Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Question

Is the following page appropriate in editors' view under this guideline, and if not what is the best way to have it removed? User:Maroun Halloun . Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:UP#DELETE does reiterate that a short bio is OK. Of course, short is subjective. At least the top has the disclaimer "This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article." If you want it removed/trimmed, my advice would be to present your concerns to the user directly before resorting to a more draconian measure if you deem it appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is inappropriate. It has far too much content which has nothing to do with contributing to the encyclopaedia, and it amounts to use of Wikipedia userspace as a free web host. For some weird reason, speedy deletion of user pages as use of Wikipedia as a web host applies only to users with few contributions elsewhere, which is not so in this case. You can take it to WP:MfD if you think it worth the effort, but it is far from certain that it would be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• It's inappropriate. At MfD, I'd hope to find a rationale with evidence that the user is not open to reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I opened up conversation a week ago, to no avail. Epeefleche (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I would boldly cut the userpage back to the first paragraph. It looks like a fake article, and the content is way out of proportion to the users contributions. If he reverts, nominate it at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me too.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Panhandling

FYI, my addition of the section WP:PANHANDLE was inspired by the following backstory

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Various article (science) (archived), and
• User_talk:Peteymills#Starving_scientists

There are other related threads too, but those two contain the specifics on point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's a significant addition. Probably a good one. I don't like the shortcut. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• How often do people solicit donations on their user pages? This seems to be already covered by WP:UP#PROMO; it doesn't need to have it's own section and shortcut. –xeno^talk 19:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Re Question A, it's a first for me but that doesn't mean much. A corollary, if this is OK to do, then there's going to be a stampede of copycats.
• Re Section Promo, the existing verbiage in that section is far from unambiguous as to whether its scope encompasses wiki-begging. I'm wedded to neither the shortcut nor the separate section, but if you agree it should be prohibited - as your comment seems to imply - then would you object to simply moving the text (maybe with wording tweaks) so that PROMO is explicitly on point? If not, please state reason for objection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• If PANHANDLE remains, the text needs to be changed from "solicit compensation for their Wikipedia contributions" to "solicit donations" or perhaps "solicit payments". It's the panhandling that is not wanted—it does not matter whether it is for their Wikipedia contributions. I suspect xeno's point that the issue is, or should be, covered by PROMO is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, adding the word "donations" raises interesting questions such as

(A) Can we solicit donations for wikipedia? Lots of people do.

(B) If it were 2004, could we solicit donations to one of the NGOs listed at Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake?

(C) I think we all agree that asking for direct self enrichment is a no-no. What about donations to the nonprofit where I work?

(D) Others?

In case this sounds like reasons for opposing adding that word, I'm not opposed, I just think we need to think more about it.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• NewsAndEventsGuy's addition is a great improvement in clarity, and I think it reflects a recently emerged concensus, strictly prohibiting advertising like this. It might be good to advertise and test that concensus. The actual text could be merged as an additional point in WP:UP#PROMO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but let's give it at least one weekend to gel here first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to open a thread on AN about this but I see that it's unnecessary. I was the admin involved in the above links, and I blocked an editor not just for soliciting donations (which were for his scientific work, not his Wikipedia work, which may or may not be an important distinction). But I also blocked him for admitting that his purpose at Wikipedia was self-promotion (he had added a number of his own works as references to articles, including articles he'd created). As I'd said to him on his talk page, in the 5+ or so years I've volunteered at WP:COIN I've never seen a clearer COI violation than that. But I also have concerns about people asking for donations on their user pages for work they do on Wikipedia. I felt that WP:LINKSPAM was relevant; while it's not a "product" that's being linked to, it's technically a service (paying a person for their Wikipedia contributions). I think it's worth making it unambiguous, though, that soliciting donations on user pages is disallowed. I've seen at least one instance where an otherwise productive editor is asking for donations as a "thank you" for good service. I do know that we have the reward board and that has survived two separate MfD discussions, but I think it's a slippery slope to allow Wikipedia to be used as a vehicle for solicitation. I think the reward board exists because some tangible good can be shown for its existence (articles reaching GA or FA after being listed there), it's more difficult to show that same benefit when someone is asking for a PayPal reward for general editing. -- Atama頭 19:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

[1] Edited to move the clear and simple text into a better place. This has had support before. I don't see a need for wider advertising, given its good sense, evidence of some actual problems, and no evidence of objection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

ok by me. I might wanna revisit the shortcut sometime, but not now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"polemic"

hello;

how exactly did the "polemic" section, in its present form, get included in this guideline?

i'd really like to know the record on that, & the page-edit history is a hopelessly tangled mess...

Lx 121 (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

To make it easier for others: I believe the section being asked about is WP:UP#POLEMIC. — Makyen (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I was involved, though there was something similar there earlier. Is this really your question, or is there an underlying question? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• You can use Wikiblame: here to search for when particular strings of text were added. --Jayron32 12:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2014

want to changr name Rathan.ktru to Rathan Stallin Rathan.ktru (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: @Rathan.ktru: Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username to make a name change request.—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

WMF will blank (auto-archive) user talk pages when Flow is turned on

See Wikipedia talk:Flow#Automatic archiving - I've pointed out the fact that it will remove material our guidelines say must remain. See also [2]. Dougweller (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

Plz change the page name as Bin Dawoood Group Of Companies Bin Dawood Group Of Companies (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DJAMP4444 (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we allow editors to remove topic ban notices from their talk page despite the guideline?

The guidance says we should not. I patrol a number of contentious areas where nationalistic editing is common, and I believe that the average editor probably doesn't know that there is AE central logging and would never look there when concerned about another editor. However, if you look at the discussion at User talk:Jaqeli#Proper handling of topic ban notices there is obviously a feeling that this should not be enforced and that in practice it is being ignored. I don't know if this something to also raise at AE or not. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not until ban goes away Overall goal is to build an encyclopedia; purpose of topic ban is not punishment but prevention, which only works if everyone knows about it. It isn't the notice that produces feelings of shame, but knowing that everyone else knows about one's past bad choices in a topic area. That's too bad, but is still the result of one's own choices. So the community is not seeking to pin badges of shame on other editors. The community is seeking to prevent recurrence of disruptive behaviors on the part of banned editors by reporting the past history to "average editors" who for the first time interact with the banned eds. That's an essential part of the PREVENTION purpose of topic bans. If a ban goes away through expiration, appeal, being rescinded, etc.... then sure, eds should be allowed to remove them. There will still be a record in the logs if a future problem arises. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Topic bans don't spring up magically. They tend to happen after multiple editors have noticed a pattern of disruptive conduct that has extended over a long enough period to make requesting a ban worth the trouble. They are often placed in areas that are considered contentious and which have attracted the attention of experienced editors and administrators already because of the ongoing problems. All of those people who are familiar enough with the dispute (or who have investigated the dispute) to request and place the ban aren't going to evaporate as soon as the ban discussion ends.

Topic ban violations tend to come in two 'clusters'. First, there are the immediate violations which occur shortly after a ban is imposed, when the ban is fresh in everyone's minds. Flagrant violations tend to result in blocks (often long blocks) as the editor just isn't going to respect the ban; less-flagrant violations tend to be boundary-testing that may result in shorter blocks, very stern warnings, and clarifications (sometimes expansions) of the terms of the original ban. In this 'immediate' window there are many eyes watching and the response is swift.

The second group of violations are ones which occur months or years after the fact. Sometimes they're boundary-testing. Sometimes they're just a slip. These violations also tend to get flagged by people familiar with the original dispute, who recognize a name from the past. Out in the real world of Wikipedia, no editor says, "Gee, I just saw an editor make a slightly-problematic edit to this article; I better check through the last year or two of their talk page to see if there are any ban notices in effect." (Also, if an editor removes a topic ban notice from the middle of his talk page six months after it is placed, who's going to notice that change and enforce this silly rule?)

In general, I've found that it is far more useful to place a notification about the ban discussion and its outcome on the talk page of a relevant article, rather than on the user's talk page. It means that all the editors interested in a particular topic have a chance to see the notice, instead of the subset who watch the dramaboards or the appropriate user talk pages. And it avoids entirely the problematic edit warring over a notice on a user's talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No unless there is a central list of current topic bans While TenOfAllTrades makes great points, I'm not sure how to make those apply all the time in the real world. For a topic ban on say Religions, one couldn't put a notice on the page of every single religious article on Wikipedia (or rather one could, but it would be needlessly hard). Until there is a central location in which we can look up topic bans, I strongly support a rule about keeping the ban located on the appropriate user's talk page while it is in place. Even with a central location, I would encourage users to keep them on their talk pages even if not required to. Zell Faze (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll be looking for WP:RESTRICT for topic bans imposed by community discussions, and the relevant case pages (see WP:AC/DS for the list) for bans placed as part of discretionary sanctions imposed by ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes Topic bans could apply to an editor for a very long time. Often they're enacted for 6 months at least. While there is a benefit to quickly determining if a topic ban exists, does it necessitate an editor manually maintaining such a notice (or an admin emblazoning the top of the page with one) indefinitely? Further, is that relatively marginal benefit worth potentially invalidating the purpose of the ban in the first place? We impose topic bans (rather than site bans or blocks) on editors who are generally productive but can't work in a particular area without running into or causing trouble. The ideal scenario for a topic ban involves the banned editor refocusing their efforts on unrelated parts of the wiki. Rather than allowing the banned editor the opportunity to edit in that unrelated area on their own merits they're instead required to display a shameful or prejudicial notice for all to see (and possibly until the end of time). Even if they never edit in the topic area again, editors who interact with them will have to overcome the very natural (but problematic) suspicion that the banned editor is trouble. If they do edit in the topic area an uninvolved admin could do their due diligence (admittedly, this could be a pain in the ass) or an involved editor could raise the issue of the topic ban to an admin. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked?

The following discussion 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.

---

Under the "Removal of comments, notices, and warnings" section, "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction" are listed as being non-removable by the user. Does the "any other notice regarding an active sanction" apply to block notices of active blocks? I've always thought it did, but when I brought [3] to an admin's attention today, I was told it didn't. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I was the admin in question, I'll repost my reasoning from IRC here. I do not interpret common blocks imposed by admin discretion to be a "sanction", which I interpret to mean penalties or restrictions imposed through ArbCom process (e.g. WP:AC/DS, WP:AE), or as a result of community discussion (WP:ANI, WP:RFCU, etc.) Rather, I treat common block notices as directed in the first paragraph of WP:BLANKING: "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." We should not treat a block notice as a device to shame a user, like a millstone or a village stocks. I am curious to know what the rest of the community thinks. —Darkwind (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've always gone with Jackmcbarn's interpretation on this one, but was recently reverted for reasons not unlike those of Darkwind. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Common blocks are indeed sanctions, as they are preventing a user from editing (ie they are sanctioned from editing). I have always seen it interpreted that while a user is blocked a block notice can't be removed because they may be required reading for an admin at some point again while the user is still blocked. Such as a new unblock request etc. I am pretty sure there was even an RfC on making sure this is what it meant but I can't remember when or where that might have been held. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:BLANKING hinges partially on the fact that blocks are logged elsewhere and, while active, are displayed in several places, especially to admins about to engage in administrative tasks, such as re-blocking or unblocking a user, or editing a blocked user's user or talk page. Sanctions, specifically of the WP:AC/DS or community-imposed type, are not "logged" by the system in the same way -- so it is important that the notification given to the user, which contains the exact wording of the restrictions, is left intact on the user talk page so people don't have to go digging for it in the history. Since a block notice serves no broader purpose other than notifying the user that they were blocked and why, I don't see them as important enough to override the "no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so" clause. The purpose of "telling people this user is blocked" is served not only by the block log, but also by user scripts such as popups and markblocked.js. —Darkwind (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:USER says (underlining added for emphasis) "User pages are also used for administrative purposes, to make users aware of blocks, warnings, or other sanctions if they happen, and to notify of matters that may affect articles you have worked on or editorial issues you have been involved with." To me, the phrasing of "other sanctions" implies that a block was a type of sanction. However, WP:SANCTION makes no mention of blocks. I think WP:USER needs to be clarified to rephrase "sanction" if it is intended to be different from WP:SANCTION, or to link to WP:SANCTION if that is specifically what "sanction" is referring to.—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SANCTION is worded that way because that page is talking about general sanctions which applies to all editors editing in a given area (per what it says at the top of that page). It isn't talking about individuals that have sanctions. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is whether block notices can be blanked or not. It seems the current wording of "sanctions" in WP:USER is ambiguous as to whether blocks are a type of sanction that should not be blanked. That can conceivably be addressed by rewording WP:USER itself , without needing to modify WP:SANCTION itself.—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. WP:SANCTION is a redirect to general sanctions which are sanctions imposed on a topic area. Not sanctions that are imposed on individuals. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Or we just say "fuck it" and let the poor blocked schmuck blank their talk page. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This "any other notice regarding an active sanction" is a fairly recent (i.e. within the past couple of years as I recall without studying the history) addition. Previously, the BLANKING part prohibited users from removing arbcom-related notices and any declined unblock requests while blocked, but anything else, including block notices, was fair game for removal, particularly if the user did not intend to appeal the block.

That situation created some confusion though. It may be simpler just to say that while a user is blocked, that user may not remove any notices related to the block. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant question isn't really Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked? but How do we enforce such a policy ?. Do we really want to encourage recent change patrollers to get involved with blocks and administrative matters by reverting and reinstating block notices for the entire duration of a block, which can be, of course, infinite ? How do we go about enforcing the rule - the only answer is removing talk page access, so do we really want to be removing talk page access simply for a user removing their block notice, potentially before they've even filed an unblock request ? Today's example that has started this discussion was a user who had been reverted on an article they had written, had become very upset and angry, they made a intemperate remark which resulted in a 24 hour block. They were quite clearly still angry and removed the block notice, which was restored twice together with a further warning about removing block notices. I would expect the user, already angry, pretty much exploded in a torrent of rage at the way he was being treated on his talk page. It all seems needlessly antagonistic, where a user blocked for a short period of time could end up saying something inappropriate and having their block extended. I'm with Drmies on this - just say "fuck it" and move on. From an administrator viewpoint - when I'm looking at a user for something administrative, their block log is usually the first place I head to. One block notice saying someone is blocked for 24 hours doesn't tell me if it's block 1 or block 21, what their behaviour is usually like, is it typical behaviour or completely out of character, and in turn, how I need to approach the user to get a positive outcome. Block notices are pointless and really serve no meaningful purpose, actually. I question the need to use them at all, let alone force the user to keep them on their user page like a dunce cap. Nick (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm the admin who blocked the user in question, and I had already revoked talk page access after waking up and before being led by my watchlisting of Drmies' talk page to this discussion. I think Nick's point about unenforceability may be decisive, and had in fact ignored it the first time the user blanked the block notice - it's only a 24-hour block in any case, and he was removing the instructions for unblock. However, when I woke up I found the rule about not removing the notice had been enforced and he'd been warned that further removal would lead to removal of talk page access; plus Nick's statement of the circumstances above is a bit incomplete: I blocked for a nasty personal attack (not for the edit warring that preceded it), and I found he'd asserted ownership in a similar fashion without such an explicit threat on another user's talk page years ago. (In addition, the claim to have written the article is odd: it was created by a different user name, and I'm assuming the syntax in the threatening post was off and that he was referring to his addition(s) to the article.) In any case it's just a 24-hour block - or I would have appended instructions for appealing via alternate routes. So anyway ... fuller explanation of this instance. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with what Nick said. There is nothing uglier than a potential contributor getting repeatedly threatened with removal of talk page access for no other reason than policy says so. Well, maybe one thing, a user getting blocked for nothing else. I commonly refuse to issue block notices for this reason. There is no point poking a blocked user. None. It's unproductive and embarrassing. Let them vent. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked? (brief history of WP:BLANKING)

Since at least February 2007, the Wikipedia:User pages guideline documented that comments (including warnings, etc.) may be removed by a user from their talk page; this was expanded into a section (commonly referred to as "WP:BLANKING") in May 2007.

These guidelines were preceded as far back as January 2006 by a section of the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy that confirmed users may remove material from their own talk pages and a similar advice was inserted into Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in April 2007.

Certain exceptions were noted in 2008 (for declined unblock notices, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, shared IP templates), 2009 (for MFD tags), & 2010 (for speedy deletion & "NOINDEX" tags).

In March 2010, the header of the WP:BLANKING section was updated to clarify that the section permitting the removal of talk page material also applied to notices.

Until June 2012 the guideline remained fairly stable in that users were permitted to remove block notices from their talk page, especially if they were not seeking an unblock. At various times, proposals were made to prohibit the removal of block notices (see "Background reading" below).

In June 2012, following an RFC that was attended by 14 users (including the filer) and closed by User:Sandstein, the section was changed by the filer of the RFC to suggest that "any other notice regarding an active sanction" may not be removed.(The term "active sanction" was presumably intended to include block notices regarding an active block but could be confused with Wikipedia:Active sanctions.)

The RFC that was cited as justification for the disputed change was attended by only 14 users. 7 users (including the filer) believed that we should not permit removal of block notices; 6 users believed that we should allow removal, supported the status quo, or indicated that logs existed that obviate the need to battle with a user to keep a block notice on their talk page (1 user seemed to be referring to actual active sanctions/editing restrictions, as opposed to mere blocks).

I'm not sure how the closing administrator was able to read that RFC then make such a matter-of-fact statement that "Consensus is that notices concerning active sanctions may not be removed from user talk pages". In fact, it looks there was not a consensus reached in that discussion, and therefore the guideline should not have been changed from the status quo, and I support restoring it without delay. –xeno^talk 18:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I closed that RfC two years ago following a AN request that somebody do so, but I don't remember now how I arrived at the conclusion with which I closed it, and, frankly, am not interested enough in the question to re-read the whole discussion in order to be able to recall that. I therefore express no opinion or preference in this matter.  Sandstein  18:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Current wording of the first bullet does not reflect actual practice

Following on the previous section (which offers a bit of history), I am inclined to suggest that the first bullet (emphasis added) of the portion of this guideline (at Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings or (WP:BLANKING) reading

---

A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

• Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction.
• Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).
• For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered.
• {{Noindex}} added to user pages and subpages under this guideline (except with agreement or by consensus). Note this can safely be removed from talk pages and subpages where it has no effect....

---

does not actually reflect actual practice as administered, nor does it represent a 'best practices' ideal that benefits the project. There are currently three clauses, and I'll take them in turn.

1) Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block. The intent of this section is to prevent a blocked editor from making multiple unblock requests (using the {{unblock}} template) while hiding any obvious history of such requests. Obviously, we want to discourage this sort of 'admin-shopping' behaviour—multiple 'bites at the apple' waste the time time of good-faith administrators who investigate such requests, and misrepresent the history of a dispute.

However, unless an editor is actively appealing a block, retaining the failed unblock request on the user's talk page doesn't actually benefit the project. (Yes, I know that {{unblock reviewed}} says "Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked" but that's probably a bad idea too—and also not strictly enforced). The requirement to make a transparent unblock request that honestly reports any past requests belongs in WP:APPEAL and/or WP:GTAB; it's not necessary to require failed unblock requests to persist indefinitely if a user is not engaged in a subsequent appeal.

2) ...confirmed sockpuppetry related notices. This is arguably the most reasonable and useful clause. Sockpuppetry – the use of multiple accounts to evade blocks, to provide a misleading appearance of consensus, or to otherwise act in bad faith – is one of the most damaging types of misconduct we deal with on Wikipedia. Detecting and quickly responding to this type of bad-faith misconduct is an important responsibility for administrators, and we should be cautious not to make enforcement of WP:SOCK any more difficult than necessary.

That said, this requirement as stated is probably overbroad. Suppose User:JohnDoe creates sockpuppet User:X to (for example) attempt to sway the outcome of a content dispute. Obviously X should be blocked and tagged permanently; our treatment of JohnDoe may be more nuanced. A block is likely in order, but do we also tag this master account in perpetuity? What if JohnDoe is blocked for something else (3RR, say) and creates User:Y to evade that block? Sure, JohnDoe probably gets an extension to his original block, and flagging his sockpuppetry for the duration of his block probably makes sense, but what about afterwards? In short, right now this guideline is worded so that any editor who misuses an alternate account at any time is required to retain any notices about that misconduct on his or her talk page forever. It's not really helpful, and it's not reflective of actual practice.

3) ...any other notice regarding an active sanction. Bluntly, I don't know how this got into this guideline in the first place. It just isn't how things work here, and it never has been. A plain reading of this text suggests that any editor who is notified of a block, ban, topic ban, interaction ban, or other restriction imposed by a single admin, by ArbCom, at AN/I, or through any other process must keep that notice on his or her talk page as long as the restriction or sanction is in effect. That just doesn't happen, and it's a sort of 'scarlet letter' than we just don't demand.

Generally, we allow an editor who is blocked or who has been sanctioned to – if they want – flounce off in a snit, and blank his talk page (or even to blank the recent, dispute-related part of his talk page) behind him. If an editor is sanctioned, we allow him to archive his talk page. Edit warring to restore non-essential notices serves to rile up a blocked or restricted editor, but doesn't significantly help the Wikipedia community. At best (or worst), it serves to incite an already-sanctioned or already-blocked editor to commit further infractions ('poking the bear'), drawing further sanctions and restrictions that might otherwise have been unnecessary.

If an already-blocked editor blanks a block notice but doesn't further violate any Wikipedia policies, we generally leave them alone in the hopes that they will cool down. If an already-blocked editor blanks a block notice and then engages in further violations of Wikipedia policy (additional personal attacks, continued violations of topic or interaction bans, etc.) then we don't edit war to restore their original block or ban notice, we just roll back the edits and withdraw their ability to edit their talk page. (Heck, we do that even if they haven't blanked their block notice first. The problem is the misconduct, not the presence or absence of a notice—and our reaction reflects that.)

---

I therefore propose two alternative modifications to the first bullet point. Either,

1. Eliminate the first bullet point altogether; or
2. Replace the first bullet point with the text "confirmed sockpuppetry related notices" only (with the understanding that a bit of restraint and common sense is expected in the use of this guideline).

(prepared by TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

Addendum by Jackmcbarn (talk): Proposal #3: Retain all of the existing clauses, but change "an active sanction" to "an active block or other sanction", to specifically prohibit removal of active block notices.

Prefer #1 (eliminate first bullet) but will take #2 if necessary

Probably best not to conflate the sockpuppetry clause with the block notice, it should be discussed separately. See #Yes, users should be permitted to remove block notices from their talk page if they are not seeking an unblock. –xeno^talk 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

1. As proposer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Nick (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Per TenOfAllTrades, who makes some good points about current practice. Diligent admins check the talk page history for context prior to considering any unblock request; we don't want to give the impression that they don't need to do that. 28bytes (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Per what I said below regarding removal of block notices. -- Atama頭 16:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Support #2 (retain sockuppetry clause) only

Probably best not to conflate the sockpuppetry clause with the block notice, it should be discussed separately. See #Yes, users should be permitted to remove block notices from their talk page if they are not seeking an unblock. –xeno^talk 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Support #3 (specifically mention active block notices as being nonremovable)

Probably best not to conflate the sockpuppetry clause with the block notice, it should be discussed separately. See also #No, users should not be permitted to remove block notices from their talk page while the block is active. –xeno^talk 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

1. As proposer. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Admins have to push around enough stuff with their mops as it is; they shouldn't be expected to have to dig through a talk page history to determine if a user requesting unblock has been denied before; adding weasel-wording about "active unblock requests" just encourages gaming by somebody removing a declined request on the basis of not requesting again, then requesting again the next day. Topic bans and such can and should be archived if desired, as there's the lists-of-sanctions pages if need be, but a block notice for an active block should be present so that other editors will not become confused if an editor is blocked or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

   Don't be silly. No one who wants to know is "confused if an editor is blocked or not". It's right there in a bright pink box at the top of their contributions list, as well as, obviously, in the user's block log. (It should also go without saying that a user requesting an unblock is aware of their own block, as would be any admin reviewing the block.) Gaming of unblock requests should be addressed, as I noted, in WP:AAB or WP:GTAB, or perhaps in WP:BP. And honestly, I like to trust my fellow admins to do basic due diligence when they review unblocks.

   Meanwhile, we know that we let a blocked user blank his or her talk page and stalk off in a huff. We don't force them to wear the scarlet letter of a block notice if they go away and don't cause any disruption during their block. (In many ways, it's an ideal outcome.) Poking the bear by insisting that we must put a block notice back is just picking a fight, not helping Wikipedia. This guideline page, as written, does not reflect that reality—the way cases are actually handled, unless someone (often someone with a bone to pick) decides to go bear-poking. Wikipedia guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and this guideline, as written, does not describe how cases are really handled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

   Not everybody knows the contributions page even exists, yet alone the block log. Sometimes guidelines should be prescriptive. And if people are concerned about "wear[ing] the scarlet letter of a block notice", then they should avoid being blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   Admins know. And they are the only ones who can unblock. Moreover there is a big pink message editing the talk page of the user too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
   

3. Admins should not be forced to have to dig through edit history to find out information about a blocked user who may be appealing a block. The notices are important to be on the page while a block is ongoing. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
4. For the only reason that some activist admins read the text and existing consensus as an authorization to let blocked editors remove an active sanction of being blocked. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
5. No harm in this, it doesn't change the current policy, merely makes it clearer for those who, for some reason, misunderstood its meaning. BMK (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
6. per Jackmcbarn. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   Could you clarify this? I believe the user you refer to didn't supply any reason at all. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   This seems most reflective on common practice and makes the most sense. It isn't added as a badge of shame, it is added as an administrative aid. Deleting any information directly relevant to the block only makes it harder for admin, thus less likely an admin wants to dig around and research a potential unblock. Replacing the block template and replacing it with the drama driven (and usually temporary) "retired" banner is a good example. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the block template was well earned and it could have been avoided if the editor didn't do what caused them to get blocked. If they didn't deserve it, then they need to be unblocked and then they can remove it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

7. Clarity is a good thing, especially if this has been causing legitimate confusion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
8. Will help avoid confusion. Kaldari (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
9. I think there is some value in insisting that blocked users maintain notices of active blocks on their talk pages. It allows previously uninvolved admins to consider what the user was blocked for and any additional commentary from the user or others that might provide context for the block when assessing an unblock request. Once the block is over then users should be free to remove them or archive them. They shouldn't remain like a dunce cap or "village stocks" (as above). Users should also not be held responsible for the automatic archiving of block notices by a scheduled bot, especially during a longer block. Not sure what can be done about that but it needs to be considered. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

   I think most agree that the block notice should remain in place in the context of an appeal. However, users who simply wish to remove the block notice and 1) sit out their block 2) leave the project should be permitted to do so. Accordingly, I think the below two responses should be used instead of these ones here. –xeno^talk 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

   Sure, but a review of a block doesn't necessarily need a specific appeal. Plenty of blocks are reviewed in the context of noticeboard threads (WP:AN and WP:ANI). Your block may be reviewed without you knowing so. I suppose it's then your own fault if you remove a block notice from your page which prevents an independent review from being conducted. And I suppose I see it as serving both a functionary and disciplinary purpose. Given blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, the "disciplinary" purpose is really the lesser of those two considerations. The functional value, then, is the key and it's function its to notify. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

10. Leaves no room for doubt or attempts at obfuscation.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
11. Per Bushranger. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
12. My gosh, yet another RfC on this issue. In addition to supporting this proposal because it eliminates confusion as to what the current wording means and because active block notices shouldn't be removed for the reasons others have mentioned in this section, I would like to see this section of the guideline labeled as policy. Many things about the guideline obviously are appropriate for a guideline but what a user absolutely can't do (imperative) should be policy. Note that the opening language of the section clearly implies that this is policy. I've seen this part of the guideline described as both - more confusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose all (maintain status quo)

Probably best not to conflate the sockpuppetry clause with the block notice, it should be discussed separately. See also #No, users should not be permitted to remove block notices from their talk page while the block is active. –xeno^talk 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

1. I see no reason to change the current status which, to my experience, accurately represents the actual practice on Wikipedia. I have no idea why the nom thinks otherwise. BMK (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

   It might accurately represent the actual practice on Wikipedia to you, but to some people, it's unclear: the very existence of the first post at #Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked? above confirms that. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

   Well, it's unclear to me why anyone would have any trouble interpreting words in straightforward English. A block is, by definition, a sanction. Therefore a current block is a current sanction, and therefore notices about that sanction cannot be removed. What's being argued above is not about interpretation of language, it's about changing policy. As always, Wikipedia policy is descriptive and not prescriptive, and the current policy, as written, clearly describes what happens in the normal course of business. That some didn't understand it that way is unfortunate, but rather than changing the policy, the correction for that is for those people to change their understanding to bring it into line with that of the general community. BMK (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

   The problem is that this unclear line was written into the policy absent a clear consensus in the first place. See #Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked? (brief history of WP:BLANKING). –xeno^talk 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

2. An active block is an active sanction. Plain and simple. But aparently we need to clarify for Activist editors/admins. Note: This comment does not change my support for proposal 3 to explicitly enumerate active blocks as unremovable Hasteur (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

   I'm not sure who you mean by activist admins. But do you have any reason for maintaining notices about active sanctions, including block notices, other than policy as currently written can be interpreted that way? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

   Who's going to be responsible for enforcing this draconian nonsense. Do I now need to spend all day every day making sure block notices I've left (concerning blocks I've imposed) have not been removed, and then go around and add them back ? What if the user is blocked indefinitely or for three months or a year ? And what if the user is blocked for 24h, reads and removes the block notice and is happy to sit out their block with no further edits, no unblock requests or anything ? There's no need for a block notice to stay on their page. Could we flesh out a compromise that states block notices concerning the active block must be displayed next to unblock requests but that there's no need if the user does not wish to be unblocked ? Finally, I'm concerned at the absolutely disgusting way in which anybody who interprets a vague criteria of "active sanction" in any way other than including blocks is being accused of being an activist and that their line of thinking is "unfortunate" and needs to "change". The policy is not clear, its necessity unproven, consensus for it not shown and its enforcement borderline impossible. Nick (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

   It'll get done the way everything else gets done on Wikipedia, haphazardly, as people notice an infraction. What's wrong with that? After all, there's no particular penalty for removing a block notice, it just gets put back. And if the blocked editor does it repeatedly, I'm sure people will inform the blocking editor of it. There's really no big enforcement deal to this. BMK (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   There's a couple of issues with this, but the first is probably the most important. What actually constitutes a block notice ? I generally don't use the template block notices if I block somebody, I prefer to assess the situation and write something that is appropriate for the situation, perhaps with some advice or information about why they've been blocked, how to avoid being blocked again in future and maybe a chat about something unrelated just to defuse the situation. My messages often double as a routine talk page message where removal would be absolutely normal and perfectly acceptable. Secondly, there's the potential for enormous workloads to be generated for administrators on the project and through UTRS trying to enforce this. The only enforcement option is to remove talk page access or fully protect the talk page for a number of days, and if the user then wishes to request an unblock, they would generally be directed towards the Unblock Ticket Request System. Unblock requests on-wiki can be handled by any one of the administrator usergroup, and can be assisted by experienced editors such as yourself, where abusive requests can be reverted, advice handed out and so on. If we start routinely removing talk page access and forcing users to go through UTRS, it's going to increase the workload on a smaller number of volunteers. No administrator should be blocking a user based on block notices on their talk page, nor should they be unblocking based on the current block notice alone. The block log with a full history of the user's past blocks exists for a reason, and that is to ensure administrators make fully informed decisions about when to block, when to unblock, to choose appropriate durations and to disable talk page access and/or e-mail if it is likely to be abused. I was slightly dismayed to read Admins should not be forced to have to dig through edit history to find out information about a blocked user who may be appealing a block. - actually, we should be doing that by default. Users can remove expired block notices, successful or redundant unblock requests, warnings from any editor and so on. We should be looking through at least their block log and quite possibly their talk page history to see exactly what we're dealing with. The talk page block notice is actually unnecessary and redundant. Nick (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   A block notice is any message from an admin stating why the user was blocked and often contains more detailed reasoning than a block log does. This is why it is useful to not remove them so that admins that are reviewing the case can easily see the reasoning etc. when contemplating a reversal or whatever the case may be. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   @Nick: (of 23:57, 2 June 2014): Admins set the block and can walk away, I would think that if an admin who issues a block to a savvy editor would keep the user watchlisted for a while to ensure no buggery happens. Plus there's plenty of Admin hangers on that are always willing to help out and feel important by restoring unexpired block notices and scolding the editor for doing what is not allowed. Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   If I block a user and leave them a note about the block, I have zero desire to force them to maintain my notice that I've done so, nor will I. Such would be a drain on administrative energy and just create additional administrative issues for no good reason. –xeno^talk 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Something else (apply a technical solution)

There are already too many rules for realistic enforcement. Being unable to remove a notice sits ill with the principle that a user may acknowledge a message by removing it. Being able to remove a block notice means that visitors may be deceived. However, blocked users do sometimes remove their block notices without anyone doing anything about it, and so the system of blocks being reported on user_talk pages is in a mess.

Surely, this is mess is not beyond a technical fix.

When visiting another user, typically because I am following their signature or contribution in a page history, the things I typically would like to know are:

1. Is the user active?
2. Is the user under a temporary block?

I suggest that we request a solution to this. Auto-report on main User and User_talk the following:

(basically, this is asking for an extract of the top lines of Special:Contributions/Example, or someone blocked, to be put at the top of the page)

1. Whether a user is inactive (no edits in, for example, the last six months. Would "no logins" for six months violate privacy?)
2. Whether the user is blocked, with the information from the block log, and including block expiry time.

If implemented, I suggest that denied unblock requests should be noted in the block log. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

1. That's going to be my preferred approach if the consensus is active blocks should be displayed on the talk page - the current active block is displayed in the same way it is on the Special:Contributions page for any blocked user. It removes the need to add or remove block notices completely, it's something no editor can remove and there's absolutely no enforcement issues to generate additional workload. It's stigmatising unfortunately but if that's the will of the community, this is how it should be enacted. Nick (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

2. I support this technical implementation. Simply a banner applied via site javascript that if the user is blocked will display the block log information. I have no objections to a log of declined unblock requests, but I think they should be in a collapsed section below the actual block log entr(y|ies). I say entries, because it should show all modifications to the current block (like the initial block and the change in the block log to revoke talk page access). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This proposal didn't seem to be set up neutrally. It seemed to start out with the assumption that removing block notices is okay, and go from there. I disagree with this assumption, so I've added a third proposal to reflect it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing block notices is perfectly fine (as long as the user is not seeking an unblock). This is how it was for most of the history of the project until the questionable RFC result came about in the history above. –xeno^talk 01:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I added this discussion to Template:Centralized discussion and listed it as an RfC by adding {{rfc|policy}}. Feel free to modify the wording of my addition to Template:Centralized discussion if necessary to make it more accurate. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see an option to restore the original wording and meaning, as mentioned elsewhere on this page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that these options below are better for the RFC response. –xeno^talk 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe yes, maybe no

1. Can blocks be partially imposed, allowing an ed to work on some article(s) but not other(s)? If so, then notices should remain on their talk page to further the goal of preventing disruptive behaviors elsewhere, and eds interacting with a blocked ed elsewhere should be cognizant of the history, in case it becomes necessary to file another ANI asking for expansion of the original block. Otherwise, block notices should be allowed to go away per reasoning of Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) above.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

   What you're talking about is a topic ban. We are here talking about actual blocks and the notices left related to them. –xeno^talk 12:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, users should be permitted to remove block notices from their talk page if they are not seeking an unblock

1. As it had been until the recent lightly-trafficked RFC mentioned above. –xeno^talk 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Yes, because we're not here to tar and feather people. Nick (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Per Nick and Xeno. It's unnecessary to keep the notices there (that's why there's a block log), and users are generally allowed to remove things from their talk pages (which is taken to mean they've read or acknowledged them) and there's no compelling reason to make an exception for block notices, since the block log is quite easy to get to. (It's also a poor use of volunteers' time to "police" this and repeatedly re-add the unnecessary block notice that a user doesn't want on their talk page. It's not like removing the block notice removes the block.) 28bytes (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Didn't realize it was time for this nonsense again. Absolutely yes. --Onorem (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Not an admin, so i have no idea how the technical stuff works, but i sure know that if i were, prior to blocking or unblocking i'd be researching a user's behaviour, block log, talk page history and more to try and ensure i did the right thing. Relying on a present notice on their talk page wold be silly and, in my view, irresponsible. Not only that, but it is by no means clear, despite some dismissive comments above, that the idea of sanctions contains that of blocks; they are not by definition the same. Thus, in line with Xeno, Nick, and 28bytes. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Absolutely. Even if they are seeking an unblock, removing the block notice is not really a problem, except for them, as admins are less likely to consider the unblock. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
   
7. Oh no, not this shit again. Yes, absolutely they should. The block notice is needed if and only if the user is requesting unblock. If they're not, it's purely punitive (I'm trying to put it politely here; actually I can think of stronger words) to insist they keep it up. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
8. I'm going to approach this from a different angle. Why are editors sometimes blocked without a block template on the talk page? There is no requirement that I know of that a template be added to a user talk page when that editor is blocked (WP:EXPLAINBLOCK only says that a clear block reason must be given at the block, and says that users "can be notified" with a template also). In the case of sockpuppets, for example, it is common to just mark the user page to identify the editor as a sock, but not leave a notice on their user talk page (the admin instructions for SPI say so as well). This is because block templates are for the benefit of the blocked editor. They're not there for admins or other editors. Block templates explain to the editor why they are blocked, and give instructions on how to request an unblock. I see no reason why an editor should be forced to retain a template they don't want, when that template is only for their benefit. We don't leave block templates for sockpuppets (especially confirmed sockpuppets) because any unblock request should come from the master. If we want to mandate that block templates stay on the talk pages for blocked users, we need to first mandate that they are put there to begin with. Otherwise this discussion seems moot. -- Atama頭 16:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

   That's an excellent point. 28bytes (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

9. Yes they should be able to delete at will. We have no need to edit war over notices. Why are we going out of our way to make people more frustrated. This rule leads to editors blocked from being able to use there own talk pages causing even more resentment. -- Moxy (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
10. Yes, as Nick, Xeno, and others have put it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
11. Yes. The block notice on user_talk is a message, messages may be removed as acknowledgement of receipt. Make accesses to block log more obvious, if necessary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
12. The common understanding and established process is this: A block notice is to inform the user they have been blocked, so they are aware of why they cannot edit, and the options open to them. As with any such informative notice, the user can leave it in place, remove it or archive it. If the user elects to appeal, then a record of the appeal process needs to be readily available to all admins who are going to consider the appeal, especially if the appeal has already been rejected. So we allow users to remove block notices, but don't allow them to remove appeal records. We have a proposal now that block notices are left in place even if the user does not wish to appeal. It's not clear the rationale behind this. It is not necessary to leave a block notice in place because the user is blocked - they are not going to be doing anything anyway, other than appeal, and the appeal record will be kept in place. If someone wishes to contact a blocked user, as soon as they try to edit the user's talkpage they will see a pink page notice saying the user is blocked. If they click on the user's contribution history they will see they are blocked. The information is already there. I've not seen yet a rationale for why we would want to keep a block notice in place for users who do not wish to appeal. The notice is for the blocked user. The pink page notice and contribution history message are for the rest of us. Is it possible the users who want the block notice to remain in place are unaware of the existing notices? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
13. While it is useful to be able to see a person's conversations and the talk page does not belong to the user in question being here instead to improve Wikipedia I agree that people should be allowed to remove comments from their talk page . This user [4] had their talk page access revoked for removing a block template. Thus clarification appears to be in order. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
14. See no reason to have a "badge of shame" that's required to be there. Plenty of folks get blocked without the template - so does that mean they aren't really blocked? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
15. They should be allowed to remove all block notices and everything else from the talk page. Nothing can be achieved from reading the block notices. If someone is still interested, they can go by the diffs. OccultZone (Talk) 11:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
16. Yes, per Rich Farmbrough's response down below in the "no" section. I came here expecting to say "no", because the original block rationale ought to be visible to the unblock-request reviewer, but the point about admins needing to pay attention is convincing. Unless it's an obviously bad-faith request (e.g. a vandal saying "Unblock me now, idiots"), if you're responding to a request so fast that you don't have time to check the user's history, you shouldn't be acting on that request at all. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
17. Requiring users to keep a block notice around seems punitive. Any admin worth their salt will poke through the talk and user page history and the block log before making decisions to unblock or reblock. We have a system to keep a permanent record of a user's blocks: the block log. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
18. Noting that I support this option as well, obviously. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
19. I've not read the entire discussion above, mostly because I have read way more than enough discussion of this issue in the past. My feeling is that block notices and declined unblock request probably should remain, but that fighting over it and edit warring on blocked users talk pages is childish and a waste of time. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
20. Yes, no need to keep a badge of shame. If a user is blocked, it's right there in the block log, and will also remain in the history. If an user who wants to comment on the block can't be bothered to go look for that, there's no reason he or she needs to comment at all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
21. Logged-in users should be permitted to remove an active block notice from their talk page. Removal indicates receipt. The block log provides sufficient information for other users/admins to determine that the block is active. The talk page history is easy to access for any knowledgeable user who desires to see the notice. As a courtesy to responding admins, the block notice should not be removed if seeking an unblock (but non-removal under such conditions should not be required).
    However, shared IP numbers should not be permitted to remove an active block notice. The primary purpose of the block notice is to inform the user about the fact of the block, the reasons for the block, and to point them in the direction of how to request an unblock. For a shared IP address, the block notice needs to remain for the duration of the block in order for the notice to perform its primary purpose of informing any person using the IP address which, obviously, could be a random new person. Such new person may have no knowledge of Wikipedia; how to access logs; that a log should be accessed; how to access talk page histories; or that such should be accessed to find more detail; or how to request an unblock; etc. — Makyen (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
22. Support as others.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
23. The core issue is the purpose of the block notice. The purpose of the block notice to inform the blocked editor of why they have been blocked, and what they can do about it. In other words, a block notice is not much different from other messages on the talk page. The purpose is not to help administrators review a user's block history (which the block log is perfectly suitable for). We certainly do not want to promote badges of shame, and if a user removes a block notice when they do not plan on requesting unblock, it should be taken as an acknowledgement they have seen the message. I agree with others above. Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
24. Support, as edit warring with a user in their own userspace is the height of futility. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
25. The best evidence of a user's block is clearly the user's own block log; unlike unblock notices (where the main evidence is on the user's own talk page). Especially now that, when you open the edit screen for a blockesd user's talk page, you get a clear notice of the block, I see no reason the user should be required to keep it on the talkpage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
26. Agree that we should be using the block log to look at blocks and that we don't need to have users carrying around a badge of shame. Further it is their own talk page and this would be difficult to enforce. I just don't see the benefits outweighing the negatives. Zell Faze (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
27. Anyone wanting to know if a user is blocked cannot rely on seeing a block notice at the user's talk—sometimes no notice is given, or someone might have removed the notice. Users are almost never banned permanently so we need to consider what happens if they are unblocked—if they have to serve out a, say, a week-long block they might come back with a different attitude and contribute collaboratively. If a user wants to remove the block notice but people force them to keep it, they will be embittered and that will not help the encyclopedia. I missed saying this earlier, so am saying it now as others are still commenting. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No, users should not be permitted to remove block notices from their talk page while the block is active

1. Nothing would be accomplished by letting them remove the block notices. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   What about allowing a blocked user to leave the project with some peace-of-mind that a scarlet letter isn't being maintained on their user talk page, forever? Do they have no right to be forgotten? –xeno^talk 15:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   Not while an active block is in place. -DJSasso (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   Blocks are often (I would go as far as saying usually) indefinite. If we work like prison warders we alienate good faith new (and old) editors. Not cool. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
   

   Not usually indef, unless by "usually" you mean three-fifths of the last 50 blocks imposed (as I type this). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

2. For the same reasons I placed above in the other questions in this RfC. -DJSasso (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
3. I support this idea, only. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Same reason above, though I would also note that Unless the user did a "less than brilliant thing" and registered with a handle that they're known as on many sites, walking away from Wikipedia means also walking away from any red letters. If I remember correctly, there was a proposal floating around that user talks and IP talk pages that have communication from several years back that weren't being actively used were up for consideration to be blocked. While I did oppose those, I could see a justification for letting sanctions that have been expired for >2 years with no other interaction (effectively abandoned) could be eligible for Good-faith blanking. Hasteur (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

   The question is, what is the benefit from forcing the block notice to stay? I can see only one - making things clear for an admin responding to an unblock request. Even that is fairly trivial, admins breathe history (or they should) - and if they find it too hard to pick up the notice, check the block log, and the user's contributions, should not be doing unblock responses anyway. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
   

Is the right question being asked?

It looks like editors are being blocked for removing notices after the blocks are expired. [5] —Neotarf (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading; this user was blocked for removing a sockpuppetry notice. While User:TenOfAllTrades makes good points re sockpuppetry notes above, I think those needs to be discussed separately from block notices to avoid conflating the two issues. –xeno^talk 12:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the wording per the consensus here

Despite the rather overwhelming consensus here, currently 24-4, I have seen several recent instances of admins restoring removed block notices, including one case where the user had talkpage access removed without warning for removing the notice. I referred that admin to the consensus here, but he wouldn't have it because there is "no declared consensus"… sheesh… so I'm declaring consensus and changing the text of the policy accordingly. Sorry if anybody thinks I'm the wrong person to close because I've opined above, but obvious consensus is obvious and this really shouldn't drag on any longer. In the list of "important matters that may not be removed by the user", I changed "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction" to "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices". Feel free to tweak or to start another interminable RfC about the exact wording if you really, really want to. Bishonen | talk 09:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

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

Removing active block notices on IP pages and particularly school IPs

Many apologies for bringing this up now, but I'm particularly bothered about letting a single user remove a schoolblock notice. That leaves other potential editors not knowing what they should do or why they can't edit. I can see the point for accounts, but shared addresses? Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, Doug, and it raises a general issue about the value of removing any notices from shared addresses, when the remover may well not be the intended recipient of the notice. It would be relatively simple, of course, for anyone to replace the school-block notice. Nevertheless, I think the school-block notice is a clear-cut exception that ought to be made to this guideline. Perhaps you would care to suggest a wording? --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The solution is to transclude the template in the block log. Very few users of a shared IP address would think to check their talk page and find the most relevant template, if there is one, after one single user of the IP has received an 'orange bar', whereas every blocked user who tries to edit will always see the whole schoolblock template. Extra 'read only' instructions or comments can also be included for every user to see. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A block log entry can contain certain kinds of markup, such as wikilinks; but it doesn't expand templates. If you were to add {{uw-vblock}} to a block log entry, that's all that would be seen - it is not expanded into the message "You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent vandalism. ...". This is unlikely to change: about a year ago there was an "accidental" code change whereby under certain conditions, templates entered into edit summaries would be expanded. It caused all sorts of problems, not least was that edit summaries are not editable.

The block log also has a maximum size of 255 bytes per entry. This includes space taken up by preset text and wikilinks; so a block log entry like

(anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Vandalism)

is 99 bytes, because [[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]] takes up 26 bytes. So if templates were expanded, they would have to be very carefully crafted to fit into the limited space available. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64, I think what zzuuzz meant was to include the template as a block reason and it would be shown to the blocked IP in the block notice, not about seeing the entry on the block log. It's highly unlikely that users who are new to Wikipedia will go to check the block log of their IP. Also if a message is left on the talk page, "new message on talk page" notice will appear just once (it won't appear once the talk page has been viewed). So block reason is actually more effective than talk page notices in cases of shared IP addresses, imo. --Glaisher (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, block log templates are transcluded to the end user in a very visible manner. It's most frequent with anonblock, schoolblock, and blockedproxy templates. You can check this yourself by finding a blocked open proxy to try and edit with. I just used one called vpnbook webproxy, and got this message, along with the usual pictures:

"198.27.64.0/18 has been blocked (disabled) by DeltaQuad for the following reason(s): ... The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because the IP range you are editing from is a web host provider. Since your IP acts like a proxy, because it hides your IP address, it has been blocked. To prevent abuse, these IPs may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If yo..."

. You can compare this with the block log, the active blocks, or indeed the talk page of 198.27.87.138. There is no competition in terms of visibility to the blocked user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Negative listings about other users

I was telling someone on Wikipedia that we aren't allowed to use our user pages (or other pages, including Wikiprojects) to list complaints about specific users, with links/descriptions/etc. since it was a form of personal attack. I've seen the issue raised a number of times of the years. (I think I've read it's allowed in, say, drafting a WP:ANI, as long as it's not left too long and later removed.)

When he seemed skeptical about that, I came here and could only find "Ownership and editing of user pages" which reads "Most community policies including No personal attacks and Biographies of living persons will apply to your user space, just as elsewhere." which I'll mention to the doubter. But does this need to be made more explicit - or is it made more explicit else wheres? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

To provide more context, this diff. It's really about whether women can list nasty things/diffs guys have said to them on Wikipedia either on their user pages or, for example, at a Gender gap task force subpage or essay. (The latter can be asked about elsewhere if there is not a definite prohibition against such things expressed here.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't do it because, if directed at one person, it can be perceived to be a hit-list. But you can keep the list off-wiki and then deploy examples in a relevant discussion, like the one you are linking to. In fact, people (including me) have been asking you for such examples. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sitush asked for such examples without mentioning the above. But I was blocked for making comments at ArbEnforce that two arbitrators inferred and said I could make, so why should I take the chance? Now I DO assume we could make a list of quotes and NOT name the offenders. Just call them Offender 1, Offender 2, etc. in a massive, constantly updated database of hundreds of entries... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And here you go again, soapboxing - "massive, constantly updated database of hundreds of entries". You would need diffs to substantiate any quotes that you give, and I'm telling you that you are ok to do that in the thread in question provided that you do not turn it into a witch-hunt against a specific person. Given your prior comments in that thread, there should be no need to do so because your claim is that the evidence is widespread. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Without looking into the context which prompted this, the OP seems to be referring to WP:UP#POLEMIC, which doesn't allow "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" in userspace. A list of diffs criticising other editors' behaviour will fall under this in the vast majority of cases. This kind of material is allowed if it is being used as part of a draft of a statement as part of some established dispute resolution process, such as an RfC or RFAr, as long as it is temporary. Hut 8.5 19:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Thanks, that's what I was looking for but missed it in first go round. I do assume it applies elsewhere, but at least we have a firmly based policy start on the topic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ]

@Carolmooredc: no. Either put up or shut up in that thread. I'm fed up of your disruption, canvassing, slimy insertion of POV and wikilawyering. There is nothing to stop you giving some diffs in that thread. I'm calling your bluff. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The context was asking Carolmooredc to provide evidence that there is gender based discrimination in the Wikipedia community and she hasn't put her money where her mouth is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Obscenity on User Talk?

What standards of behaviour are appropriate for User Talk pages (I read round fairly widely before posting here and am not sure of the answer)?

This arose because I wanted to discuss an edit with User:Lugnuts, who would seem to be a far more experienced editor than I (his user page shows for example thousands of articles created) and intended to leave a note on the appropriate Talk page - User talk:Lugnuts - but find myself obscurely offended by the obscenity at the top of that page (i.e. User talk:Lugnuts).

The sentiment is fair enough perhaps but the words (including a well-known obscenity and other swear words) are offensive, at least to me, and might be said to contravene the spirit if not the letter of WP:CIV. The words are presented as a warning barrier with a red "stop" hand and certainly succeeded in keeping me from posting there.

As the notice has headed the User Talk page for some time, and the User is very experienced, I assume this is acceptable behaviour (although it might seem to contravene WP:WQ if nothing else). Nonetheless I would be grateful for further comment as to whether there is clear guidance on User Talk pages or whether policy might be extended to cover User Talk pages. Testbed (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You've already raised this here so stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. WP is not censored. Maybe you shouldn't look at this, this or this article in case you're offended. Also love your userpage - "I'm an academic in his 40's." Obviously not an academic in English. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

E/C

My own opinion is that if I WP:Assume good faith then that is an attempt at humor that I personally think is pretty dumb but different strokes and all that.... but although an attempt at humor it is nonetheless in pretty start compliance with both letter and spirit of the [{WP:Talk page guidelines]], and would be better if it were exported to an essay bearing Template:Humor. But hey, that's just my opinion, and as you've just read, I'm scum, so nevermind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

PS Having read the other thread, the problem with this is that it doesn't say it's a quote from some cultural source (that I have never heard of before). So it's a mild copyvio that needs proper attribution, and if that were added, it would probably fix a lot of these issues.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Testbed was referred to this talkpage at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, so that's presumably why he has posted here as well. That said, Lugnuts' talkpage banner was already fully discussed there, with plenty of responsive input from both Lugnuts and others, before Mendaliv mentioned this page. I really don't see what else Testbed wants from anybody, i. e. I don't believe we need to discuss it here all over again. Also, while I don't mean to complain about anybody's proofreading or English, I'm truly not sure what NAEG wants to say with "start compliance". Stark non-compliance? Bishonen | talk 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

E/C

@ Bishonen, Thanks for catching my error but still understanding my intent. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I was under the impression that I had received the advice to take the issue here and so that is what I have done. My point is specifically not about censorship, nor about articles, but about community standards in how one addresses fellow editors on one's Talk page. So perhaps someone less involved might care to comment (not sure who the "others" are who discussed it on the other page, the general issue was certainly left open, hence taking it here) Testbed (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

PS The general issue being (to repeat what I wrote above) I would be grateful for further comment as to whether there is clear guidance on User Talk pages or whether policy might be extended to cover User Talk pages Testbed (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It was good advice, and I appreciate the fact you followed it. Indignant shouts of forumshopping are unmerited, in my opinion. But it would have been better all around if your original post here had mentioned the prior thread and the advice to come here. Now that we know it's a movie quote (I didn't either) I suggest you ask Lugnuts to reformat it with proper attribution as a movie quote. If he doesn't then read WP:COPYVIO and proceed accordingly, but if you make a new thread somewhere, provide links to the prior threads, and your (ignored?) request for proper attribution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

UTC)

Sorry, not doing this on a real computer, so was lazy in not giving the history. And I appreciate the advice on that specific Talk page. But might I move this on to the more general issue (ie imagine if it WASN'T a quote): when reading through WP:Talk page guidelines I could see it might be argued that (for example) general comments not aimed at a specific editor are not bound by say WP:CIV or other parts of the current guidelines. Do you agree? Testbed (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in that question, since I would see it as a (dumb) attempt at humor if it had proper attribution, and there are a lot of articles to work on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIV is basically unenforceable because no one can ever agree on where to draw the line. As a result, until someone violates WP:NPA, it is very unlikely anything will be done about it. NPA must be directed at a specific person or group of people. As a result a general comment not aimed at a specific editor (or identifiable subgroup of editors) is effectively not bound by WP:CIV. That said, if someone goes way overboard, and isn't making good contributions at the same time, they may run in to WP:NOTHERE issue. Monty₈₄₅ 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

With a couple changes, it's from Full Metal Jacket in case anyone wants to help him/her out and put in the ref. Hoo, ya... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Guidance on editors reinstating a post added & then removed by another

I've got a case right now of Editor A posting to Editor B's talk page, thinking better of it and reverting before any reply. Editor B then reinstates A's post. This has happened twice today. Surely if I post to someone's talk page and think better of it the other editor shouldn't insist on keeping a post I've removed? (This isn't about my talk page or a post of mine). Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

User:83.84.60.13 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:83.84.60.13. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

unclear if commenting out notices is allowed

Specifically regarding WP:REMOVED - the guideline doesn't mention if a user is allowed to comment out (i.e. "<!-- invisible text -->") comments/notices/warnings that s/he isn't allowed to delete, e.g. sockpuppetry notice. On one hand, it makes it ineffective to viewers of the page if notices are hidden. On the other hand, it's not removed as it is still in the wikitext. Can this be clarified? Thanks Kirin13 (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh hell no. WP:WIKILAWYERing like that just makes it even harder to assume good faith for future possible unblocking. The general rationale at WP:REMOVED is "There is no need to keep them on display" and hiding exactly keeps them from being "on display", which exactly interferes with the purpose of the stated exceptions for "part of the wider community's processes". DMacks (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That's my opinion too. Perhaps hiding declined unblock requests is less serious, but they are also listed under items that cannot be removed. That's why I was surprised that my edit to uncomment a declined unblock request on a current block was reverted. So I wasn't sure if I was interpreting the guideline correctly, thus asking for a clarification. Kirin13 (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What may I not have in my user pages? Negative contents concerning other editors

Suggest including a comment about not including negative comments concerning other editors on User pages. Unlike the situation on talk pages, user pages don't permit other editor's to answer back. GregKaye 19:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How is this not already covered by "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws."? Mogism (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015

'Charlie Hebdo Charlie Hebdo eshte nje reviste javore satirike Franceze e cila shfaq reportazhe problematike ne formen e karikaturave.Charli Hebdo u shfaq per here te pare ne vitin 1970 si nje pasues e revistes Hara-Kiri e cila u ndalua per perqeshjen me vdekjen e ish-presidentit Francez Charles de Gaulle.Ne vitin 1981 publikimet u ndaluan por revista u ringjall ne vitin 1992.Revista publikonte artikuj ku perqeshte fene(Katolicizmi.ortodokset,Myslimanizmit),politikes dhe kultures .Sipas ish-redaktorit te revistes satirike Stéphane Charbonnier ("Charb") pikpamja e revistes pasqyron te gjitha komponentet e pluralizmit.Redaktori i pergjithshem aktual i revistes eshte Gerard Biard.Redaktoret e meparshem te revistes ishin François Cavanna (1969–1981) dhe Philippe Val (1992–2009).Revista botohej cdo te merkure dhe botimet e nxjerra ishin te vecanta ,ne menyre te paplanifikuar.Revista ka qene cak i dy sulmeve terroriste ne 2011 dhe 2015,mendohet te jete nje shpagim per nje seri karikaturash per Profetin Muhamed,ne te dyja sulmet.12 persona ,duke perfshire drejtuesin dhe disa prej kontribuesve,u vrane gjate ketyre akteve terroriste.

Origjina e Hara-Kiri Ne 1960 Georgfesseur Choron" dhe François Cavanna(nje nga themeluesit e pare te Revistes Charli Hebdo) nisen nje reviste mujore te quajtur Hara-Kiri.Choron u vetshpall drejtor i publikimit ndersa Cavanna si redaktor i saj.Sigurisht Cavanna mlodhi sebashku nje ekip i cili perfshinte:Roland Topor, Fred, Jean-Marc Reiser, Georges Wolinski, Gébé , and Cabu. Nje lexues i hershem akuzoi ata si: "Memec dhe te kqinj" ("bête et méchant"),fraze e cila u be slogan kryesore per revisten dhe u perfshi ne gjuhen e perditshme Franceze.Hara-Kiri u ndalua per pak kohe ne 1961, dhe perseri per gjashte muaj ne 1966.Disa nga kontribuesit nuk u rikthyen me, te tille si:Gébé, Cabu, Topor, and Fred.Andtare te rinj iu bashkuan grupit duke perfshire:Delfeil de Ton , Pierre Fournier (journaliste) , and Willem.Ne 1969,ekipi Hara-Kiri vendosi per te prodhuar nje botim javor-ne krye te revistes mujore egzistuese-per tu fokusuar me shume ne ceshtjet aktuale.Revista javore rifilloi ne Shkurt e quajtur Hara-Kiri Hebdo e cila u riquajt L'Hebdo Hara-Kiri.Në nëntor të vitit 1970, ish-presidenti francez Charles de Gaulle vdiq në fshatin e tij në shtëpi e Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, tetë ditë pas një fatkeqësie në një klub nate te quajtur "Club Cinq-Sept fire", e cila solli vdekjen e 146 personave.Revista leshoi nje botim te titulluar:"Ngjarje tragjike ne Colomby,nje i vdekur". Si rezultat Revista javoree u ndalua.Per te rifilluar ribotimin ekipi editorial vendosi të ndryshojë titullin e saj,dhe e quajti Charlie Hebdo.Emri i ri ishte "kopjuar" nga nje reviste mujore e quajtur Charlie Mensuel.Revista botoj nje karikatur "ironike" dedikuar Charles de Gaulle. Në dhjetor të vitit 1981,Revista u ndalua serisht.

Ringjallja Në 1991, Gébé, Cabu dhe të tjerët ishin të ribashkuar për të punuar për La Grosse Bertha, një revistë të re javore e cila ngjasonte me Charli Hebdo.Pas shumë në kërkim për një emër të ri, ideja e qartë e ringjalljes Charlie HEBDO u ra dakord mbi.Revista e re ishte në pronësi të Val, Gébé, Cabu dhe këngëtari Renaud Séchan. Val ishte redaktor ndersa Gebe ishte drejtor artistik. Publikimi i ri Charlie HEBDO filloi në korrik 1992.Publikimi i ri i javores Charli solli interes te madh tek njerzit dhe u shiten 100.000 kopje.Në 2000, gazetar Mona Chollet u shkarkua pasi ajo kishte protestuar kundër një artikull Philippe Val cila quajtur palestinezët "jo të qytetëruar".Në vitin 2009, Philippe Val dha dorëheqjen pasi u emërua drejtor i Francës Inter, një stacion radio publike për të cilën ai ka kontribuar që nga fillim të viteve 1990. Funksionet e tij ishin të ndarë në mes të dy karikaturistët, Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier) dhe Riss (Laurent Sourisseau).Që nga marsi 2011, Charlie HEBDO ishte në pronësi të Charb (600 aksione), Riss (599 aksione), drejtori i financave Éric Portheault (299 aksione), dhe Cabu dhe Bernard Maris me një aksion secili. Gerard Biard është redaktor i përgjithshëm i Charlie HEBDO.

Andrea0115 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as it says above:- This talk page is for discussion about improving the English Wikipedia guideline, Wikipedia:User pages. - Any requests should be made in English, on the talk page of the relevant article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:NOBAN

The very last sentence of the section says, "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)."

For the parenthetical part especially in mind, let's say the editor X asks editor Y to not post on their talk page (let's just assume a dispute over behavior and Y doesn't want to hear what X is saying anymore). Sometime later, Y is edit warring or some similar behavior problem, and X posts a 3RR warning to their talk page to let them know they're close to that line. Is that considered appropriate communication in that case? I've watched a couple such exchanges from afar, and have always been curious if this kind of action is implied by the guideline. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, adding a standard notification is appropriate. However, it is always possible to game the system and a creative harasser can always find ways to "thank" or "notify" their victim, just to let them know they are under surveillance. I believe one unhelpful editor was finally indeffed after excessively thanking someone (clicking the "thank" link on a history page), so the fact that Y can post a notification on X's page does not rule out the possibility that Y might be blocked and/or indeffed as a result if others judge that Y is not getting the message. No system of governanace is ever as simple as hoped. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was imagining harassment would bend that allowance too far. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

essay query

Is an essay which uses snippets from various BLP talk pages but does not use any diffs whatsoever, mentions no editor whatsoever, in violation of

Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.

or of

Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

As no information about any person whatsoever is present, and no diffs whatsoever are used, and Newyorkbrad at the time told me "I can't render a definitive opinion on the material without seeing it in its original context—which you have very properly redacted—but on skimming it over it appears to be pretty unimpressive stuff. Is any of this still in our articles? You can respond by e-mail if you'd prefer not to call attention to it on-wiki. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2009 which I interreted as saying that the redactions and total lack of diffs made it an appropriate mini-essay to explain why I am adamant about WP:BLP. As I was "imminently" using it - whenever the essay was called for, I personally do not see that I am committing any infraction of anything. In fact, other than people who read those essay links, it is highly unlikely to embarrass anyone at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look at the page you're talking about and I wouldn't assume the quotes are anonymous just because there aren't any names or diffs. The people who wrote those comments and potentially others who took part in the discussions they are taken from may well recognise them. In any case it was quite easy for me to identify several of the sources just by Googling sentence fragments. Hut 8.5 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the essay is about editor viewpoints on BLPs how would you suggest I post the quotes so they could never be found? And one can Google just about anything - having me only have absolutely non-Googleable quotes seems Sisyphean at best. In short - I done what is rational to do - and not mention any names at all and giving absolutely no diffs. Cheers.Collect (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Fake retirement templates

Have noticed an editor repeatedly and temporarily adding {{retired}} and similar templates to their user page, and occasionally putting up handwritten messages explicitly claiming that they were no longer active on Wikipedia, despite continuing to chat and edit daily. Fake retirement claims seem unhelpful (an editor clicking through to raise an issue on their talk page may assume that there's no need to, and someone clicking the signature link on a discussion may conclude that the thread requires no further reply), but "What may I not have in my user pages?" doesn't seem to mind them. Should it? --McGeddon (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No. If an editor is trolling or is in some other way disruptive, that issue should be addressed. If the editor's activity continues with several edits per day for say three months, a polite request from someone not known to be in conflict with the editor might be useful. However, I can't see any good from poking someone about how they describe themselves, unless it is over-the-top. Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It just feels like "simulation and disruption of the MediaWiki interface" for a user to intentionally keep a {{retired}} template on their user page despite remaining active. WP:RETIRE is of the opinion that the template "can be seen as an "official" statement", which I'd agree with; it seems like a formal block notice that happened to come from the user themselves. Jokey wikibreak templates, fine, but "R E T I R E D" seems like a line in the sand which editors shouldn't use deceptively. --McGeddon (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I realise now that {{retired}}'s documentation actually says "If you later resume editing for any reason, any user may remove this erroneous template from your user page." - although this doesn't discourage editors from unhelpfully putting up a retirement template at the end of every day (like the teenage trend for disabling a Facebook account when offline and reenabling it the next day). --McGeddon (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this discussion; all I've got is the following: Seeing someone with a retired template on their user page, when they actually are not retired, annoys me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree it's problematic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Warnings

The article doesn't seem to address the case where a WP:TENDENTIOUS user is currently in violation of policy, or under investigation thereof, and they keep deleting warnings. The warnings serve as documentation not only to them for their own use, but to others who wouldn't easily know that the person has recently been in violation. If they did, they'd know to escalate the warning or to quit warning them and to instead escalate it or begin an investigation. I don't see anything like that, such as here, right? Shouldn't it be at least addressed? Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is why I always check the user's edit history and the history of the user pages before I add a warning. Deleting warnings may seem like a way to make them "disappear" ... but in reality they are only one or two additional clicks of the mouse away. A record of any previous warnings still exists. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What is to be done after warning? This user simply removed the warnings: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASayerslle&diff=654353509&oldid=653666420 His user and talk page are basically just soap boxes, and he deletes all talk page comments. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User pages making blatantly false claims about themselves

User:Dan9122

This page previously claimed he was an administrator, but now he's changed it to other ambiguous statements that seem to imply false associations with subjects. I notice that the guideline does not explicitly talk about stuff like this; but would it fall under any part of it? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk pages

Why can user talk pages not be deleted? Timo3 17:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, they serve as a useful record for, by, and of other people and not only the putative owner. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

how to find a contributor?

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

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)

Clarification against user talk "ownership" badly needed

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

Thoughts... If User:A explicitly asserts a prohibition against User:B, and User:B feels a necessity to post on the talk page of User:A, a degree of commonsense should be applied. Standard notifications not asserting anything personal and not requiring a response should always be OK. However, if the necessity to post exceeds that, then User:B should be obliged to either leave User:A alone or to take it WP:ANI. Most likely, User:B will be slapped with a boomerang, but alternatively, an involved editor may well give User:A, or both, some pertinent advice. Also possible is that no one will comment on User:B's ANI thread, which should be taken as a default upholding of User:A's position.

In general, if a User wants to be left alone, others should leave him alone at least on his usertalk page. However, insisting on being left alone with ongoing poor behavior essentially means that escalation of the problem is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that common sense has already gone out the window as soon as someone tries to "ban" another editor off their talk page. No one ever avails themselves of this actually non-existent "right" unless A) they're trying to escape scrutiny, or B) very rarely, someone is actually harassing them. In case A, they just need to suck it up and learn to stop doing things that raise other editors' concerns (something they will never learn if everyone is chased off that editor's talk page with rants and empty threats). In case B, the actual, proper procedure is to take the matter to ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I generally support the thrust of the proposal. However, not "In the rare case of actual harassment, the community may resolve the problem by imposing an interaction ban." This I read as loading responsibility of supervision of an interaction ban supposedly on admin frequenters of ANI. No. Actual cases of harassment should be met with a WP:BLOCK, unless someone, some admin, chooses to intervene with a more onerous remedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, ANI is generally where one goes to get the admin attention that results in a block. The point was the identify the (or at least an) avenue to seek that relief when it's justifiable. I have no real objection to removing it entirely. The main issue to me is ensuring that we make it clear that habitually hostile and often WP:NOTHERE types do not actually have any right to "ban" people from their talk page every time they have a legitimate issue to raise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see what the fuss is about. This may be because I take a different approach to my talk page than many people. I treat treat my user talk page as if it were a voice mail service... and regularly remove (delete) messages after I have read them (unless I want to keep them on the page, for my own reference). I don't archive old messages... I simply delete them.

In other words... if someone has posted a message for me on my user page, and they come back later to find it is no longer there, the removal means I have at least seen it (even if I may not have acknowledged that fact). The message isn't "gone"... If anyone needs to retrieve something I have removed from my user talk page, they can find it in the talk page's history.

To relate this to the above discussion... there is no need for me to "ban" anyone else from my talk page, since the easier (and less stress inducing) option is for me to simply not respond... ignoring the comment and removing the messages from my talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. The policy permits such a "voicemail approach". That doesn't stop some habitually ranty personages (including some who also use the read-and-delete approach to user talk page management) from using threats and demands to try to scare other editors from ever commenting on that user's talk page. The "final straw" case for me is one of those. Every notice is deleted almost instantly from the editor's page, he/she usually suggests that the message was not even read, and then issues a heated "prohibition" against ever posting there again. Well, enough of that. This kind of "go screw your collaboration, this is my Facebook page" behavior needs to be swept right into the trashcan/dustbin.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see nothing "badly needed" about this. It's generally understood that user warning templates (and therefore neutral notifications in general, since those are merely a convenient means to achieve them) are acceptable even when you've been asked not to post on someone's talk page, but that, otherwise, you are expected to respect that wish. Discussions about article editing can, and should, be carried out on the involved articles' talk pages, anyway. User talk pages are for more "meta"/personal discussion, and if I don't want that from a given person, then that ought to be respected, plain and simple. LjL (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that there need be any fuss, nor any great need, to improve documentation of recommended practice. Blueboar's approach appears to be the ideal. I don't think the guidance is to be written for Blueboar. However, what do you do when someone is behaving immaturely and then claims a right to forbid usertalk page communication? I do agree with LjL. If someone is harassing you, you should be well entitled to ask them to go away from your talk page. If there is really a problem, another person can take it up, and if necessary, an ANI thread. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's the opposite case; it's uncooperative editors who refuse to listen to anyone and attempt to "ban" everyone who ever raises a concern or criticism. If party A is actually harassing party B, they can be blocked for it already.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• The wording is fine as is. Perceptive editors will know when to honor a don't post request and when not to (as explained by Johuniq above) NE Ent 02:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)