Wikipedia talk:User pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing maintenance of the Guideline about User pages.

how to find a contributor?[edit]

Am attempting to find a contributor and the guidelines for doing so are not quite clear to an older newbie brain. Help? Loonietoonie2 (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Loonietoonie2: As it says in the box that was shown to you when you posted here, this talk page is for discussion about improving the English Wikipedia guideline, Wikipedia:User pages ... For general help, please ask at the New contributors' help page. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice: This project page mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Guidance added to U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host for the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't mention global user pages!?[edit]

Hi. I was trying to find out about global profiles on meta-wiki, Google pointed me to User profile which has a hatnote. "For Wikipedia's guideline on its own user pages, see WP:USERPAGE." Yet this page makes no mention of global user profiles. It should prominently say:

You should create a Global user page on meta-wiki that will appear on all wikis including English Wikipedia, and then if you want you can create a local replacement on English Wikipedia with enwiki-specific stuff.

(I'm writing from my staff account, hence I won't make this change.)

The same comment also applies to Wikipedia:User page design center/Introduction, which also makes no mention of global user pages. -- SPage (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Rephrase suggestion to WP:UP#POLEMIC[edit]

I've been witness to several instances where editors managed to circumvent WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is my suggestion to further clarify on the policy that poetic militancy (similar to "#JeSuisCouteau", "will of the people", and "my land will not be humiliated") is not permissible. Promotion of militancy (a.k.a. "Mukawama", "Jihad") is illegal in several countries, e.g., the UK,[1][2] France,[3] Australia.[4] My understanding is that "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying" does not require content to be illegal. However, if paraphrases about the righteousness of militancy are sometimes passable law-wise, it does not make them right for the Wiki-project. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Rephrase Suggestions - Jaakobou

  • Original:
  • Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
  • Suggested replacement:
  • Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are not permitted.

My thoughts: A simple footnote that "poetic militancy is prohibited" was considered but whether it would be sufficient, that remains to be seen. Thus, a more expanded version came about. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I've been part of a long argument where poetic militancy which targets Jews had supporters as well as editors not seeing the big problem. Witnessing daily stabbings and having to argue is an absurdity unfitting Wikipedia's goals. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the suggested replacement, my initial thinking was that this was covered already but after discussion about it I'm not so sure. (Just noting that I also added the RFC tag). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 21:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is necessary. Text arguing for violence against Israelis is polemical and does vilify persons, so the guideline already advises against it. The linked discussion contains a large number of links to news stories about violence against Israelis, but only one example on Wikipedia that I can see. That example is several years old and in my opinion is polemical, although as it doesn't actually advocate any sort of violence this change wouldn't make much difference to it. If we're going to go to the point of adding several sentences to stop this sort of content then we need more evidence that it is actually a problem here. Hut 8.5 22:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Paraphrasing about humiliation, weapons and victory. There are several on-wiki examples but pointing them out detracts from the principle. 65 stabbings, 7 shootings, 8 car rammings.[5] In real world conflicts, encouragement of violent acts is tantamount to advocating violence. "Raise the spirit of fight" is a quote from a Taliban songwriter. @Hut 8.5: I hope you will reconsider. Adding one line to the text will not be harmful to the project. To the contrary, it would dispel any confusion.[6][7] JaakobouChalk Talk 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's the single example I mentioned in that comment. Stories about real-world violence against Israelis don't support a change to Wikipedia policy on user pages. If there are lots of examples of people inciting violence against Israelis on user pages and being deemed to pass POLEMIC, let's see them. (I'm not going to deem mere advocacy of the Palestinian position as an incitement to violence against Israelis. There's a difference.) Hut 8.5 07:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
        • @Hut 8.5:
        • POLEMIC is clear enough to me but some participants exhibit misunderstanding of the policy and purpose of Wikipedia. The arguments raised in topical discussions suggest the clarity of the policy should be improved to reduce interpretation battles. This @Nableezy: userbox, for example, is the result of quite a long discussion. Other examples exist, off course, but sampling for them distracts from clarifying what POLEMIC is and isn't. If a user names or clearly illustrates an adversary of a living breathing dispute with casualties, it should be made clear to all that this is a violation. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) clarify JaakobouChalk Talk 11:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
          • That discussion is from 2008 and appears to have resulted in a conclusion that the userbox in question was unacceptable in that form. This is hardly evidence that this wording is causing lots of battles over interpretation. I think that your wording is redundant, so the only way I can support it is if it clarifies a common misinterpretation of the current wording. For that I need evidence that the misinterpretation is actually common. Hut 8.5 16:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
            • @Hut 8.5:
            • I see that it doesn't persuade you that people are getting killed. (“This is for Syria”) So I have to ask, do you require more user space abuse samples or comments that miss the point of the policy? I believe there are only a few samples, but will change hurt the project? JaakobouChalk Talk 08:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC) +title JaakobouChalk Talk 08:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
              • Sorry, did you really just say that ISIS slaughtering hundreds of people in Paris has something to do with Wikipedia's user page guidelines?! That's ridiculous. Hut 8.5 17:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
                • No. I said promotion of and support for militant activity is POLEMIC and divisive. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I dont understand what "poetic militancy" is supposed to mean. This strikes me as an attempt to say that users may only show support on ones user page for only one of two sides in an ongoing conflict, the examples cited make that fairly clear. And, if Im not mistaken, this suggestion is a fairly clear violation of an AE imposed topic ban. nableezy - 22:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would like to post "Je suis la plaie et le couteau!", translated I am the wound and the knife. This is from a Charles Baudelaire poem. There have been a few rock songs named I am the knife. Poetic militancy? I think of a more piss poor choice of wording. So are we going to ban people from quoting a song by Rage against the Machine? The rules already what the change intends to cover. The current rules focus more on intent than speech. The change focus more on speech than intent. Context is everything. Viva la Raza can be both benign and polemic. It depends on context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Serialjoepsycho: I agree that intent matters most. Could you propose a phrasing that focuses more on intent (of militant advocacy) than speech? Rage against the machine quotes can be problematic (putting it mildly) if the context is akin to "#JeSuisCouteau". JaakobouChalk Talk 06:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Little red riding hood could be used could be problematic in the wrong context. And the languages as it is right now covers exactly what you want. #JeSuisCouteau is polemic. The French phrase means I am the knife. There are possible instances where the phrase won't be, but I find it very unlikely an editor with a strong focus on WP:ARBPIA related articles would be doing anything other than making a polemic statement. Our policies are not suicide pacts, an ARBPIA editor not really going to be able to say you need to AFG because they like French poetry. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps using examples with tiny quotes was unclear. The sources themselves[8][9][10] were meant as example which names or clearly illustrates an adversary of a living breathing dispute with casualties. On wiki, paraphrases about Jews, Israeli settlers and Zionists are theoretically clear violations of policy. Pragmatically, it takes long discussions and some participants exhibit misunderstanding of policy and purpose of Wikipedia. How would you phrase it to reduce confusion and long discussions? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't be interested in reducing long discussions and I'm not really seeing much more confusion than other conversations on how a rule should be interpreted and applied.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The only place that "#JeSuisCouteau" appears anywhere on Wikipedia besides where you, Jaakobou, have written it is an article on a stabbing attack. Users having such a quote on their userpage does not appear to be a problem. What you are trying to do, rather obviously to anyone aware of the history, is remove things that dont celebrate an attack on a civilian. Something like a quote from Frantz Fanons The Wretched of the Earth where he writes about rising up against a colonial oppressor, and yes rising up violently. But you already tried and failed to get such a thing prohibited. So now, in a basic appeal to extreme argument, you raise something more menacing that isnt even an issue on any userpage. nableezy - 19:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - I received an email by Jaakobou about this discussion, but to be honest, I don't even have a clue what it is about. LjL (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Clarification - I am notifying French editors following the recent terrorist attack development about the existence of this thread. The issue raised here is that of pro-terrorist polemics getting support on wikipedia user space. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC) JaakobouChalk Talk 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
From the above two comments it sounds a whole lot like there's some inappropriate notification in violation of WP:CANVASS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Note to closer:It sounds like... Hell that's exactly what it is. Since email was used to contact an undetermined amount of users and there's no way to determine the amount of users canvassed then there's no way to determine which users to exclude and there's no way to determine a consensus. Any consensus should be voided and read simply no consensus as it's impossible to determine the consensus now.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
User-notifications can easily be inappropriate if you call out to your wiki-clique in secret but this is not the case.[11] We've had very few participants. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You have targeted an undetermined amount of people thru email. This is stealth canvassing. Based on your comments and the diff provided, you have targeted people based on their sympathies to France and due to the recent terrorist attack there. Targeting their emotion is certainly not neutral, appropriate notifications require neutrality. Targeting as you say "Your wiki-Clique" is also not neutral. So you have stealth canvassing, campaigning, and vote stacking. All of which are inappropriate. This has compromised the consensus decision making process.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
a) Mangling my words is inappropriate. b) French people are aware of the subject matter and are neutral. c) Pro militancy editors are not neutral. They know who they are but won't properly disclose that here. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A)That's not mangling your words, that is what happened. Take it to WP:ANI if you don't like it. B)You can't target a specific group of people because you feel they will side with you, that's not neutral. C) There's no COI for the ill-defined "pro-militancy editors". They have nothing to disclose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ISIS, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Taliban, Boko Haram et al. supporters should clearly disclose that. How can you write that there's no conflict of interest here? JaakobouChalk Talk 23:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The same way pro-life and pro-choice supporters can. Or republican party supporters and democrat party supporters. Or Palestinian supporters and Israel Supporters.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(I'm not even actually French anyway... LjL (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC))

You now that doesn't even matter?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, above I was basically called French. Maybe I don't like being called French? LjL (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Lol, My apologies. What I meant by it not mattering is French or otherwise an inappropriate notification remains inappropriate.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair point. LjL (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems like a solution proposed that is postulating there is a problem without providing any examples of what it objects to. Can you provide some pages that would be affected by this change? I don't advocate changing policy for symbolic purposes if it isn't solving an actual problem that currently exists. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


'Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight'

There would be some merit in this were the proposer not an inveterate propagandist and who has reentered the encyclopedia framing all of this as a defense of one party in a conflict, as if Wikipedia's language must take into account the suffering of one side and be motivated by horror at the evilness of the other. Poetic militancy is one of the most laughable pieces of phrasal ineptness I've come across in many years. I guess the rest of the sentence means that if any page has quotes like the following, they should immediately be removed (sigh of relief from worried unilateral victim propagandists for one party to the dispute)

Amalekites (Palestinians required to be killed on the basis of halakhic law)

Which I could readily supply in hundreds of other infamous forms of incitement language from senior Israeli figures, then these would be cancelled as inadmissible, rather being evidence of a problem? Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Are users using them on their user page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Not that I know of. But if the point of this weird exercise is to ban any uncomfortable citation of a notable statement from a prominent public figure from any wikipedian's page, then the proposal has vast ramifications. Effectively, the proposal is a Trojan Horse whose application would cause endless argument and fuss, apart from imposing some Political Correctness regime. Citing neutrally such statements would not constitute incitement. It would be documentative, and, in any case, many of those remarks are duly noted on the relevant article bios. Does that constitute polemic or incitement? No.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. Not that poetic militancy is OK, but because the existing has served very well for a long time and that stability has benefit, and that the addition may be no more than creep. Militancy unrelated to Wikipedia is not tolerated, whether or not it is poetic. I have never seen a MfD dispute arise from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:User_pages#POLEMIC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe:
    • Militancy unrelated to Wikipedia is openly tolerated by a few users and admins. One admin said "not illegal", allowing militancy promoting polemics to stand. Another reverted(!) admin action to keep anti-Israeli content. A third admin thought it serves a purpose of illustrating the editor's POV. Pending the outcome of this review, I will know if I can or can't link to these. Note that review explains how two of the participants here are among the tolerated exceptions. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC) +militancy promoting JaakobouChalk Talk 13:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
How do you distinguish your own 'militancy' as an advocate for Israel from the militant activism you perceive in those who disagree with you?Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Q: Aren't you tired of promotion and legitimization of violence against civilians? JaakobouChalk Talk 14:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
When did you stop beating your wife? nableezy - 15:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Proper disclosure: first quote on Nableezy's Nishidani's user-page is titled Even Gandhi would understand the Palestinians’ violence,.[12]
Also this.
JaakobouChalk Talk 17:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Uhh no its not. Thats Nishidani's page. And that isnt even the quote, thats the title of an article by Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz. nableezy - 17:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the name in question. Fixed.
p.s. It doesn't matter, btw, who the original writer is.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 18:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's not a conflict of interest. That's simply bias. You are biased as well. There is no need for any disclosure for that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I disclosed my COI on the first sentence of this thread. Not doing that, at least in my view, would have been improper. JaakobouChalk Talk 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That's great, you find it improper, that's not relevant. That's not a COI under Wikipedia policy. If you wish to make a disclosure about your own personal bias by all means do so, it again is in no way required by Wikipedia policy. However you should refrain from making a disclosure about the bias of someone else to sway the discussion as it is highly uncivil. It is also abit pointless considering your canvassing has already made any consensus indeterminable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
English is not my first language so correct me if I'm wrong. Best I am aware, bias means you have a predisposition for one side of the discussion, a prejudice in favor or against. conflict of interest means the results of the discussion directly affects you. A situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit or damage. Let me know if I'm right. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I checked the policy. It seems to focus on financial/familial relations. Not exactly the dictionary definition. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
For the last and final time, There is no conflict of interest here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
How about 'direct interest'? Is that ok with you? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, no one is prohibited from contributing their 2 cents. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What was the purpose of your improper disclosure of their 'direct interest' again?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The purpose was to clarify that on-wiki examples exist. A side effect exists, but that was not the thinking behind my notes. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure we are having the same conversation here. You provided a disclosure suggesting that someone else had a conflict of interest. This was neither appropriate or factual. It also doesn't read like an attempt to show an on wiki example. It look like an attempt to attack Nableezy's credibility.It also doesn't provide a standing to change the policy. It does not promote violence against Israel. It promotes that the violence by Palestinians against Israel is understandable. It is understandable. The Palestinians are not the first subjugated population to rise up in violence. It's not even a new or modern thing.Even Gandhi would understand the violence of Native Americans in the 19th century.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
A side effect exists, people get to join this discussion that do not support your position. That's a positive side effect. Multiple views are considered to achieve a consensus. One person doesn't get to say they simply don't like something and change the policy that effects the entire community. This individual does not have a conflict of interest and you have not provided a reason for their position to be excluded. Regardless of all of that, since you have inappropriately notified other users of this conversation and since there is no easy way to determine who you have notified, there is no way to exclude their opinions and as such there is no way to determine a consensus anyway. So this RFC can't be used to change the policy anyway.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Now I understand your reaction.[13] There's, obviously, a difference between differing views on wiki-policy (and real life) and between users that break the policy and want to keep it ambiguous for their personal benefit.
p.s. I'm, understandably, refrained from discussing the issue of Arabs and Jewish-Palestinians but I will note that your comparison is way off.
p.p.s. everyone is entitled to their view. However, anti-Israeli manifestos (including links to pictures of dead children) are inappropriate for the Wikipedia project. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You understand my reaction and you link to a quote "On the head of the thief burns his hat"? You want to clarify what you are trying to say? It really sounds like you are suggesting impropriety on my part but as I understand you have poor understanding and ability to use the English language.

The problem here is not with differing views of policy. It's that you don't understand policy or that your a feigning ignorance of it. My comparison is not off at all.

You have provided two examples of what you see as user space issues on Wikipedia [14] Nableezy's userbox [15] and Nishidani's quote. Neither of which include links to dead children that I can see. You are saying something is happening without providing evidence and trying to change policy based on that claim.

In addition to your lack of evidence you have also attempted to improperly notify certain editors in an attempt to sway the article in your favor. You have called two people out for having a COI in an attempt to exclude their position, though they don't actually have a COI, and though calling them out is highly uncivil.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to point out all those issues. It's pretty obvious that Jaakobou is proposing a change to WP:UP#POLEMIC in order to poke certain opponents in the P-I area, and there appears to be quite a lot of confusion about COI and "direct interest" in the posts from 17 November 2015. @Jaakobou: The one thing that is guaranteed to sink an RfC is for a supporter of one side to dominate the discussion because that is a sign to anyone who might comment that evangelism is involved and a third party would be wasting their time. If you are concerned about text on a user's talk page, the correct procedure is to first discuss it with the user, then, if not satisfied, nominate the page for deletion at WP:MFD. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
a) An old Jewish proverb meaning: someone's response to an issue may make him appear culpable. No offense intended.
b) You will find linking to a picture of a dead child on Nishidani's user-page polemics under a Gaza related sub-section (under a section called Tibet-Palestine). Let me know what you think of it.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 11:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
A) I'm aware of what the proverb means. I was just curious if that was what you were intending or if you made another convenient blunder with the English language. You need to go ahead and learn to keep your mouth shut when comments like that come to mind. I'm not interested in your passive aggressive guilt trip. It's highly uncivil. It's also pure d and grade a horseshit.
B) You will find exactly what to do above in Johnuniq comments if you feel there is an issue. It does require discussion. I find nothing polemic about either thing you find of issue on Nishidani's page. I find nothing that would be of issue on with your proposed rule change. There's certainly room for discussion but that would be in the appropriate location. This is not that location.
C) Stop pinging me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No ping. Just a diff. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc gives great advice. Advice that has no bearing on anything that I just said which begs the question why you are posting it as a response to what I said. To change this policy you would have to start a conversation or an RFC and get a consensus. you can't get a consensus thru this RFC because you violated the canvassing policy and made a consensus indeterminable. Even if you got a consensus (again you actually can't because of your canvassing) it would be to change the policy. Johnuniq's is the relevant advice.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and note that Jaakobou was most definitely canvassing, as email stated, "Considering recent developments, I share my sympathies as well as the following link..." (link to this discussion). My sympathy for the victims of the Paris attacks does not override my unwavering belief in freedom of speech. Wikipedia servers live in the United States, where we do not have the draconian laws of Europe regarding speech (ie Holocaust denial). I would like a box that says: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Userboxes should be all or nothing - I personally couldn't care if people want to show their support for Hezbollah or Israel or gay marriage or Justin Bieber. The only important thing is neutral edits. МандичкаYO 😜 01:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Do note that the message posted on wikiproject Israel is not an email. Separate from this, evidence already in this discussion suggests that he has emailed users to this discussion in addition to any message posted on wikipedia pages. Note as well this policy already effects userboxes, here's no all or nothing principle on user boxes, and your comments don't change this. If you would like to see this changed consider opening an RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I received an email from Jaakobou that said that. I'm not sure what you're talking about. МандичкаYO 😜 03:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I apologize. I missed that you were saying that he had emailed you. I thought you were referring to [16] the additional canvassing outside of the emails. So anyway plenty of canvassing all around. Stealth and otherwise.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I do not think a userbox with polemics serves Wikipedia at all. The goal of having a userbox should be, is this in the best interest of Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as proposed. Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia are not welcome. That has always been clear. "Polemical statement" includes userboxes. Never have I seen good faith confusion due to the simple clear wording. The suggested addition is an obvious logical extension of the existing wording and is undesirable as bloat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
So would be currently against current guidelines? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is not ok and would be deleteable at MfD. it does incorporate Wikipedia criticism, of a WP:AN discussion, but I don't think it covers the non-project-related polemic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
of course you are all aware that the statement on Nableezy's page would be perfectly acceptable to John Locke, the father of liberalism? and that you are suggesting that no wiki page, where authors often use quotes to give indications of where they are coming from, can underwrite a principle which has some support in international law? Jaakobou's whole polemic here, however euphuistic and euphemistic, is undisguisedly focused on a sub-text of protecting a (legitimate) Israeli POV (all resistance to its occupation is terroristic). Througfh he has singled out 3 editors and implied that their views (support of Palestinian statehood) are tantamount to incitement and encouragement of terrorism. I'm astonished that no one is picking up the irony.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You're equating statehood with civilian targeting violence. Nice. Does that support include ISIL or not? It doesn't matter who or what wikipedians support as long as they don't use their user-pages as a mouth piece. Wikipedia is not a forum.
p.s. the few examples I disclosed due to repeated requests mention Nishidani's polemics. He is one of those not understanding the policy (per: "father of liberalism") who uses their user-page for advocacy. Yes, there's a lot of people not understanding if the policy includes support for violence against a certain group. Most people think this is just free speech, so this requires clarification. Policy needs to be clear, regardless if Nishidani doesn't like the effects of this on his own user-page campaigning (conflict of interest) -- it is absurd he tries to paint this as a one sided issue or an attempt to silence him. Either campaigning is acceptable, or not -- for everybody. Make it clear. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
"I don't think it covers the non-project-related polemic", this point is the reason I opened this thread -- it requires clarification. Esp. considering polemics supporting/promoting violence against civilians in a real conflict with daily casualties. 09:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 09:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe:, @Sir Joseph: in regards to the user-box example, I think it falls under reasonable use of user-page. No particular group is identified. But my view is different than the others presented here. I'd like to clarify the policy to include such cases where it is clear that there is advocacy and a certain real-world group is targeted. I thought this is covered by the policy, but came to the realization that it isn't uniformly interpreted ("father of liberalism" .. what?). Perhaps a new rephrase suggestion would be welcome here.

e.g.: advocacy of real world disputes is prohibited or allowed (or discouraged).

As long as the matter is unanimously clear. Seven words to make "free speech" debates go away. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Any wikipedian supporting the use of violence against civilians in polemics or otherwise has no place on wiki, and existing administrative measures allow them to be banned. Thousands of wikipedians have user boxes on their page expressing support for one party in a conflict (Basques, Western Sahara, Nagorny Karabach, Chechnya, Israel, Palestine etc., as witness (Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics), and any number of user pages that come up if you google 'this supports the independence of+wikipedia'. I don't subscribe to that, and dislike userboxes, but I defend the right to use them, or quotations, or brief statements of what one thinks, which, regarding those you cite are not forms of polemic or incitement or advocacy. I edit every day with people who are constantly 'advocating' a position, because they delete reliably sourced information and have only one interest, defending an ethnic-national POV. So be it, as long as they respect the rules and refrain from a tendency to wikilawyer every contribution in terms of the POV interest they defend and not militate at the same time against the opposed POV.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
So you suggest: Beyond noting your support for terrorist groups, advocacy of real world disputes is prohibited? Or would you like to allow long quotes on violence of group X being understandable and/or desirable (e.g. X:=ISIS). Long quotes about oppression and lifting weapons to rise to victory and other similar ho hum. @Nishidani: Oh! Links to pictures of children killed in conflict. Where does that fall? In or out? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not the right page for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of how those on the P side react to those on the I side. Given the comments at AE there might not be a need for any further response, but I want to reiterate that the correct way to challenge what is on a user's page is to raise it at WP:MFD after a discussion on the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think the community's position on the example userbox is clear enough for it to be used to support addition of prescriptive statement. If the userbox went to MfD, I would probably argue for its deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not sure what on Earth "poetic militancy" is supposed to be. The case of advocating violence against someone is already covered by existing policy. By the way, doesn't "JeSuisCharlie" also fall under polemic (literally the first line What on Earth does it have to do with Wikipedia, except expressing a political position? Kingsindian  17:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Haven't actually seen this on wikipedia user pages though.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification against user talk "ownership" badly needed[edit]

We need to state explicitly that no one has the right to "ban" someone from their user talk page, and why. Quite frequently (three times this week alone), I encounter someone rantily trying to "forbid" someone else from "ever" posting to their talk page again, but this is essentially impossible. While it's perfectly legitimate to ask someone stick to pertinent WP business on one's talk page, within the bounds of civility, no one "owns" their talk page. I've seen editors with several years' experience here who still clearly do not understand this, and will even cite WP:USERPAGE as "proof" that they have a right to ban any critics from their talk page, even though it says nothing of the sort.

In particular, the problematic wording is this:

  • If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to).

This is frequently misinterpreted in one or more of the following ways:

  • If a user asks you not to edit their user pages including their talk page, it is sensible to respect their request and they have grounds to file vexatious complaints or otherwise retaliate if you don't immediately comply (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate wikiproject notices and communications delivered by bots by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to unless they specifically "ban" a particular editor).

I therefore propose a revision along these lines:

  • If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is usually sensible to respect their request. However, because user talk pages serve vital collaboration and dispute-resolution functions, a user cannot avoid administrator attention, or appropriate Wikipedia-related notices and communications from other editors, by merely demanding that someone (or everyone) not post to their talk page. In the rare case of actual harassment, the community may resolve the problem by imposing an interaction ban.

This would remove these confusions, and curtail "you may never post here again!" anti-collaborative, territorial nonsense in response to legitimate editorial concerns being raised in user talk, while also making clear what the remedy is for genuine harassment, plus where that is defined (including why not to rush to such an accusation, since the vast majority of such accusations are meritless), and where to seek the remedy. Using much less text than it takes to explain it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not so easy. There are cases where two editors do not get on, and one of them unduly remarks on the talk page of the other. We can't take every one of those cases to ANI, so the best thing is for the target to make a request which the other should respect, apart from very neutral notifications. If what is believed to be poking/trolling persists, then the matter can be taken to ANI. The proposed text means minor irritations fester, and/or that ANI gets even more bogged down dealing with silliness. There might be some wording to explain to the person doing the "banning" that they need a good reason and cannot escape scrutiny by banning opponents. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)