it may have - it is not in the way either. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:UP#POLEMIC interpretation needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Key to whether a certain page in user space should be deleted is how WP:UP#POLEMIC is interpreted. I thought folks familiar with this guideline who watched this page might give us some insight on its applicability in this instance, here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• clearly inappropriate attempt at lawyering. I don't feel there is any ambiguity nor does it rests with interpretation at all. The relevant clause is Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The page was created with the clearly stated intention of being used to threaten and browbeat an editor whom he disagreed with, and is thus well out of order. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • OMG, I just looked at the new discussion. WP:TLDR. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Ohconfucius. This is typical SOP for B2C (B2C gets shot down somewhere by editors citing policy so he then goes to change the policy rather than conform to conduct expected). Greg L (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Next time, do what everyone else does and compile your evidence with an offline text editor, Google document, or somewhere else off wiki. Reduces drama, just as easy to access. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That would have defeated the express purpose in this case. As he wrote in the above-linked MfD, he had previously done this very thing: he created a special subpage with the targeted editor’s name in the title and then went to the other editor and waved it in his nose to get him to stop opposing B2C. As B2C further wrote, it worked then so he thought he’d do it again! YEAH!!!!. (Not). Greg L (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since these issues are now being discussed at two MFDs, and the person posing the question has clearly gotten their answer (albeit the exact opposite of the one they wanted) I am closing this thread. No need to have three discussions going at once on the same topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing active block notices, part VII

On the subject of a previous thread ("Wording of removal-of-block-notices (again)"), I have altered the wording in an attempt to clarify what it seemed to be trying to say: don't remove active block notices. Although personally I think this is good advice, I'm not sure my changes (or the wording of that particular section even before my alterations) accurately reflect the results of the most recent discussions by the community.

If uncontested active block notices are to be excluded, then the first bulleted item in the list of things not to remove ("Sanctions that are currently in effect") is ambiguous, to say the least.

I'm not looking for yet another discussion about the merits and demerits of allowing users to remove current block notices, but I would welcome a discussion about the optimal wording of this section based on the discussions that have already taken place.

The most recent discussion that I am aware of can be found here, which also contains links to several of the other discussions on this matter. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

RIP - digital cemetery?

Recently found out by accident that contributor User:Elisabeth Rieping died some time ago. Are there any standard procedures or guidelines for that? Richiez (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. Hut 8.5 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - does not seem linked from Wikipedia:User_pages? Thats where I was searching intuitively. Richiez (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think the guideline page ought to be better advertised, I wasn't even aware of it until someone took me to task for not following it. The only policy page which even mentions it is the protection policy. Not really sure it belongs on this page though. Hut 8.5 01:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A small section somewhere close to Wikipedia:User pages#User pages and leaving Wikipedia would seem a natural choice. Also a mention under Wikipedia:User pages#Protection of user pages could be added. Richiez (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)