Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:User pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk | contribs) at 00:36, 28 September 2010 (→‎Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Proposal based on above discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Proposed wording gained sufficient support to be implemented. SilkTork 22 August 2010

Above we have several discussions on the theme of "content that is not really suitable for user space and should be less contentious to quickly remove", covering:

  • Advocacy and encouragement of vandalism, harassment, privacy breach etc;
  • Disruption of Mediawiki interface
  • Explicit sexual material (with possible caveats, for example that it should not catch a range of sexual matters commonly accepted such as simple sexuality or belief userboxes)

Not all of these are completed discussions but a trend appears to be visible that it would be beneficial if certain narrowly defined kinds of content should be easier to remove (without overly damaging the traditional leeway of userspace for genuine editors). I've thought about this and propose the following idea:

Current wording Proposed wording
 

Statements of violence

Statements that advocate or condone acts of violence against any person(s) or group(s) are not allowed on user pages. This includes the mention or implication of violent acts – for example, murder or rape. It does not, however, include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.

Replace

Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit

Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage or condone the following behaviors:

  • Vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence (includes the mention or implication of violent acts but not mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence).

These may be removed, redacted or collapsed by any user (or deleted) to avoid the appearance of acceptability. To preserve traditional leeway over userspace, other kinds of material should be handled as described below unless otherwise agreed by consensus.

Simulated MediaWiki interfaces Simulation and disruption of the MediaWiki interface

Add:

CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the Wikimedia interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, or making text unreadable (other than by way of commenting out), may 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 be aware of and consider disruption to other skins or layouts (diffs and old revisions).

Images Images

Add:

Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review. Context should be taken into account. Simple personal disclosures of a non-sexually provocative nature on sexually-related matters (such as LGBT userboxes and relationship status) are unaffected.

Thoughts? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like you say, the proposed wording should work fine with that MFD (and it makes a good "edge case" test). Of the 3 pages user:Cyde cites:
How the community decided these pages at MFD   (Extended content)
  • One was deleted at MFD for having "not a shred of encyclopedic value";
  • One containing a gallery of nudes (including a high proportion of classical nude paintings) and no specific sexually provocative selection or commentary was MFD'ed twice with "no consensus" then around January 2007 switched from a gallery to a list of image links after which it was snowball kept in 2008 (since deleted but by user request);
  • One was moved to a separate gallery which was "dedicated to my work on wikipedia and many other users, it is dedicated to no censorship on Wikipedia" [1] and was deleted at MFD - but this was for a different reason - free image problems and distraction/effort to the community of managing the gallery issues.
  • Cyde's page itself is clearly a gallery of imagery chosen to showcase extremes of media we keep by a committed contributor rather than to provoke sexually, but was MFD'ed twice, the first MFD was a keep (MFD comment: "The community generally (and quite properly, IMHO) accords those who contribute copiously to the project broader latitude as regards that for which such contributors might employ userspace, and inasmuch as the content comprised by the page is not substantially unrelated to Wikipedia") and the second MFD was flawed being based on fair use which wasn't an issue.
So it looks like the proposed wording catches this balance nicely. Pure sexual provocative imagery with no project benefit, vs. galleries with project benefit and especially by copious contributors, does seems to be the dividing line for the community. Perhaps a minor copyedit or footnote (sample below) to clarify the common dividing line, but that's fine tuning it.
Sample footnote: The community has taken many nude and sexual galleries to MFD. As a guide, those created by known and respected contributors, which exist purely to showcase our work and WP:NOT#CENSORED and are not designed as sexual provocation often seem to be kept. Those which use Wikipedia as personal webspace, are excessively focused upon sexual material, aim at "pushing the edge" on freedom to use userspace, or make a point, rather than project benefit, especially by editors with a lesser record of positive contribution and cases where non-free imagery is an problem, tend to be deleted.
FT2 (Talk | email) 10:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but the question of "humor" needs to be tackled: "I'm not encouraging vandalism, it's a joke!". I would like something along the lines of Material that portrays these issues as of little importance (for example, by proposing vandalism for humor) will generally be regarded as condoning the behavior, and may also be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. It's probably enough to handle this by footnote, either the wording you suggest or a variant on the theme. If needed just two extra words in the main text covers all of it: "... or normalizing". FT2 (Talk | email) 03:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either of those sounds good, although I'd really like both. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both added, and extra care taken to reflect this point. If it still isn't sufficient, go fix it! FT2 (Talk | email) 09:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be agreed - added [2]. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - better than what is there now. Airplaneman ✈ 15:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late support :P —fetch·comms 16:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per the warning on this very page: "Again, these are examples. Please don't suggest others, as this may only encourage some users to try it out." We simply can't list every sort of disruptive behavior that occurs on Wikipedia, and attempting to do so might give trolls more ideas to use to their advantage. We already have enough on an ever-expanding list. What good will come out of adding these prohibitions to UP#NOT? This page is only a guideline, not a policy, and only serves to discourage such events from happening, rather than restrict them outright. Here we're "encourag[ing] some users to try it out." which is the opposite of what is supposed to happen. I think it's better to use common sense, politely notify the user on his/her talkpage, and if the user doesn't comply, seek dispute resolution or other means of gaining consensus. And if the user has been gone for a long time, we can just remove the unseemly material. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In general you are correct, but too much wasted time occurs when attempting what you suggest for the particular cases mentioned here. Because of the vagueness of the old version of WP:UP, people would claim at WP:MFD that (for example) a "vandalize me" user subpage should be retained because other people do it, and it's not ruled out by WP:UP. In practice, many such MFD discussions have resulted in a deletion, and the rewrite here is an attempt to describe fairly common and desirable procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

* Special appended comment

The apparent consensus seen at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyde/Weird pictures (2nd nomination) was emphatically altered at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyde/Weird pictures (3rd nomination), in the light of the above discussion and associated changes to WP:UP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

I propose that we add "relevent and important disscussion" to the list of things people can't remove from their talk pages. Some users seem to be abusing the ability to remove comments from one's own page. Mr. Anon515 02:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That won't happen because the terms cannot be defined. What is relevant and important to one person may be superfluous to another. Also, it is the actual article editing that matters. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One could easily define it. Warnings, whether templated or freetext, should stay on talkpages for e.g. two weeks.→ ROUX ₪ 09:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of a warning can reasonably be taken as an implicit "read and understood". The diff of the removal makes good evidence if escalation is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could define it as anything that's not a personal attack or spam, and something that's on topic. Mr. Anon515 02:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. At one time there was a principal that one could not remove warnings from one's own user page. It didn't work. People did remove them, and teh resulting edit wars, reports to admin notice boards, endless arguments, etc etc were a aste of everybody's time. The issue was discussed at great length and it was decided to allow such removal. Although there are problems with the present arrangement, I have not the slightest doubt that it is by far the lesser evil.
  2. What would you think if someone put a completely unjustified warning message on your user talk page (whether maliciously or in error) and you were obliged to leave it there? I know that i would not accept such a situation. Perhaps you are thinking "that wouldn't apply, because we would have a let out clause for such unjustified warnings". If so, how do you define what can be removed and what can't? Where do you suggest carrying on the endless arguments when editor A removes a warning because they consider it unjustified, but editor B disagrees? Do we make reports to admin noticeboards? Or set up a whole new forum for dealing with just this problem? We will find that admins cannot keep up with the backlog, and an inordinate amount of their time is diverted from other work to dealing with these disputes. Am I being too pessimistic, imagining problems that would not really arise? No: problems such as these did arise when the rules were different, and they would again if we reintroduced some such rule. The whole thing wasted far more time than it was worth. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate misinformation on user pages

Is there a case for adding to the section What may I not have in my user pages? deliberate misinformation, at least about Wikipedia-related issues? I have in mind a couple of incidents. In one of them an editor copied and pasted barnstars to their own user page from others. Frankly, if someone feels the need to pretend that they have been given barnstars when they haven't that is their problem, and at the time my attitude was that there was nothing to be done about it. However, someone else pointed out that the misrepresentation went further than that, because the copy-pasted versions included signatures, so they were misrepresenting the views and actions of other Wikipedians. Would you be happy if some disruptive and unconstructive editor gave other people to believe that you approved of their actions, and had complimented them? Even if you wouldn't object to being misrepresented in this waye, I think that others would have the right to do so. The second incident was, I think, more serious. An editor who was not an administrator was pretending to be one. He used edit summaries (and talk page comments too if I remember correctly) which claimed that edits he was making were administrative actions, evidently with the intention of making them seem more authoritative, in an apparent attempt to intimidate others into not challenging his actions. When his claim to be an admin was challenged he pointed out that he was listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators. Anyone who knows how the system works will realise that all this proved was that he had put a template on his user page falsely claiming to be an admin, but many people don't know that, and would be fooled by his dishonesty. My own view is that such lies are obviously unacceptable, and that we shouldn't need a written rule saying so, but unfortunately there are always wikilawyers around who use "there is no written policy or guideline forbidding this" to oppose common sense actions such as removing the lies and, if they are repeated after warnings, eventually blocking the disruptive editor. For that reason I would like to add a simple brief note saying that factually incorrect claims are not acceptable on user pages. Any comments? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate misinformation sounds rather vague. How can you tell if information, misinformation, or the lack thereof, in userspace is deliberate? How do you know whether someone is lying intentionally or unintentionally, and that they did not know what they were talking about, and that you challenged them, especially on their own talkpage? The barnstar incident sounds like something minor that no one would know and that if found out could be taken to MfD, but it seems the admin falsehood is more serious. In any case, I believe it's better to just try the best to use common sense, and remove the category, rather than delving into WP:CREEP and, if included on WP:UP, WP:BEANS. If it is the case that someone was pretending to be an administrator, talk to him/her, and if he/she doesn't comply, just ask him/her to leave. It does not seem necessary to just add to an ever-growing list of "things you should not do" that already violated WP:BEANS as much as possible. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem raised by JamesBWatson, and would generally favor some appropriate language to rule out such nonsense. However, I'm inclined to agree with the contrary WP:BEANS argument. Also, the problem of defining "deliberate", or wording some alternative, is not easy to overcome. I think an editor who pretends to be an admin is going to cause trouble, and they would find some way to put nonsense on their user page regardless of the guideline. I cannot see a clean way of responding to such misinformation, but feel that it is not acceptable to leave a false claim of being an admin. Also, it is definitely not acceptable to misuse the words or signature of another editor, by copying a barnstar from another user page. Perhaps WP:TALKNO could be invoked to remove comments/signature that an editor put on some other page ("Do not misrepresent other people")? Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the wording "Impersonating an administrator". Sounds more authoritative. And I agree that something like this should be added. -- Ϫ 19:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I seem to recall that it is not a violation of policy to put things like "This page has been vandalized 48204 times" on a userpage, no matter how patently false, but anyone would remove something that denotes a false claim of ability (i.e., stating that the user has a userright they do not have, etc.). I think that applying IAR and discussing the issue with the user is more appropriate than having some specific rule listed here, because any user who insists on keeping an admin topicon on their page even after it has been removed as incorrect, will be blocked for disruptive editing. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect sentence

Unless they meet the criteria for speedy deletion (copyright violations, attack pages, unambiguous promotion, no other significant contributor, etc) or you are permanently leaving Wikipedia, it is unlikely that your main user page or user talk page will actually be deleted. However they can be blanked which has the same effect (...)

From "Wikipedia:User_pages#Deleting_your_user_page_or_user_talk_page" (bolded by me)

That frase (bolded) should be corrected. To delete a page doesn't have the 'same effect' that to blank a page. For example, a blanked page still has its history available for everyone and if a deletion supported by our rules is really needed (and not just blanking) would be incorrect just to blank it and wouldn't have the same effect. That is why the pages are redacted or deleted; because it doesn't have the same effect. I'm sure that the most readers to this page already know what I am saying, but it can be confusing to new users.” TeLeŞ (PT @ L C G) 00:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block notices and BLANKING

  • Users are requested to comment on wether the list of things at the WP:BLANKING section that cannot be removed should include block notices until after the expiration of the block. This follows an issue raised on my talk page and discussed here concerning the fact that, whilst it is generally held that block notifications should remain in place for the duration of the block, this is not actually set out in policy. Consensus is sought on wether to allow users to remove block notices from their talk pages at any time, or if they should remain in place until the block expires. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes

There has been a recent batch of MfDs using WP:User pages#Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit to justify the deletion of userspace "vandalism sandboxes". For those unfamiliar with these pages, they are often linked from user page or user talk editnotices with a message similar to "If you were going to vandalize this page, go mess around here instead."

Reviewing the discussion still present on this page above that adopted the verbiage currently in the "advocacy" section, it doesn't appear to me that anyone involved had this kind of thing in mind when drafting this section. Encouraging "vandalism" of a sandbox isn't encouraging real vandalism; a sandbox can't be vandalized. I suggest a moratorium on deletion of these sorts of pages until we have a consensus to delete them. Gigs (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the distinction needs to be properly defined. Sandboxes are exempt under the normal rules; the idea is to encourage somebody to vandalise in a place where it doesn't matter, rather than in the article space/working Wikipedia space/whatever. I'd support any change in the current wording to reflect this. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps: Sandboxes set aside for the purpose of allowing users to "vandalize" them, but which do not in any way encourage actual vandalism of any Wikipedia pages in any space thereof, are not "vandalism sandboxes' for the purpose of this guideline. ? By using the power of definition, we reduce any misuse of the term as an argument for deletion. Collect (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is not being misapplied. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7#Vandalspaces, particularly here, led to the current wording. I would be opposed to a change in wording that permits sandboxes that endorse vandalism in the userspace. Cunard (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on what exactly is in the sandbox really, if it is filled with racist crap it ought to be deleted, if it`s just a load of bollocks then no harm really. It really depends on what`s in it mark nutley (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism pages damage Wikipedia's reputation; from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!: "an IP, while removing vandalism [on User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!] , wrote in an edit summary, "Removed NPOV spam, obsessively promoting TROLL as vandalism as opposed to spam, comedy, etc. Are you a wikipedia administrator?"

The potential for BLP violations on such a page is great. In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blood reaper/Vandalism page, the page had homophobic slurs and copyrighted content that had remained there for months if not years. There is no need to let pages that allow gratuitously offensive content to remain on Wikipedia.

Because vandalism pages are rarely, if ever, maintained by their creators, they should be deleted to prevent libelous content buried beneath pages of vandalism from remaining there. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalboxes waste the time of vandal patrollers who must read the page's rules to see if the vandalism should be reverted. This time could be better spent reverting actual vandalism in Wikipedia articles. The page does not help prevent vandalism because vandals are going to vandalize the mainspace or the user's userpage regardless of pages such as this. Vandals/trolls derive more pleasure in vandalizing pages in the mainspace when such actions are forbidden. Permitting such pages to remain on Wikipedia fosters the attitude that vandalism is acceptable on Wikipedia. I believe that that is unacceptable. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, consensus a few months ago was to disallow vandalspaces, broadly construed, in any part of Wikipedia. Regular sandboxes are of course open to editing by any user, but specific "vandalize here" spaces are discouraged by the community. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where was that discussion? Gigs (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7#Vandalspaces. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only consensus I glean from that is that libel and copyright violations should be deleted on sight, no matter where they are located, and definitely not a consensus to delete vendalboxes wholesale. The unfortunate thing seems to be that the closure of that discussion references the above "consolidated" proposal, and the proposal doesn't really seem to address or resolve the issue of vandalism sandboxes in any way that would justify their deletion, or even provide any explicit guidance on them. It definitely doesn't seem to indicate consensus for "great purge" against them. Gigs (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Collect (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal that gained consensus is here. Cunard (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems rather silly to me. These pages are not detrimental to the project, and I fail to see what is to be gained through their deletion. What is detrimental to the project is otherwise useful editors spending their time finding these pages, proposing them for deletion, writing essays, arguing over deletion, having RfCs, and otherwise wasting valuable time that could be spent doing something in article space. They are user subpages that attempt to keep vandalism off of normal user pages. I see no justification for all of this wasted time and energy trying to eliminate them. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 00:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put a notice on my user talk page. Vandalism boxes may not help the Wikipedia project but then user pages don't help much, especially the user boxes. What I suggested, but met great opposition, is that everyone should make all potential conflicts of interest known, possibly on their user pages. Transparency is better than secrecy. I am guilty myself. I admire Nokian tires even though I do not work for them, own shares, or have them myself. Just envy. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages&oldid=387433000"