User talk:Bluerasberry/userpage standards

My perspective

I have not met any other user who cares so much about other users' userpages as I do. It is my belief that the typical Wikipedian attitude is that one's own userpage is one's own space for self-expression and that it ought not be regulated strictly, and that it is something of a taboo or at least an unwarranted request that I should tell people to change their userpage to please others. In general I think that people should be free to do what they want with their userpages, but I feel like when users start requesting community endorsement then their userpages become less their personal decision and more of a community concern. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that it is rather foolish to oppose somebody's attempts to attain additional responsibilities on this project simply because you don't like their userpage. You should be judging an editor's worthiness for a position such as administrator or bureaucrat based on their contributions and actions, not the aesthetics of their userpage. If anything, I would consider an editor who has spent hours upon hours designing their userpage to have a misplaced sense of priorities. So long as the page is not filled with controversial expressions not in keeping with the ideals and expectations of the project, or content that could confuse a person not familiar with the project, the contents of a userpage shouldn't be relevant. --auburnpilot talk 14:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment but I am not able to identify any new argument nor any addressing of any argument I proposed in what you say; I am only able to see that you give your opinion without supporting it with a rationale. Five minutes to write two sentences is a sufficient amount of time to spend on designing a userpage - hours of time would be, as you say, misplaced. As I say on the project page accompanying this talk page, I assert that when a userpage fails to identify something useful about a user and when it fails to give information about how a visitor may interact with that user then the userpage is confusing, and that this does make the content of a userpage relevant to the Wikipedia community when the content is on the page of a community representative. I am happy to discuss with more with you and I would appreciate your help in understanding the reason for your opinions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reconsidered that you do have an argument - you do say that admins and bureaucrats ought to be judged based on their contributions, and I agree with this, but I also think that the becoming an admin makes a person a community representative. If there were a way to make someone an admin without also making them a community representative then I would say that userpage does not matter. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to discuss further. I was merely providing my thoughts, as invited by your comment at the top of this section. --auburnpilot talk 21:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by. I wish that I could come to understand your perspective. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity

Out of mere curiosity, how would you rate my user page? While I rarely work on it I've always tried to have it come across as friendly and as helpful as possible while still being neat and not overdone. The design has barely changed but I've still been happy with it! :) Acalamari 16:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts aboutthis policy these criteria

You may have noted my recent comment here. I strongly urge you to change "policy" to "criteria" or something less confusing - the word "policy" is laden with specific meaning here. -- Scray (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I see that you've amended to "standards" rather than "policy", but you may have missed a spot - in your templated language, last line. -- Scray (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Addshore

Oppose I judged this user based only on their userpage according to ~~the policy~~ my personal criteria here. This user does not meet my expectations and based only on that, I oppose this user's promotion. Others should check other aspects of this user's work. I would change my vote if this user added to their userpage the content which I describe in my policy and messaged me to change my vote. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your above-linked "policy" regarding Wikipedia user pages is not Wikipedia policy whatsoever. It's an essay that you created, and is entirely subjective. It's ridiculous to state that you would support a person if they change their user pages per your subjective dictum; "I'll support you if you change your user pages to my liking." This doesn't address this person's merits as a potential bureaucrat on Wikipedia whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the substance of your criticism (though I agree the word "policy" was poorly chosen; "criteria" would be so much clearer). I appreciate this user's explicit criteria and motivation (making WP more welcoming is a very important effort to which we pay too little attention). If this is based on real feedback from new users (I gather that it is), that's a good justification - the details can be sorted out on the user's talk page. I am confident that many !voters here look at particular aspects in reaching their decision, most of which are not as clearly stated as in this example. After all, the final decision is a determination of consensus, not just a counting of votes. -- Scray (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a page that sort of details my !voting at an RfA. I don't use it to entirely justify a !vote, but it gives a lot of good points to look at in a candidate. Of course, this is an RfB, not an RfA, so the things to look for are much different. However, basing your !vote just off the fact that you don't like their userpage is a bit ridiculous to me. If Addshore's user page just consisted of "hai guise, im a nazi" that's an entirely different thing; however, in this case, his userpage isn't too long, isn't too short, or isn't too complicated. It's simply designed to convey what and who he is. I don't have a problem with that. Also, citing an essay as a policy isn't a smart idea, the difference being an essay reflects the opinion of one for more editors (apparently just you in this case), while a policy reflects consensus. I don't intent to attack or badger you berry, I'm just respectfully giving you my two cents on your !vote and why I don't think it's strong. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 21:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the criticism and I recognize that I have a controversial opinion which merits criticism. For now I still stand by it. Let me respond to your concerns:

Northamerica1000 - You are completely correct that this is not a Wikipedia policy and I am wrong for using imprecise language. This is my criteria and reflects my subjective opinion of what is write. I agree that I only support people if they conform to my subjective standards; there are no agreed-upon standards for RfA/RfB, so I think that many people use subjective standards. I agree that I am not doing much to check anyone's merits with this criteria, but rather, I am checking to see if someone meets my minimal standards in only one aspect of their history on Wikipedia. I am not checking more than that.

Scray, I agree with you that RfA/RfB is not about counting votes, but about determining consensus and even constructive criticism.

Cncmaster, you are correct, what I wrote is not a Wikipedia policy but my own personal opinion. I should have been more clear. It seems that I feel more strongly about userpages than you do. I recognize that many people do not think they are a concern and I hope that you feel that I do no harm in expressing my opinion and that even if you disagree that diversity of perspective is welcome. If you do think my criteria are harmful then I would like to know more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry, I think you may have misunderstood what I thought was clear from indentation, i.e. that my disagreement was with Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), not with you. If you re-read my post in this light, I wonder if it takes on different meaning. Of course, I could be the one who is misunderstanding (yet again), in which case nevermind. -- Scray (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is my poor communication. I understood you, and I see that you had no concerns, but I responded to the three of you under the heading "responding to concerns". You communicated perfectly - I did not. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only criteria

I saw the comments above, and just wanted to chime in that I mostly agree with your rationale. It seems to me that if a user demonstrates that they are competent, trustworthy, and nice, they should be given whatever permissions they want. I'm just not sure that just a good userpage would adequately demonstrate that. For one thing -- it would be too easy to game. Klortho (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good userpage does not indicate sufficient competence, trustworthiness, and niceness. It hardly is an inclusion criteria at all, but I feel that it is an exclusion criteria for people who do not meet what I feel ought to be minimum standards. I cannot say that a person with what I call a nice userpage is a good contributor, but I do feel that people with what I call insufficient userpages would be better integrated as community members if they took five minutes to state a few things about themselves. My criteria is very easy to game. Other people should check them also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]