Wikipedia talk:User pages

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

RFC: Concerning banned and indeffed users

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

In order to establish consensus and determine the normal course of action, should talk pages associated with users who are blocked indefinitely or banned be blanked or left intact? (It is intended that WP:USER will be updated to reflect whichever way consensus trends.) Nouniquenames 19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, there are few different situations here:

• Recently indeffed accounts that are clearly "until the community is convinced the problem will not recur"
• Sockpuppet accounts that will not be unblocked under any circumstances
• Promotional accounts who have a right to unblock for the purpose of a rename

The first one - talkpage should not be blanked until all avenues of unblock have been exhausted OR the talkpage has been locked due to abuse of the process

The second one: blank and tag as a sock. Redirect to the userpage (or vice versa)

The third one, don't blank until all avenues have been exhausted.

(✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to add another wrinkle, what about talk pages of indeff'd individuals who have had talk page access removed? - jc37 20:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the rub, our current policy says that even an indef blocked user with talk page access removed is still a member of the community. Only a banned user is no longer a member of the community. Because of that policy, it would seem that we shouldn't remove talk page comments unless they are banned, blocked as a sock (ie: they aren't really that user anyway and there is no chance of an unblock), Arb or CU blocked (see sock) or to selectively remove material that violate some other policy. In undisputed cases of de facto banned users I can see blanking. Simply blanking for the sake of blanking has shown to not solve any actual problem, yet causes drama. This actually should be located at the WP:BLOCK page, or a link pointing here if it doesn't already exist, since that is the policy that seems to really apply. And to be clear, I think redirecting the talk page to the user page of a non-banned user is always problematic, as we generally do not allow users to choose to do that themselves. They can direct their user page to their talk page, but not the other way around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  No way, you mean that someone understands the difference between blocks and bans (and the timey-wimey stuff in between)? : )

  Anyway, I think the problem with the RFC is that there are too many things under one rfc umbrella. So I think it would be difficult to gain a consensus as currently written. Perhaps this should be restructured? - jc37 20:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be a mess of a discussion unless we're really specific about what options are being discussed.

Here are what I perceive as options (please add to this list if I've missed any)
A: Tag user page, leave existing content, leave user talk page as is
B: Tag user page, blank existing content, leave user talk page as is
C: Tag user page, blank existing content, redirect user talk page to user page
D: No tags, leaving existing content on both user and user talk pages NE Ent 20:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
E: Tag user and user talk page, but do not blank (except for specific material that is covered by policies requiring its removal). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
F: Enact no formal policy, continue permitting administrators to discretionarily choose an appropriate course of action on a case-by-case basis.   — C M B J   10:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Q2 Also, should the decision be at the discretion of the blocking admin (as {{blocked user}} states), or should it be the same for all editors?
Q3 After achieving consensus, should this apply to users blocked/banned going forward, or should existing pages be updated to reflect the consenus? NE Ent 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• A as this is what policy already appears to dictate, unless they are banned (de jure or de facto) or the content violates some policy, which has nothing to do with the block anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is option D. The goal is to build an encyclopedia. Block or banning disruptive users is consistent with that goal. Once a user has been stopped via blocking/banning, tagging or blanking does not help build the encyclopedia -- it's about misguided notions of justice (See no justice) or revenge. This is a bad user so they must be punished. One thing I've never understood is who are all these editors who go around looking at blocked user's talk pages?? I don't, why would I care? Alternatively, on the rare occassions when I have been curious, do you think blanking a talk page is going to keep me from using the history to look at the old version? So all blanking does is add a couple extra clicks to the few curious folks stalking blocked editors.
Second choice is A. If the consensus requires we have to put badge's of shame on editor's pages, fine. I think it's really important we treat indef'd and banned users' the pages the same unless we want to continually have community ban the defacto banned editor discussions on AN, which have never seemed to be a good use of time.
Regarding Q2 it should be consistent for all editors in a particular state so we don't have to haggle about an individual page after the Rfc concludes. NE Ent 20:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The reason it is A is that we can not see the future. In a week, or month, the person might "get it" in those cases, and if there is a chance the editor will come around, we assume good faith, even while they are blocked. If we are going to demand that blocked users are still part of the community (and policy clearly says they are) then in order to be fair and equitable, we have to treat them like equal members of the community, even if we have taken away some of their rights. Only when they are banned, or they really aren't a separate person anyway (sock) are there no rights to take away: they never really existed. In the interest of fairness, you leave it alone. And you have to tag, which they can remove once unblocked, again out of fairness. This tells them why they are blocked and provides the links to get unblocked. Again, this is about assuming good faith. Everyone makes mistakes. If they never come back, nothing is hurt or lost by doing this. It is my opinion that this is why the current policy seems to support this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The only thing I've found documented is Template:Blocked_user/doc, which says "... it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't." There are multiple examples of indeffed users without tags -- so I don't think we can say today there really is a policy (except sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes argue alot on ANI). Since a blocked user will have the blocked template near the bottom of their talk page, I've never seen any benefit to having their talk page tagged. NE Ent 21:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree that only the blocking admin should place the tag or blocking template, or any admin who feels that it was an oversight or is needed for some reason the blocking admin didn't know about. It is part of the blocking process, so should never be done by non-admin for any reason. Doing so simply looks like grave dancing. If a non-admin thinks it needs one, they would be expected to simply bring it to the attention of the blocking admin, or another admin if the blocking admin is no longer active. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
      • One final note: If the blocked editor removes their block template while blocked, I don't think there is a problem if a non-admin reverts them ONCE with a polite summary such as "Policy says you need to keep active block templates on your talk page during the block", since they are only maintaining the status quo, but I would advise them to ping an admin if the editor removed a second time. Edit warring on a blocked editors page isn't an exemption to 3RR. In other words, revert once and educate is ok, but don't get involved in the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't think there's any issue with the {{Uw-block}} template -- it's the badge of shame tag on the user page (e.g. {{blocked user}}) I'm discussing. What's the justification for having it? If there is a valid reason for it, shouldn't it always be added? NE Ent 04:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Again, I only use them for non-persons: sockpuppets or banned users, as they aren't real persons anyway. I would agree that the number of times they would be justified outside of that are very limited, but again, would say that should be in the realm of admin, as they are accountable for blocks and block related actions. Putting it on a sock's page isn't a badge of shame, as we use a very specific version of that template that points to the sock master, thus it does serve a purpose. I use those links every single day. But on run of the mill indef blocks, I would agree that they don't belong there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
        • This has already become far larger than I had imagined, but the idea that only the blocking admin has the choice is, in my opinion, both terrible and against the community. I was hoping this would lead to either a "do it every time unless someone brings up a really good reason not to" or a "don't do it unless someone comes up with a really good reason to." Being an admin is no big deal, it's just a flip of a bit, and tagging or blanking (or not) doesn't require the bit, so there's no justification for making it admin-only. Making it blocking admin's choice further takes away the community's ability to control itself (not always a bad thing) and almost certainly leads to inconsistencies. @NE Ent, the arguing at ANI is unfortunate, and having the sometimes yes/sometimes no almost guarantees that it continues. Ideally, by having the community choose guidelines, much of that could be avoided. --Nouniquenames 04:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
          • The reason it should only be done by admin is that the only time it should be done is when someone is blocked, and only admin can block. Any editor can place a vandalism warning, spam warning, COI notice or other edit related template because those are matters of editing, not administration. Templates informing the community that an editor is blocked aren't about editing, they are about administrative issues. There may be very good reasons why the blocking admin would or would not use a tag or template, which can be addressed on the admin's talk page, but again, they aren't relative to editing, only administration. Just as admin shouldn't come in and decide content issues, non-admin shouldn't decide administrative issues. You can always ask the admin, or another admin, or take any singular issue to WP:AN if you think there is a real problem or need that isn't being met or addressed. The same would hold true for Arb templates, which should be done by Arb or Arb clerks only. This isn't that usual. At WP:SPI, admin are asked to NOT mess with the templates and to not archive discussions, leaving it to clerks, many of which are not admin. Same at Arb, admin are supposed to leave format alone and let the clerks handle that, many of which are not admin. It isn't about admin being better than non-admin, it is about appropriateness of some tasks, and the accountability for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Whether to block is an admin decision -- which should be properly explained in the block summary. The content of a user page is, to state the obvious, a content decision. I have yet to see any valid policy reason for tagging a blocked user's page. Please someone -- anyone -- explain how it improves the Encyclopedia. NE Ent 22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• No. There should not be a written consensus that some people may use to blindly blank userpages regardless of the page content. Some userpages are offensive rants. Other userpages are exceptionally utilitarian. Some userpages should be blanked regardless of the standing of the user, and some product of banned users belongs in ProjectSpace. Instead, treat each on a case-by-case basis, making your best judgement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• I basically agree with SmokeyJoe, the block notice is sufficient. Userpages and talk pages of indeffed editors who are not banned should not be blanked unless there is some reason beyond that they are blocked to justify the blanking. If there is a problem with the page, I think editors should have more latitude to blank then they might otherwise, but there must at least be a page specific reason. Monty₈₄₅ 06:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• A - A consistent approach and clear guideline are needed to avoid issues similar to those seen a few days ago. It should be at the discretion of the blocking admin, but pages should only be blanked in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. libel, copyvios, etc.). If consensus is achieved, this should apply to users blocked/banned going forward, and can be applied retroactively (but not required). For the most part, I agree with Dennis Brown's reasoning. - MrX 03:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• No to WP:CREEP. Editors should be free to use their best judgement, with other editors free to revert and discuss. WP:BRD works fine for far more often viewed and controversial pages than this, and it works fine in this situation as well. Also, no to Yet Another Special Power For Administrators Only. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• I could support A or D, and I oppose B and C except for specific material that is covered by the deletion or oversight policies. --Pine^✉ 03:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• If the user retains the ability to edit his talk page, then we don't need to change any policies. Assuming he doesn't do something to lose the ability to edit this page, he can blank it or request protection on it if he wants, just like an editor in good standing. In cases where he would have the right to ask that it be deleted if he were in good standing, he should retain that right even if he is banned or ifdef-blocked. As for those who cannot edit their talk page: There should be a formal process where these editors can request that the page be protected, courtesy-blanked, or if there is no good reason to refuse the request, deleted. The project should not take action on its own merely because the user is banned or indefinately blocked. It can, however, take action if the content violates policy, just as it can if the user is in good standing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• B. Tag the user page AND the talk page, but leave the talk page warnings, block notices, etc. so that people working on articles with edits by the banned user will be able to see that the user was banned and why. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not what "B" says, though. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would support no change, or D (nothing extra), and only A with tagging of the user page if problems are more serious. Putting the uw-block on the user talk is encouraged, but I have noticed sometimes it does not happen, eg when the user would not read it, like when the user is a spambot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Add option E: Tag user and user talk page, but do not blank (except for specific material that is covered by policies requiring its removal). It's important that people be able to see why the user was blocked, on their talk page, and there's no overwhelming rationale for censoring the user page (it would be censorship simply for the sake of being censorious). Q2: Same for everyone (other than, of course, an admin is free to interpret policy as requiring the removal of certain things, but it doesn't really take an admin to do that). Q3: Not retroactive (way too much hassle). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Added to list above. NE Ent 10:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm against option D, as, in my opinion, tagging is a necessity. --Nouniquenames 14:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Which of the remaining options do you prefer? NE Ent 00:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose B and E make the most sense to me. Redirecting talk seems a bad idea because of automatic posting with twinkle notifications, otherwise option C would be acceptable. I don't like A as well, but it's more a matter of preference. --Nouniquenames 19:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• B is my preferred option in cases where the block has stuck or is likely to stick. Tagging notifies any users previously unfamiliar with the user of their status, a fact which is otherwise non-obvious. If for instance a new user asks an indef blocked editor for help or advice they should have some way of seeing they aren't likely to get a response. Permanently blocked users are no longer part of our community and so no longer have the right to maintain any sort of personal pages here, so blanking the user page is reasonable. The content of user talk pages can be helpful for documenting the user's behaviour and/or the circumstances leading up to the block and can act as a venue from where the block can be appealed, so it should be preserved. Hut 8.5 16:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'm pretty much with Dennis all the way along, here. We should never be tempted (or driven!) into vengeful or punitive actions. Any egregious personal attacks could be redacted. Blanking user talk pages, or protecting them (to "disperse the crowds") is absolutely not on (that's called repression by silencing dissent); neither is protecting pages to prevent anybody else talking to the user. We may block, but we should never Send to Coventry. That's punitive, not preventative. Tags are very rarely needed; they really are just badges of shame in most cases. As with so many things in here, it all depends on context ... Pesky (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• A (or E, they're practically identical, given that stuff which needs to be removed by policy will be removed anyway) : No conceivable benefit in blanking, tagging makes sense for transparency. --Cyclopia^talk 20:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• E (or A) .. is it really just about blanking? (not deleting?) if just blanking is concerned, then consensus about this matter seems to be relatively small issue. I prefer intact pages of blocked/banned users, it often good first reference when researching some past User interactions, blanking has no helpful function. --Reo ⁺ 22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest no formal policy is needed here and that it be left to admin discretion on a case-by-case basis. Users who edit war on such issues or make a hue and cry about " scarlet letters" or other nonsense should be encouraged to shut the hell up. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Added as F.   — C M B J   10:08, 7 December 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.

What about a dead editor?

A wikipedia editor might die.

After reading at Wikipedia:User_page#User_pages_and_leaving_Wikipedia, I was just wondering -- is there some custom or guideline, for what happens to the User Page (and User Talk page) of a wikipedia editor who has died?

Sorry if this has already been answered elsewhere. Thanks in advance for any advice /or comments. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• See WP:RIP. There is a template for the userpage usertalkpage of a deceased editor. If you can't verify the death, then use an inactive user template at most. Being mistakenly declared dead can upset. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

talk page "bans" from indef blocked users

Sometimes in the course of a prolonged dispute a user will ask someone not to edit their talk page any longer. I am usually a very strong supporter of the idea that such requests should be respected. (See my essay on the subject)

However, I find myself in a somewhat odd situation in one particular case. A user was blocked some time ago, and eventually their talk page access was revoked. Over the last year or so they have endlessly evaded the block in a quest to decry the unfairness of it all. Whether there is any merit to their arguments or not is not really the point though. Every time there is another instance of block evasion (they don't even deny it, in fact the self-identify every time they evade the block) it ends up getting mentioned at their talk page, and sometimes a brief discussion occurs, usually multiple admins trying once again to explain to them that block evasion is the surest path to not getting unblocked.

They have emailed me asking (demanding actually) me to stop participating in these discussions and to remove their talk page from my watchlist altogether. The thing is, in this case it isn't really a matter of them wanting me to stop discussing things with them, they aren't even allowed to edit their own talk page. It is a more a matter of discussing the matter with other admins and maintaining a log of the various incidents of block evasion. An appeal to WP:BASC was declined and ArbCom is now "holding" the block.

Now, I don't subscribe to the theory that we treat anyone who has been blocked like a criminal or a pariah and pregtend they don't exist, but in this case I feel like my involvement is basically in an administrative capacity, I'm not involved in any sort of active dispute with this user, i couldn't be since they have been blocked for some time now. They have evaded the block about twenty times now, so maybe I don't even need to be particpating since anyone with a track record like that is de facto banned anyway. So I guess what I am asking is what do folks think of such a demand? Obviously it is not really binding, and the watchlist request is without precedent so far as I know. It's not as if I am obsessed with this user, plenty of admins have commented there to try and inject some sanity into the situation, I'm not at all sure why they are singling me out for banning. Maybe they aren't and the other admins are just ignoring those emails, but if that were the case I suspect someone would have revoked their email priveleges by now. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to respect a request to stay away from someone's talk page. Generally there is no reason for a particular user to be the one to communicate regarding problems with the person requesting to be left alone, so complying with such a request is reasonable. However there is no requirement to comply (and I interpret the shortcut WP:NOBAN to mean that a user cannot ban someone from their user or talk pages). Particularly with an editor known to have been severely disruptive, it would be very unwise to respect a request to go away. I'm sure you would not be grave dancing or anything like that, so the community would thank you for taking the trouble to monitor a problem, and my recommendation would be to ignore emails requesting you to go away (do not reply as that just feeds the problem). Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesmion

Welcoming you to jesmion's page article, you are welcome to the true exposition of the moral enlightenment, someday somebody might be of perplexion of the present events, where as the past events had been a notable teacher, if we had been learning from the past events, present events would have been evaded,