Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Drafts on a users main user page

I wish to call attention to three recent Teahouse threads, all illustrating the same issue. These are Drafting an article on a userpage, Draft in user page, and my article deleted. (The links here will need ot be updated when these threads are archived, as they will probably be within a few days at most.)

The underlying issue: if a user (say User:Newbie) has a draft for an article, that is at least arguably a plausible draft, even if needing much work to be valid, on his or her main user page, that is at User:Newbie, and not at User:Newbie/topic or at User:Newbie/Sandbox, what actions if any may or should an uninvolved editor (perhaps a NPP member) who notices this to take.

WP:UPYES includes in the list of things allowed in user space pages: Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages). That (usually on subpages) is probably grounds to politely suggest to the user that such a page be moved to a sub-page as a user draft. Whether it justifies making such a move preemptively is not exactly clear.

I think we should have clearer guidance for this situation than an implication drawn from a parenthetical note. As Marchjuly wrote in the "my article deleted" thread:

I agree that U5 applies the same way to all pages in the username space, but I think lots of editors see/treat user pages as being different from user subpages, perhaps because they’re easier to find since almost all signatures contain a link to them, and thus feel U5 is more of a concern for user pages than subpages; in other words, the former seemed to be more highly scrutinized/monitored than the latter.

It seems to me that our main choices are:

1. Make it explicit that such drafts may and should be moved by any good-faith editor to a user subpage of the same user, and an appropriate note left;
2. Make it explicit that such drafts should not be moved withotu the consent of the user who posted them, unless they are seriously disriptive;
3. Something else I haven't thought of.

pinging users involved in the above-linked threads: @LPS and MLP Fan, Hugsyrup, Usedtobecool, Subwaymuncher, Ruslik0, and Taewangkorea:

I would very much appreciate comments by other editors, in hops of achieving a consensus to modify the Guideline page in accord with one of the above options, or otherwise handling this matter. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I tend to favor choice 1, move to a user sub page, but don't feel strongly. But this is an issue we should all be on the same page about if possible. I do feel that if a move is done, a note should be left, to avoid WP:BITEing the user whose userspace the draft is in, and that the redirect from the page move should be suppressed or tagged for G6 speedy deletion (housekeeping). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

A userpage will not always have the entirity of its history just about that one draft. So, moving the page would mess up the history of the draft, and lose the complete history of the userpage. The userpage should always retain its complete history, so moving a userpage with or without suppressing the redirect is a no-no from me. The only case where I would not oppose this is if the move is discussed with the user in advance and they agree to a cut-paste move (leaving the history intact on the userpage) or the userpage's complete history is unquestionably related to the draft in question. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool In pretty much all the cases of this that I have seen, the user page was initially created to hold the draft, and has never contained anything else. In such cases, a move, at least if agreed to by the user, does seem to me the ideal solution. The users are generally quite new. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I would add that much the same objections apply to the use of a sandbox for the initial creation of a draft, but that is frequently advised, and if the user then adds an AfC template, a sandbox is invariably moved to draft space. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think you have to be careful here that more WP:BURO is not inadvertently created in an attempt to further specify what can/cannot be done. Guidelines and policies, etc. often tend to be written in general terms simply because it's often impossible to cover or foresee every possible way they can be applied; so, individual cases often require individual discussion which kind of seems how things are set up to work now. Some user pages for sure are going to be mistaken for WP:FAKEARTICLEs and maybe tagged as such in good-faith by others, but ultimately whether a page is deleted per WP:U5 ultimately is going to depend upon the administrator reviewing the tag. So, I think it might be best to rely on administrators to do the right thing and follow already existing procedures where concerns are raised that they haven't. Same goes for user pages ending up at WP:MFD.
  FAKEARTICLE, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:UPNO, etc. all seem to be clear as to what kinds of things are not OK for user pages. So, if someone is working on what looks like a legitimate draft on their user page, it perhaps could be suggested to them to move it to a WP:USD or WP:DRAFTS just as a precaution and to avoid any misunderstandings but I'm not sure they or anyone else should be required to move the page. If the page is copy-paste moved in good-faith by another editor to another page but the creator wants it back on their user page, the creator should be able to undo the move without question; however, if the creator says nothing or seems happy (e.g. continues to work on the draft at its new location), then it makes no sense to move the content back just for the sake of moving it back because permission wasn't received in advance. The only time where a page move to the draft namespace should be "required" is when the userspace draft is submitted to AfC for review since that seems to be the preferred namespace for AfC drafts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Having gone through the guidelines more extensively, I quite like the status quo, I tend to generally agree with Marchjuly above. If the userpage qualifies for CSD, CSD it. If it doesn't, politely inform the user that an article draft is "usually kept in the subpages" and that you would be willing to help if they are willing to develop it in a more appropriate location, but there is no reason to press them unless the draft resembles a fake article. If the draft has not been worked on in a while and the user is inactive {{Userpage blanked}} looks a firm and non-aggressive way of both hiding it from passersby and informing the user that the hosting of the draft on userpage is moving into the inappropriate territory. If the page needs to be deleted but doesn't qualify for a CSD, MFD is always there. In cases where the userpage is clearly problematic but doesn't meet G11, G12 or U5, I think taking it to their talk page would be best, which would quickly determine their intent regarding their membership here, and it would get settled one way or the other. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Slightly surprisingly, since we seemed to disagree at one of the threads in question, I agree with Marchjuly here. The various policies referenced already seem to be fairly clear, and I don’t really think anyone seriously believes that a parenthetical statement of what is ‘usually’ the case is a justification to preemptively move another users’ otherwise harmless userpage draft. All that tends to lead me towards option 2, but only because I think that’s more or less where the current status quo is. Hug^syrup 07:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I only stated that "drafts" which linger for too long on a user page run the risk of being deleted per WP:U5; I never stated or implied (at least I don't believe I did) that such drafts should be deleted per U5. I also stated that because such a risk exists, the creator, after being informed of this risk, would be wise to move the draft to another more suitable page if they intend to continue working on it before someone else does it for them or deletes the page altogether, but once again this doesn't mean that I think that such a page should be required to be moved or deleted. When a draft is speedied by an admin, the only thing that us non-admins can see is that the page was deleted for such and such a reason; so, unless we actually saw the page before it was deleted, we will have no idea as to whether the draft was legitimate or was promotional. I do think, however, that a bit more leeway tends to be given to userspace drafts and drafts when it comes to U5, etc., but even that's no guarantee as can be seen from the number times there's a post like WP:THQ#why my page deleted? at the Teahouse. Unquestionable WP:NOT content is most likely going to end up being deleted/removed no matter where its put and regardless of who put it there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, apologies, I mistakenly read an implication into 'runs the risk of being deleted' that deletion would be supported by policy. But I'd personally prefer not to advise a user to do something simply to avoid the risk of another editor and an admin acting against policy. If users, and especially admins, are incorrectly applying U5 then that can and should be addressed with them. Hug^syrup 09:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• The problem is the "current status quo" is not really either option. I have seen a number of experienced editors "preemptively move" such drafts -- I've done it myself, until the threads above caused me to consider just what the justification for doing so is. In the absence of a clear statement about whether or when such preemptive moves are justified, "judgement" is likely to be all over the map. By the way I am not primarily concerned about whether such pages are subject to the CSD -- i do agree those are fairly clear, but about preemptive moves (although I have seen quite a few rather BITEy and IMO invalid U5 deletions). And I do hope that no experienced editor would do or suggest a cop&paste move, ever. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • All copy-paste moving of content is not necessarily bad. Working on new content in your sandbox and then copying and pasting it into an article is fine and you don't even need to add attribution if it's 100% your own work per WP:NOATT. When you "move" content from another editor's user page to a newly created user subpage, I don't think you necessarily need to WP:MOVE the userpage to a new name in the same namespace as long as you provide proper attribution in your edit summary on both pages so that attribution is preserved and others know where the content went and where it came from. FWIW, I don't think I've ever preemptively moved one of these draft to a user subpage; I've suggested it on some occasions, but left it up to the creator to move the content. In the past when you've preemptively moved a draft from a user page to a user subpage, did you actually MOVE the page to a new name or did you create a user subpage and then copy and paste the content from the user page onto the new user subpage? During the former seems more likely to cause confusion and problems than the latter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I did a true WP:MOVE with the redirect suppressed. It would never have occurred to me to do a copy&paste move, and I wouldn't do it now that it has been suggested. Yes, if there is only one author attribution is preserved, but I feel it is still poor practice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

      DESiegel, I still think it's inappropriate to delete someone's userpage when they've done nothing wrong. Having a draft is allowed and moving it somewhere else and deleting the userpage is still deleting the userpage that didn't violate any PAG, even if there is no other history before drafting began. I suggested copy-paste move to preserve the userpage history as the less problematic option because the user will still know where to get the previous revisions from (which a new user rarely needs barring some accidental blanking), other people don't need the history as it is a userspace draft. I did not think of attribution when making that suggestion, a problem easily avoided by having the user create the target themself, rather than doing it ourselves.

      Anyway, all this was before I thought of WP:HISTSPLIT. Turns out this actually already exists, and so that is obviously the choice here. Move the draft with only it's history using HISTSPLIT method. Will reiterate again that this is to be done with the user's permission only, since there is no policy against developing a valid draft on the userpage, and I don't think there ought to be, since that is what most new users instinctively do, and is exactly that which allows problematic new pages from new users to be easily caught (from signatures) and fixed. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

      • I don't see any problem with a true move with the user's consent. Nor do I see any value in the user page's history remaining when the content has been moved elsewhere. Surely it is better that the history stay with the content when this is practical. Note that the default sandbox contains a 'submit your work for reveiw" button, which if clicked adds an AfC tmeplate, which is invariably followed by a true move of the sandbox to draft space. Most users who click such a button do not expect such a move, and surely did not consent to it. I have done history splits. When there is enough history to make them worth doing, they require significant effort, and of course can only be done by an admin. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

        DESiegel, HISTSPLIT doesn't leave the history of the content that's been moved behind, AFAICT. I agree that MOVE is essentially the same as HISTSPLIT when the userpage has no history other than the draft that is to be moved. I just like bluelinks for pages that were already created and didn't meet a valid criterion for deletion. Since we can't leave a redirect behind, I'd prefer it be a blank page that exists rather than a redlink. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

        If a blue link is the concern, one can do the move then create a blank page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

        I think we're on the same page for a userpage with no prior history. As you say you've done SPLITs when warranted, we are in agreement there too. I think we have established that valid drafts shouldn't be preemptively moved. So, it seems we have established Option 2 as the best choice. I think, as Hugsyrup says, that is more or less the status quo reading. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Based on the existing policies that I have read so far, it just says that this is allowed (but not really recommended) as long as it's not promotional, hoax, offensive and meets WP:UPNOT, but I guess my other concern is these drafts may show up on search engines. So I guess another option is by using Template:Userspace drafts so they can let others know that this is not a Wiki article but a user's work in progress and may be incomplete and/or unreliable... at the same time it'll have __NOINDEX__.   Sub |_HMU  09:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  Subwaymuncher, it says the entire User: namespace is already non-indexed. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  Pages in userspace (whether the user’s main page or a subpage) are automatically coded non-index... which means they don’t show up on search engines. Which leads me to ask: why is this a problem? Why do we CARE if a userpage contains draft material. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, I don't think either options 1 or 2 are the status quo. I think the status quo is that each case is being assessed by individual editors who then, based upon their interpretation of U5, decide whether something needs to be done. If the status quo were really option 2, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
  It might be a good idea to seek even more feedback about this than what has already been posted here by adding a {{Please see}} to WP:VPR or adding the discussion to WP:CENTRAL. What's being discussed here might seem to be a bit of a no brainer to those who frequently help out at the Teahouse, but there might be wider implications that aren't being fully considered here. Moreover, if you're going to start telling people they cannot do certain things (which option 2 seems to do), then you're should also consider what actions are to be taken if they do those certain things. A WP:RFC might even be a good idea if your going to start tinkering with the wording of a fairly important guideline like WP:UP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Marchjuly I agree that the status quo is neither 1 nor 2: rather it is inconsistency with no basis for a decision. Both options give instruction: choice 1 tells users that they should not put drafts on their main user pages, and that if they do, any editor may move them. Choice 2 instead tells editors that they should not make such moves without discussing it with the user whose usespace it is first, and obtaining that user's agreement. If there is consensus for choice 2 and an editor makes such a preemptive move anyway. I suppsoe it would be treated a bit like a violation of WP:TPO Ii.e. editing someone else's comments, with intention and good faith having a good deal to do with the response, but usually just a warnign unless the ed9itor clearly knew better and was being disruptive.DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC) {U|Marchjuly}} DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• I have no objection to seeking wider views -- I already posted pointers at several places (WT:NPP and WT:CSD and the Teahouse.) Before goign to WP:CENTRAL I think there should be a formal RfC, and I wanted some initial views before writing up such a thing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think choice 1 is favorable. I think it is important to avoid confusion when it comes to making a draft in the userpage instead of as a draft. A userpage is for telling others about yourself. Choice 1 will also benefit the user. For instance, if the user makes a draft about a company or person, it might make others think he/she has a conflict of interest, even if they do not. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Help requested - User page not created?

Hello,

I'm trying to thank people by sending barnstorm, but I receive a message saying the user page has not been created. I know there should be a user page, because the people participated in our Wikipedia edit-a-thon. I don't want to create a user space without others' consent though. This is the message I see -

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Frg57.

To start a page called User:Frg57, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then publish it.

Any help appreciated, thanks. Medlib.here (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Medlib.here November 20, 2019 09:12 AM

You can leave the barnstars on their user talk pages which can and are mostly created by users other than whoever's talk they are. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I'm surprised to be reverted not once, but twice, each time with inappropriate edit summaries:

• "this is an addition to the guideline that must be discussed before adding"
• "don't be daft, I'm challenging this addition to the guideline, take it to the Talk page"

There is, of course, no requirement that edits be discussed before they are made; that's a fundamental Wikipedia policy. And an editor of long-standing, not to mention an admin, should not only know this, but also know that it is unacceptable to insult fellow editors. As for "take it to the Talk page", it is always ironic to be told to do so by an edit warrior who does not use the talk page themself before repeating their reverts.

The substance of the edit was to add ***'''You must declare paid editing''' on either your user page or elsewhere; see [[WP:PAID]]''' to the section on "Significant editing disclosures" which is subtitled "voluntary but recommended". The requirement to declare paid editing is a "bright line" WMF policy, applicable by community consensus to this project, and far from voluntary; it is misleading for the page as it stands to let editors think otherwise.

I note that no substantive objection to the edit has been expressed.

Before my reverted edit the page did not mention paid editing at all. The wording should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:PAID, as your edit acknowledges, does not need to occur on the user page itself (though I suspect that's our general preference). I would suggest a similar edit but softer wording. "Review WP:PAID and decide wehther you want to put a disclosure on your user page" might be a better direction. In general I do support an addition here of some sort. --Izno (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This omits the fact that declaration of paid editing is mandatory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Which is not directly relevant here. If the user was required to declare on their user page, different story, but they are not. --Izno (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Support your changes although could I make the small suggestion that you format it so that it is indented to be level with the bullet above, which it expands upon, but is not itself a bullet point. The reason being that elsewhere in that table, second level bullet points are generally used for examples of things described by the first level bullets, and third-level bullets are not used at all. Instead, when a new line of text expands on the bullet point above it, it is simply indented - e.g. in the 'experimentation' or 'personal writings' boxes. Does that make sense?

As an aside, the page states at the top 'Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.' which I suppose is where Bbb23 was coming from, although perhaps I'd agree that your change is not 'substantive' since it reflects well-established policy that is documented elsewhere. Hug^syrup 17:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• A problem with “You must declare paid editing on either your user page or elsewhere; see WP:PAID” is that it begs “or what”. Guidelines are devalued by hollow statement like that. In practical terms, how do you know a suspected UPE is a UPE? If they admit it, they are declared and therefore now compliant. Do their previous UPE product pages get deleted? No, because UPE is not a deletion reason, see WT:DEL. WP:PAID is toothless, what’s the point of adding toothless statements to other pages? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Whether it is toothless is irrelevant: it is still policy. Given that it purports a requirement for the user page, it should probably be mentioned here in some fashion. --Izno (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  It is not policy. Check the wording precisely. It cannot be policy, because policy must be actionable, not motherhood statements. "If you are paid to edit, declare it on your userpage" and imperative statement, is OK, but "You must declare" is not, because it is technically not true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  At the top of WP:PAID: This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. The Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use are approved by the Board of Trustees. (emphasis original). The text in question which you are claiming is not a policy statement is you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. (again, emphasis original). And, subsequently, They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries. Must is one of the stronger words of requirement (only shall might reasonably be seen as stronger, but only due to its formality and general locale in specifications and contracts) (see also RFC 2119). So, I don't know what to tell you, but that's a policy. --Izno (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  OK, the policy does say "must", but it is a fiction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Which is still irrelevant to whether this page says anything about the other. --Izno (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Undeclared paid editing is a violation of Wikimedia Foundation's meta:Terms of Use and I'm pretty sure that WP:PAID is English Wikipedia way of reflecting that. Whether everyone being "paid" does declare is of course the million dollar question, but that doesn't make the policy any less of a policy. It might not always be easy to find these editors, (in fact it may be impossible to find them) unless they are other issues in play or they post some generic statement hinting that they might be being paid to edit, but again that still doesn't make the policy not a policy, and editors suspected of violating PAID have been blocked for doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  UPE is a violation of the ToS, yes. WP:PAID tries to reflect that, but it isn't working. It is not a million dollar question, the answer is an obvious "No". They are not so hard to find. Peruse new pages for WP:CORP failures, and look at the authors. Throw-away accounts with a pretense of being genuine editors. Easy to find, hard to prove, no point trying to prove because when they complete their job the account is abandoned. Another sign is the few dozen byte long message put on their main userpage to turn it blue. Yes, UPE DUCKS are blocked, but this page is not blocking policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  UPE is a problem, and contributions which aren't in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines can be questioned and even undone, while articles created by UPEs can be deleted if they warrant deletion. This page doesn't deal with blocking UPE editors, it only deals with content on user pages. For example, WP:UP#Non-free files states that non-free content cannot be used on user pages, but that's not the governing policy which establishes such at thing as be not allowed, and the same could be said for WP:UP#Copyright violations, WP:UP#FAKEARTICLE and most of the other things listed in WP:UP#NOT. If you feel that a policy isn't being enforced as rigorously as it should, then that would be something to point out on the talk page of that particular policy since that the best place to try and get changes made. PAID is not going to be able to be changed by any discussion taking place here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Break: on reverting

• @Pigsonthewing: It's generally OK to be WP:BOLD even with respect to policy and guideline pages, but just like anything else it's sometimes better to be WP:CAUTIOUS. The fact that your change was reverted with a request that further discussion take place on the page's talk page isn't something which would be considered vandalism or some other form of disruption; so, it's generally a good idea to follow WP:BRD and see what others might have to say when that happens, unless your absolutely sure that reverting back to "your" version is a case of WP:3RRNO. BRD is not required and nobody can force an editor to discuss something that they don't wish to discuss, but WP:BRRD is also not really going to be considered an acceptable alternative. On policy and guideline pages in which even a slight change might impact lots of articles or users, it's probably better to be CAUTIOUS when reverted to address any concerns that might be raised and also ensure the best for the community as a whole. The additional made here means very little if it's not really reflected on other policy and guideline pages, and currently both WP:UPE and WP:PAID don't require that such users disclose their status on their user pages; they only suggest it. The user page might seem like the best places and for that reason it's often suggested as such, but it's not necessarily required as this addition would seem to imply even with the qualification "or elsewhere". The sentence beginning with "If you are editing for or on behalf of a company, organization, group, product, or person (etc.)" could possibly be expanded upon to make specific mention of WP:UPE since it's basically covering the same thing, but separating the two by bullet points or indentation makes it seem (at least in my opinion) that they're not really connected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • My edit was not "reverted with a request that further discussion take place on the page's talk page". Nor did it say that users are required to disclose their status on their user pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Bbb23's reverted your change the first time here. Are you stating that "this is an addition to the guideline that must be discussed before adding" was unclear since it didn't specifically state where this should be discussed? Would it have made a difference if the edit summary was "this is an addition to the guideline that must be discussed on WT:UP before adding" instead?. You reverted Bbb23 because you felt that their edit that this "must be discussed" wasn't policy, right? I'll agree with you that use of "must" might have been a bit strong. Would you have still reverted the edit if the edit summary was "this is an addition to the guideline that should be discussed"?
      As to your addition here, what I posted about it was it's not necessarily required as this addition would seem to imply even with the qualification "or elsewhere". The last part even with the qualification "or elsewhere" is what I was getting at. In my opinion, using the word "must" (in bold for emphasis) in a section titled "What may I have in my user pages?" as a separate bullet point for a list that states "Significant editing disclosures (voluntary but recommended)" seems to (even if it's unintentional) place more stress on "your user page" part of the sentence than it does on "elsewhere" part; so, perhaps there is a way to better do this which better ties your addition into the more general sentence that proceeds it instead of setting it off on it's own. For example, maybe something like this would work better:

      If you are editing for or on behalf of a company, organization, group, product, or person (etc.) which you wish to be open about in order to gain a good working relationship with the editing community as explained in WP:DISCLOSECOI. Undeclared paid contributions, however, are not allowed per the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and are required to be declared per WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY, and this may be done on your user page.

      -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Your proposal adds 38 words instead of 15, and is less clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
        • It may add more words, and it may be less clear (at least in in your opinion), but then again it's just a proposal. You're free to propose something less wordy and clearer if you like that accurately reflects how PAID is written and not how you think it should be written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
          • "You're free to propose something less wordy and clearer ... that accurately reflects how PAID is written" that's exactly what my original text does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
            • Apparently it didn't because (1) it was reverted not once but twice and (2) it's being disputed by other editors here on this talk page. Is it possible for you to rephrase what you feel should be added so that fits better with the tone of the entire section? Since my proposal doesn't seem to work, then what about the one that Izno suggested here. That's certainly less wordy than mine and seems even clearer than your suggestion. Perhaps there is a way to use both yours and Izno's suggestion to make things fit better and avoid any possible misunderstanding that editors are required to declare their PAID status on their user page; highly recommended perhaps, but not required. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to make a few editorial corrections (indicated by underlining). — 22:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)]
              • Your point (1), like your previous comment, supposes that the reason my edit was reverted - twice - was that it did not accurately reflect how PAID is written; that is far from the case, as the edit summaries I quoted show. Indeed, neither you nor anyone else has shown that my wording does not accurately reflects how PAID is written, either. Izno's proposal does not indiciate that declaring paid editing is mandatory; as I pointed out in my reply to it, timestamped 09:47, 23 December 2019. At no point, and certainly not in the reverted edit, did I suggest that declaring paid editing on the user page is mandatory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
                • You did not acknowledge my last point, which is that it being mandatory is irrelevant to this page. The edit in question does not indicate that it is mandatory on the user page, but it strongly implies it, which is part of my issue with your addition. At this point, you have enough editors disagreeing either in whole or in part with your edit that if you think a change should be made here, it should be after an WP:RFC presenting some of the options (do-nothing, my text, your text, and any others that have been suggested, or free forum if you want to go that way). (I am now the second editor to tell you that.) --Izno (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• I think it would be more productive to give guidance on how to declare. SPA paid editors often have the declaration as the only thing on their userpage. But what if the declaration is buried in a very large userpage. What if the declaration implies that the user is paid to edit smidges, and he his obfuscating that he is also paid to edit smodges? Should the declaration be above the fold? Should paid editors place themselves in a paid editors usercategory? What if they were once paid, but are no longer? What if they are editing in the hope of a future payment, a reward, but no contract? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • PAID editors aren't required to declare on their user page, but many do. They could just as easily declare in the edit sums of each edit they make or add {{Connected contributor (paid)}} templates to the articles they edit. In many cases, the "CC (Paid)" template is added by others in response to some declaration made somewhere on Wikipedia. Many editors use templates like {{Paid}} to declare and those that do use this template seem to be added to Category:Paid contributors, but there's not requirement that all accounts have a user page, yet alone that paid editor needs to create a user page; so, I'm not sure there's any specific category for Category:Paid contributors without user pages. Maybe there should be, but then you're going to basically say that they need to declare their contributions on their user page which is not the currently policy. The who reason for declaring is to make clear to other editors that there is a connection between editor and subject; it's matter of transparency, i.e. not trying to knowingly deceive others, right? So, if someone's user page is so cluttered that it's hard to find their PAID declaration and this is a problem because they're trying to WP:GAME relevant policies and guidelines, then there are probably other issues such as WP:NOTHERE, etc. which are also in play. At the same time, if someone has made a good-faith effort and declaring their PAID status and just happens to have lots of stuff on their user page, then I don't think it's something that really needs to be penalized. Perhaps, pointing it out to them and explaining that the whole point of declaring is to make it easier for others to see that "you are being paid" might be a good idea, but I'm not sure you can force them to do it a certain way.
    As for "persons no longer being paid", I guess that depends on the intent as well. Undeclared paid-contributions aren't allowed, but paid-contributions aren't prohibited and a paid editor who is able to comply with relevant policies and guidelines can directly edit articles; it's only when these edits are questioned by others that their paid status typically becomes an issue. So, if someone was once paid to edit an article but no longer is, then they would still be subject to the same policies and guidelines that all editors are subject to and their "paid status" will only become an issue if their edits become an issue. Someone who removes a PAID declaration from their user talk in attempt to deceive others is, once again, most likely going to end up being blocked for other issues; however, someone who removes a PAID declaration from their user talk page because they say they are no longer being paid and is doing their best to adhere to relevant policies and guidelines in good faith when they edit is unlikely going to have problems with others. Since Wikipedians have to be very careful discuss what other editors are doing out in the real world, there's no real way to verify whether someone is being paid or still being paid to edit so all that the project really has to go is whether they declare (or un-declare) and the quality of their edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I think PAID editors should be required to declare in a defined way, in a defined place. Ideally, all of: On their userpage, at the top; in there account name (i.e. must use a specific declared alternative account); by user categorization; on the talk page of any article that they were paid to contribute to.
      The real problem is how easy it is to make throwaway accounts. I think the answer is to require use of a telephone number to register. Everyone with access to the internet has access to someone with a telephone. Checkusers would have access to account-associate telephone numbers, to associate connected accounts, subject to the current privacy policy, except the data should be kept forever. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I understand your concerns, but these are problems that go beyond PAID since I'd venture to guess that many (if not most) throw-away accounts are not created necessarily created to cover up PAID editing; people create throw-away accounts for all kinds of reasons, but mostly to do no good. What you seem to be advocating is something that would need to be applied to all accounts to begin with and even then wouldn't eliminate the UPE problem as you seem to think it will. Whether unregistered accounts is something that should be allowed seems to have been discussed many times before and I don't think you're going to get very far with your register a telephone number suggestion; if you want to try, however, then perhaps WP:VPP would be a good place to test the waters. How would you even verify that someone is really giving you a legitimate or their actual telephone number? Who would do the verifying? Are you expecting CUs to start calling people to verify their real world identities and motivations? I think that's really runs the risk of becoming a problem per WP:OUTING and WP:OWH.
        Moreover, as I stated above, PAID editing is not prohibited; only UPE is. PAID editing might not be desirable and may lead to problems, but these are not necessarily just because the editor is being PAID, but rather because the editor is WP:NOTHERE. There are actually PAID editors who are able to work within relevant policies and guidelines and contribute productively, even directly edit articles without any issues and your suggestion would seem to actually penalize such people by further labeling them in some manner in their usernames. I don't see that as being productive, but again that might be something to discuss at either WT:PAID or WT:UN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Actually, this was discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_155#Require_registration_to_edit and closed as no consensus just a few weeks ago (I mentioned phone numbers there 04:42, 26 October 2019). I think we agree that the UPE and other problems are not about to be solved. I think there is no chance that adding "You must declare paid editing" to WP:UP will come close to solving anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• "give guidance on how to declare" Which is why my edit included see [[WP:PAID]]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Redux

Over 3,000 words, and four days, after my original post, and we still do not say anything about the fact that declaring paid editing is mandatory, and the user page is a place to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The user page is one place to do so, but it’s not the only place to do so and users are not required to do so on their user page. I don’t think anything more than that can be stated given the current wording of PAID and COI. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"The user page is one place to do so, but it’s not the only place to do so and users are not required to do so on their user page" Which is what my original text says. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but as I mentioned above I think the way you formatted and chose to word your post seems to place undue emphasis on the "userpage" part of your post and less on the "or elsewhere" part. Perhaps that's just me and if others feel differently than consensus will be to add/re-add your suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to make editorial correction (indicated by underlining). — 22:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)]

No, I have the same issue, as voiced above. --Izno (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• I support PAID declarations being required to be prominently displayed on the user's main userpage, but that need to first be the consensus at WP:PAID, and then WP:UP should repeat it.
  If PAID declarations are not required to be on the userpage, then I oppose putting anything at WP:UP, on the basis that it would be a "non-statement", adding bloat, decreasing clarity, and making WP:UP a worse-to-read guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There's already is content in that section related to WP:DISCLOSECOI which is something that is really "strongly encouraged" and "expected", but not "required" per se. So, it's not totally inappropriate to mention that a user page is also an acceptable place to make a PAID disclosure as long as is it doesn't say or strongly imply it needs to made on a user page. I do agree, however, that trying to do such a thing here would mean the PAID, etc. would need to be changed first. Anyway, it seems the neither side of the fence is going to convince the other side to jump over to theirs. So, perhaps the best way for those in favor of making any change to try and resolve this would be to seek further input from the community at large. There are a couple of ways to do this like WP:RFC, but {{Please see}} templates could be added to WT:PAID, WT:COI, WP:COIN, WP:VPP, etc. to try and get others involved. If more people are involved in the discussion, then whatever consensus is established is likely going to be stronger than a local consensus, particularly when it could possibly impact other policies and guidelines as well as lots of user pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Maybe. I think it is a much better idea for now to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Paid editing disclosures and deletion. What is the point of declaration being mandatory if there are no consequences to ignoring that rule? I think it is a quagmire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It is now eighteen days since my original post, and we still do not say anything about the fact that declaring paid editing is mandatory, and the user page is a place to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There is currently no consensus to include any wording suggested above. If you feel you would prefer more input, consider opening a formal RFC to amend the guideline and advertise it at CENT. Otherwise continued complaining here is likely to just irritate people. If you want a resolution to the above discussion I could formally close it with a template saying 'Andy's proposed changes have not been accepted' if that will make you feel better? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

We need to tell people, on this page, that that declaring paid editing is mandatory, and the user page is a place to do so. Your proposal to close this discussion, like the other proposals made to counter mine, does not do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph on how to contact a user / contributor?

I ended up here because I can't find out how to do that when I search the help function using "contact user". I remember there's a way to do it. In other systems, putting @ or + in front of a username generates a notification on their talk-page. Can't we put a link on how to contact a user / contributor or - in my case I'd like to contact multiple contributors in the section trying to come up with a good definition on what is a gene? Sincerely, SvenAERTS (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@SvenAERTS: For your immediate issue, see {{Reply to}}, editors prefer to use shorthands to the template such as, {{re}} and {{ping}}. You can also directly wikilink to their username like [[User:Username]]. The template documentation lists various ways of notifying editors. You cannot directly type @ or + to notify an editor. Your message with which you seek to notify must be signed. (more details at mw:Manual:Echo) --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Blanking stale user drafts etc

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_it_acceptable_to_blank_userspace_sandboxes_of_long-term/established,_but_inactive_editors?

Some editors are questioning WP:STALEDRAFT. – Fayenatic London 09:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• I am mildly, not highly, surprised at the strength of people’s aversion to self appointed userspace police blanking what they perceive as unsuitable userspace sandboxes. I welcome this clarity. WP:STALE needs some winding back, with I think some statement as to the threshold of a perceived problem of another user’s userspace content that third parties should “fix”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not surprised at all. I have never understood the rational behind WP:STALEDRAFT. How does the active/inactive status of an EDITOR affect whether the CONTENT of a subpage is appropriate/inappropriate?

It makes no sense to say that something is OK as long as the user is active, but will magically become not-OK if the user goes inactive.

I have no problem with blanking or deleting inappropriate material from userspace when we find it, but that determination should be based on the material itself, not the active/inactive status of the user.

We need to re-examine the entire concept behind WP:STALEDRAFT Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Another option

Should we mention that editors can move a “stale” draft to their own userspace (effectively adopting it as their own), and work on it there? Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it clear that a user should not have a copy of an article as their talk page?

I've told this user[1] but I'm not sure it's worth doing more. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:FAKEARTICLE is pretty clear on that. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect it's a competence issue. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Poorly-chosen styles (font etc.)

What do our policies and guidelines have to say about users who choose unreadable styles on, for example, their user talk pages? Slanted text, low-contrast colors, garish or offensive images, or an infinitesimal font that forces me to magnify the page before I can read it? I have sometimes come across <small> gone awry by accident, and I repair those instances, but when the user has purposely applied a <div> or CSS to his user talk page, do we fellow editors have a right to a readable page, and therefore a right to have my edit request granted by the owner? Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia user pages are subject to the same editorial standards as articles and users are given a fair amount of leeway when it comes to them as long as they avoid the things mentioned in WP:UP#NOT. Images aren’t really WP:CENSORed and tend to only be removed when WP:COPY or WP:UP#Non-free files are problems. If you have problems reading an particular user’s page, you can always bring it to their attention, but unless it’s a serious policy or guideline violation, you’re going to have a hard time forcing them to change things they don’t want to change. Even though user pages are not owned by users per WP:UP#OWN, over aggressively editing to try and impose some formatting or other standards is probably not going to be well received by the community and may even lead to a WP:BOOMERANG from the community if you push things too hard. Best to follow WP:UP#On others' user pages whenever possible and seek input from others (particularly admins) when faced with a user page that isn’t a clear-cut serious policy violation. Getting others involved often makes it clearer that it’s the community that finds a user page problematic and not just one editor. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding {{user page}} to another user's user page?

Currently the page says you may put the template on your OWN page. What about somebody else's? This is the user page bothering me, looks like an article. I think having the template might help distinguishing that it is not a wikipedia article. I'm sure there are many like it around, hence bringing this up here. --Palosirkka (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That particular account seems to be quite new and new accounts often aren’t very familiar with Wikipedia’s various policies and guidelines, particularly those related to user pages. New users often try to start drafts on their user pages or copy and paste content from articles onto them either to work on improvements or simply because they want to experiment with formatting, etc. and other sandbox types of edits. When you come across something such as this, it might be better to remember WP:BITE instead of assuming the worst right away. If you’ve got real concerns about what’s on the page, you could just ask them about it by posting a message on their user talk or even posting something like {{uw-userpage}} and see if they respond per WP:UP#On others' user pages. If it’s really a serious problem, then you could even seek administrator assistance/input at WP:AN or tag the page with {{db-u5}}. I’m not sure there’s anything to be gained from adding {{user page}} to another editor’s user page since they could just remove it if they want for pretty much the same reasons as given in WP:BLANKING, and you’re likely not going find any sympathy at WP:ANI or WP:AN3 if you keep trying to re-add it. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just let somebody else deal with it. --Palosirkka (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• WP:Trifecta #2. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Not very helpful. --Palosirkka (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that User:Elizium23 deleted the page and blanked its revision history; and without leaving an explanation on the user's talk page. That all seems rather aggressive, and contrary to WP:BITE. It would have been better to move it to the user's sandbox,where such content is perfectly aceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I did not delete the page, nor did I blank its revision history. I blanked the page per WP:FAKEARTICLE but most importantly per WP:COPYVIO, since it was an unattributed copy. Since I am not an administrator, I am clearly not the one who revdel'd the history. That required some cooperation. I apologize for not communicating on the user talk page; I probably could have handled it better. Elizium23 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

The first sentence of the section Ownership and editing of user pages is mispunctuated. It says, "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." Instead, it should say "Traditionally, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit.", with a comma after "Traditionally". Momo824 (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing

Six months since this edit, and with the previous discussion of its reversion archived, this page still does not say anything about the fact that declaring paid editing is mandatory, and the user page is a place to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take the previous advice and open an RFC to amend the guide and advertise it more widely. Although while PAID doesnt stipulate you must declare it on the userpage I doubt your previous addition will pass. But at least you would have a more definitive answer from a pool of people wider than the 5 or 6 editors who have this watchlisted. Really you get given advice regularly on how to get what you want but you insist on whining like a spoilt child instead of doing something that would actually be constructive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The policy is at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure not at User pages. And your idea would conflict with / require a change in the policy which says that disclosure in any of the three ways fulfills the requirement. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It would not; as explained in the previous discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In the previous conversation you were told you were wrong. Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy and is unlikely to get you anywhere. Either start the RFC that you have been asked for, or move along. --Izno (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary; the claim "your idea would conflict with/ require a change in the policy..." is what is being asserted without proof. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If you believe so, I am sure you can gather support from the community via a widely advertised RFC. I await the day you start it. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Need to update #Protection of user pages

In cases in which the filter is insufficient in preventing vandalism to a non-administrator's user page...

This paragraph needs to be re-done now that editors can be "page-blocked." There is no longer much reason fully protect a user page of an active editor if vandalism is the only problem. Primary pages are effectively semi-protected anyway. Other userspace pages can be semi-protected to protect from non-logged in editors.

Suggested version:

draft replacement

In cases in which the filter is insufficient in preventing vandalism to a non-administrator's user page, request that an administrator semi-protect the page and/or block the vandalizing editor from editing that page for a period of time. an editor may create a .css suffixed sub-page containing their user page content within their user space, transclude the sub-page into their main user page, then request that an administrator fully protect their user page. (For instance, create User:Example User as {{User:Example User/userpage.css}}.) This method will completely prevent further vandalism by limiting user page editing to yourself, and interface administrators since ".js" and ".css" pages in userspace can only be edited by them. Note that the addition of inappropriate content to your user page after locking other editors out is considered a serious offense.

Suggestions welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Anecdotally, vandalism of user pages is generally done by IPs and/or throwaway accounts, and usually those vandals are NOTHERE anyway; what is the purpose of p-blocking someone who will just go find somewhere else to vandalize before being indeffed? Primefac (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice the "and/or" - depending on the circumstances, semi-protection, p-blocking, or both may be warranted. The point of the rewrite was to remove the bit about full protection and the css work-around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough (re: and/or), but why do we need to remove the .css bit? I agree that the first sentence should probably be In cases in which the filter or semiprotection is insufficient... (change bolded), but the .css bit is pretty clever. I also reiterate my point that anyone who is consistently vandalising someone's page to the point where they would be p-blocked should be indeffed anyway. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I would honestly remove the .css bit because it is obnoxious for gnomes to have to deal with pages that are protected like that, aside from any questions of the above. :) --Izno (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hah! In thinking about it further, we could probably remove that entire paragraph, sticking In cases in which the filter is insufficient in preventing vandalism to a non-administrator's user page, an editor may request that it be protected. to the previous paragraph. Less wordy, and gets the job done (plus, it matches the following paragraph about blocking users performing post-protection vandalism). Primefac (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Background color

Are there any restrictions placed on the background color which can be used for user pages?

I didn't find anything in WP:UP about this, and the closet thing that I could find which might cover this is in MOS:COLOR.

The reason I'm asking about this has t do with User:AichiWikiFixer and User talk:AichiWikiFixer. The talk page, in particular, is quite difficult to read (at least it is for me) given that the black text is being added to a dark maroon background. There are, for example, restrictions place upon the use of color per WP:SIGAPP and the choice of color might also be an MOS:ACCESS (MOS:COLOR) issue, but maybe lots of leeway is granted to the user namespace with respect to this type of thing.

It seems counterproductive to set up your user talk page to make it extremely difficult to read, but then again that might be why it was set up that way. Anyway, I'm just curious is there's anything about this in the UP guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Besides the basic requirement for text to be accessible at WCAG AA contrast or better, no, not really. --Izno (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK

Wikipedia:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK says that "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."

I recently expressed my opinion on an unblock request, explaining why I think that request should be denied. The user removed it, and when I restored it with an additional note that such behavior shows that he is not yet ready for an unblock, my post was again removed, this time by an uninvolved editor. This editor referred explained that his removal was in accordance with WP:BLANKING, which is a disambiguation page, but I guess he meant Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. I think this editor made a mistake.

It seems obvious to me that if we allow users to remove negative opinions on their unblock request, then that is tempering with a "community process", and leads to uninformed and slanted decisions regarding such an important thing as a block or unblock. In view of the above, I think we should add "Ongoing unblock requests" to the list of exceptions. After all, an unblock request is indeed basically a "community process" which for obvious reasons can take place only on the user's talkpage. That, however, does not mean that he user can be allowed to actively temper with that discussion. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I placed a notification of this thread on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

While I kind of understand your position, I also have noticed that user talk pages can become drama boards and attract comments that are more about rehashing old disputes, seeking revenge of some sort or doing a bit of gravedancing. Claims may be made that the blocked editor can't really respond to in anything other than totally apologetic manner because anything else might be seen as being WP:NOTTHEM by a reviewing admin, but the desire to defend oneself and respond will be quite strong. I think reviewing admins are perfectly capable of digging a little bit deeper into an unblock request and seeking out input from others when they feel the requester is being less than sincere. If someone is pinged into a discussion about an unblock request by the reviewing admin, then that seems fine since there is constructive feedback being sought. It's the unsolicited comments that seem to try and keep a dispute going at all costs which seem counter-productive to the entire unblock process. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly Here is a practical example of what Debresser is talking about. I made a comment in an unblock discussion, pinging two admins, then it was removed. Later one of the admins (Cullen328) did find that removal confusing: that was weird getting pinged and not finding my username mentioned after reading the thread three times.VR _talk 05:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The comment you posted was acknowledged by the blocked editor with a "thanks". While it might seem odd that they would remove a post supporting their unblock, they shouldn't be forced to keep even positive posts just because they're blocked. Sure it's a bit weird to get pinged to a page and then go there and find nothing mentioning you there, but you can usually find out why you were pinged in the page's history. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't be considered truly neutral since I am part of the specific incident being discussed. But I was confused only for a few moments and do not want to make a big deal out of my specific experience. My thoughts are that current block notices and current unblock conversations with administrators should be kept intact and visible. But blocked editors should be free to delete comments from non-administrators offering unwanted advice, as long as the blocked editors have talk page access. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

1. What you say has an underlying assumption that only admins have the right to comment on unblock discussions. While it is true that this something only admins can do, I see no reason why only admins can comment on such a discussion. Do we have any such rule anywhere? 2. Even if users "should be free to delete comments from non-administrators", we should still add an exception here for "Admin comments on ongoing unblock requests". Debresser (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've commented on unblock requests, and I'm not an admin. My comments are usually along the lines of "until you do XYZ, you are very unlikely to be unblocked. I hope you do eventually return and become a productive editor, even if that won't be for awhile." Sometimes I link to WP:Standard offer or WP:Clean start and may remind them that block-evasion is a bad idea as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, I am definitely not saying that only administrators have the right to comment on a block. Any editor can comment, but the issue is the blocked editor's right to remove comments from their own talk page. Only administrators have the power to accept or decline unblock requests in most cases, and that is why I made the distinction that I did. Often, several administrators review unblock requests, and I think that they should see the reasoning of previous declines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 The last part of what you wrote explains indeed why this guideline forbids to remove past declined unblock requests from a user's talkpage. However, how logical is it that a user may remove any and all negative comment on an ongoing unblock request? Let's not forget that the only reason unblock requests often, although not always, take place on a user's talkpage, is because that is the only page they can edit. If not that, the discussion would take place on an admin forum. Now you surely agree that in that case, if the discussion would indeed take place on an admin forum, the user would not have the right to remove any comments whatsoever. Since the only reason the discussion of unblock requests takes place at a user's talkpage is technical, to allow him to post the request and participate in it, surely the rules should be the same as on an admin forum, meaning that the user should not be allowed to remove any comments whatsoever, at least while the discussion is ongoing. I think this is very logical, and the community interest should outweigh a blocked user's freedom to do with his talkpage as he pleases, at least for the duration of the unblock discussion. Sorry for being so verbose. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, I understand your point, and there is a certain logic to it. My thinking is that blocked users still control their talk pages unless they abuse that right, and I think they should be permitted to remove comments they consider to be trolling, gravedancing or harassment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 And I would agree with that on any other part of their talkpage, but not where there is ongoing discussion about their unblock request, because that gives them an unfair tool to slant the discussion in their favor. Also consider that you said "remove comments they consider to be trolling, gravedancing or harassment", but who is going to be the judge of that? Certainly not an editor who has just been blocked for bad behavior, and in addition has all the reasons in the world to remove negative comments. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, I've already said that I think you are making some valid points, and say so again. But I side with editor autonomy. To answer your question about "who is going to be the judge of that?", my reply would be the blocked editor who retains talk page access. An administrator contemplating an unblock has access to the editor's talk page history including their reversions. One does not become an administrator through falling off a turnip truck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I hate to be overly bureaucratic about this, but per the linked section, users can remove whatever they want (as long as it's not a declined unblock request etc). This means any discussion about that block is fair game for removal. If anyone wants that changed, it will need consensus. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Primefac Which is precisely what I am proposing and arguing for here, as you can read above in detail. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I failed to see that sentence. Primefac (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this would open the door to gravedancing and hounding. Blocked editors retain control over their talk pages until access is completely taken away (with the obvious exception of declined unblock requests). Generally, we should pursue strategies for reducing the heat in an unblock discussion. Allowing non-admins with a vested interest in the dispute to override the talk page sovereignty of the blocked editor creates a more hostile environment. If an editor feels that strongly about making their voice heard, they'll just have to go elsewhere. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Lepricavark. While my comments on a blocked user's talk should be retained,^[joke] I've seen plenty of other comments that are unhelpful. Arguing about which are ok to remove is pointless. If commenting with evidence, use an edit summary with the key point prominent (without being overly unpleasant). An admin thinking about an unblock should check talk history and should be able to find pertinent comments. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC about unblock requests for partial blocks

Should the criterion for not removing unblock requests for partial blocks at WP:UP#CMT be changed? For reference:

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, including partial blocks.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support The block requests are useless once declined, unless something is used for it with future appeals. Arsonxists (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Background: A question about partial unblock requests appeared on the WP:ANI. Some commenters supported an all-or-nothing approach (i.e., every single unblock request for the active partial block must be displayed on the user's talk page) while others suggested that that may provoke a negative reaction from an otherwise productive editor. For example, I speculated on the ANI thread that:

  [...] it forces the user to either resign themselves to forever being blocked from that page range or pray they're lucky enough to have it appealed on their first request to not incur a buildup of denied unblock requests, as there shouldn't be anything stopping the user from making a new one every few months(?).

The talk page comment removal policy does not include a criterion about removing the block notices themselves.

Proposal: While the RfC is merely asking if the criterion should just be changed, I would like to present the following proposal as a potential solution:

If denied appeals for partial blocks must be present, only the most recent one should be displayed on the user's talk page. Any previous unblock requests for partial blocks should be stored in an archive page that is linked from the user's talk page. This would prevent the talk page from being cluttered but retain the visibility that at least one unblock request has been made.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - how does this proposal stop an editor from removing declined appeals from subpages? Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't want to get too wordy, but the critical point is the visibility of said denied unblock requests on the user's talk page. It would be fine to forbid the removal of the denied requests on the subpage, and if they were removed, the subpage's relatively smaller history would make it easier to restore them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 14:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• The proposal is unclear. Should it be changed?? Changed to what? My opinion, cut the line completely. Block notices may be removed. Declined unblock requests may be removed. Don't force them to host the badge of shame. Removal is taken as acknowledgement of the notice. A blank talk page is a genuine statement of taking a break. Admins who are concerned with the block and previous unblock requests should know how to access the page history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with SmokeyJoe. Remove the line completely first choice; change "including partial blocks" to "not including partial blocks" second choice. Badge of shame is counterproductive; blank talk page is good for blocked users; admin can find what they need in the page history (which they should be checking before processing an unblock request anyway). Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Agree as well. The beauty of a partial block is that it "gently" guides an errant editor away from trouble without making them feel totally cast out. A badge of shame works against that goal. EEng 08:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Agree. It's time to get rid of that ancient ritual, which serves more like a badge of shame than a useful tool for administrators. If a log of denied unblock requests is badly needed, a technical solution could be developed so that it's stored in the user's block log along with the original block. But I don't see a pressing need for that. No such user (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we please address this self-contradictory statement

GNG does not apply to drafts, but user space drafts where GNG is the only concern to moving them to the main space are not to be kept indefinitely.

GNG doesn't apply ... but it applies ... but nobody knows at what point it applies.

This was, if I recall correctly, one part of a much larger RfC. Perhaps it's time to have a new one focused on this question. I feel like I pretty regularly see people !voting delete on userspace drafts with no basis aside from this line. As such we have a situation where "GNG does not apply" or "not to be kept indefinitely" are applied rather arbitrarily. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable reminder that we are not a web host. The RFC you're referencing appears to be in the footnote for list item #2. --Izno (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST is generally about material unrelated to Wikipedia. If we're calling something a "draft" we're already taking for granted that it's intended to be an article on Wikipedia. I also disagree that it's a reminder of anything other than that guidelines are not holy scripture but messy guidance that can even be self-contradictory. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If we're calling something a "draft" we're already taking for granted that it's intended to be an article on Wikipedia. Intention doesn't mean a lot. Basically the gist of the sentence is "if you're going to draft stuff on Wikipedia, make sure it meets the bar for inclusion into the mainspace". Another way might be "don't make a draft for Stuff that isn't in the mainspace at the end of the day". Both of those reasonably extend NOTWEBHOST to me.

As for the concern about timeline, sure, an RFC seems reasonable. I'm kind of skeptical that an RFC will be able to settle on a time, what-with the grumbles I've seen about G13. --Izno (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Cut the sentence, or at least everything after the comma. People should leave others userspace alone, unless there is a WP:UPNOT or a WP:NOT failure, or they want to productively work with a draft. Note that "AfC drafts" are routinely moved to draftspace, and are subject to WP:G13. If people do not want their userspace drafts being deleted per G13, they need to strip the AfC taggery. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Your opinion is not current consensus, or rather, not the current lack of consensus. The 2016 RFC referenced at "Furthermore" contains some discussion on it. Removing it with an RFC on the books without a subsequent RFC seems ill-thought. --Izno (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Izno, I didn't mean to so much to speak to a consensus as to note that it seems to be a non-statement that creates confusion and helps nothing. "GNG applies" is an odd concept. WP:NMFD is what states clearly enough that notability, including the GNG, is not a reason per se for deletion. I have no issues with the 2016 RfC results, but I do think this statement is odd. At least, re-word it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"are not to be kept indefinitely"? I feel that there are some word missing just before this. "the main space are not to be kept indefinitely" just hurts my brain the more I look at it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• So if we were going to have an RfC, what would the options be? In an effort to avoid relitigating specifics that were part of the previous RfCs, maybe we can just try to settle the contradiction with the understanding that one of the two parts will need to change. So e.g. "Should userspace drafts be deleted on the basis of notability?" with the explanation that "no" will mean removing the second part of the line and "yes" will require a subsequent RfC determining timelines (with a mandate this time). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Question - Everyone always focuses on what to do with potential articles being drafted in userspace... but what about material that is never intended to be a stand alone article? For example, one might work on a potential article section in userspace. Any guidance we give needs to acknowledge this acceptable use of userspace. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• I always parsed/understod this sentence to mean "The General Notability Guideline does not routinely apply to drafts in userspace for the purposes of a deletion process. Drafts in user space where General Notability is the only concern preventing them being moved to the main space are not to be kept indefinitely." E.g a fully completed article in userspace that only has notability issues may be deleted for failing notability unless there is clear indication they may become notable soon (politicians about to become elected for the first time to a generally notable position for example). Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also if anyone really wants to start policing people's userspaces. I invite you to waste some time here. Enjoy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User page which re-directs to an article

Is it acceptable for a user to setup their user page as a re-direct to an article? It seems disruptive to me as other editors can not easily access their page through edit history but I can not find any specific policy Slywriter (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's generally not preferred, since it makes communication harder. Generally these redirects are left over from a draft being created in the user space and then moved without the redir being removed. I don't think there's specifically a policy on the matter but I remove them when I see them. As a side note, I see nothing wrong with user pages redirecting to that user's talk page. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Link is to the Wikipedia article and was an intentional re-direct created a few days ago. I'll drop a note on their talk page asking them to remove. And certainly wouldn't be concerned if it was to Talk. Slywriter (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Addition to things that can't be removed from a talk page

Currently, unblock requests about an active block can't be removed.

I would like to add (or clarify) that the actual block notice(s) can't be removed either, while the block is ongoing. Subject to changes in other discussions, this would only apply to site-blocks and sitebans (not TBANs/IBANs). It is extremely critical information that otherwise requires a script and some exploration to ensure awareness of - as that would be sufficient for unblock requests as well, logically it would also be viewed as excessive here.

This seems a fairly minor change, but happy to set-up and structure as a formal RfC if people think that preferable Nosebagbear (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Just speaking about the last comment, I don't think this is a minor change but I also don't think we need a full RfC over this. I could be wrong, but I think there should be some discussion on the matter. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There has been recent discussion of this somewhere or another. Izno (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. Earlier discussions have made it clear that forcing badges of shame on users is not useful. If it's necessary to know something about an editor, look at their contributions page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

My point is that it's more knowing that something is there. If that reasoning holds up then why isn't it the case for unblock requests? It would be non-coherent. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If someone is blocked and they accept it (they go quiet until the block expires), there is no point in requiring the fact that they are blocked to be displayed. People do change and being nice about the situation can help. However, if a blocked editor is requesting an unblock, people reviewing should be able to see everything pertinent to that unblock request. That's the reason for the restriction on removal. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I thought WT:UP#RfC about unblock requests for partial blocks was fairly clear that badges of shame are not the way to do things. Unblock requests can be removed by the blocked user, and this is taken as a sign of acceptance.
  Block notices? This is a different question. What is the policy on block notices? I would expect it to be written at WP:BLOCK? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That RfC pertains to partial blocks, and I think came to a fair outcome. This doesn't apply to non siteblocks. Currently per this page, there isn't any rule that blocks must be kept on talk page by the blocked editor. The case that knocked me here is that an editor had made some distinctly problematic comments on their talk page, so in handling that I posted a warning. It was only when I refreshed that my user-script that notes blocked users kicked in (sometimes it doesn't always take on first load) and I realised they were, in fact, already blocked and removal of talk page access would be the more logical choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it far better problem-person management to let them remove all acknowledged reprimands, failed requests etc. them clearing their talk page and going inactive for a while is probably always a very good sign. when they return, they don't have to start again under the badges of shame. If they continue to be disruptive with their user_talk page, removal of talk page access is logical, and slapping worse and worse templates on them is not. De-escalation. Loss-of-face transitioning to threat-strategies is the wrong direction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe is right that de-escalation should be the goal. And to answer the question of where the policy is, it is in this guideline (the fact that this page is only a guideline is something of a historical quirk). The policy is that barring the stated exceptions, user talk page contents can be removed. I happen to agree with this policy as I've seen lots and lots of disruption caused by behaviour which aims to retain content against a user's will. The inevitable result is users will get their TPA revoked more often, even without anything considered remotely abusive, and often further displaced disruption. Block notices are visible both in the contributions page and while editing the talk page. Could I suggest that if the script you are using needs to consider whether a user is blocked and doesn't, then the script needs some modification, or a more secondary role? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Restoring fun

There was never a very strong rationale behind stigmatizing having games on the user page; and whatever there might have been seems dated now. Having fun on the wiki is a healthy balance to what can otherwise be intense work, and having fun with peers and fellow editors strengthens the community which helps all aspects of the project in the long run.

JPxG made a good point in a recent MfD:

"I will say the same thing every time a joke page is up for deletion: it is not serious, but it is important. Editor retention has been a concern of the community for a long time -- there are many depressing graphs to this effect. Every couple months there will be some doomer writeup in the Signpost, or some grim talk page discussion, about how the editor base continues to shrink. Most people who make accounts do not stick around for more than a few edits, and editors frequently abandon the project never to return. Why? I'm sure there are many reasons. However, having created and/or operated a number of Internet communities over the last couple decades, I will say that morale is probably the most important thing in keeping a place running. People will hang out on a website for years -- decades, even -- if they feel like they belong there, and they have fun when they go there. The website can be stupid, or pointless, or hard to navigate, or filled with assholes, and people will keep coming back if they feel like their contributions to the culture are meaningful and appreciated. If you destroy this, you drive a knife through the heart of posting... People like to pal around with their friends. They like to have friends. They like to make goofy little in-jokes with their friends.. they make the place tolerable to be around. "

I propose removing WP:UP#GAMES, and unless and until there is a specific problem with a particular sort of game. – SJ + 20:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The idea behind edtor retention is editor retention. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC) �

WP:UP#GAMES is a particularly soft part of the guideline. It doesn’t really apply to contributors. It’s purpose is to help direct newcomers into contributing as opposed to just playing games. See, for example, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2 SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is having the following statement on a user page appropriate? This user supports man/woman marriage as the definition needed to protect the integrity of the family, preserve the true meaning of marriage, and keep it as a child-focused institution. – ².O.^Boxing 14:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Short answer: yes. Longer answer: It depends… obviously it would be wrong for someone to add this to another user’s page, but adding it to your own page is fine.

In fact, self-statements like this can be beneficial. Being upfront with your political/religious/etc views like this is a great way to alert other editors that you might have a potential bias, and that this bias might unintentionally creep into your editing (no matter how much you try to remain neutral). Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Section "What may I not have in my user pages?" - new subsection: Anything offensive or misleading about the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects

Should we add:

• Content that implies that you dislike or hate the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects.
• Content that shows a clear intent to vandalize one of the Foundation's projects.
• False impression that the account may be officially affiliated with the Foundation or one of its projects.
• Gossip about the Foundation or one of its projects.
• Rumors about the Foundation.

Faster than Thunder (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally, guidelines are updated or changed to reflect actual practice or to address issues that the community has determined are problems. Have there been discussions where content about WMF has been found to be a problem? Have there been discussions that indicated a consensus that content critical of WMF was inappropriate on user pages? Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a bit much. I thought the Wikimedia blackout a few years ago was total BS and as a volunteer, I should be able to say so on my talk or user page. Toddst1 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Broadly, NO.

Userpages are for Wikipedians to introduce themselves. Self expression is part of that. Views about the project are obviously relevant. Psychoanalysing someone else’s comments about their own view, and censoring them, is far worse than letting sleeping dogs lie, or simply respecting others opinions.

• Content that implies that you dislike or hate the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects.

Comment including dislike of things about the foundations is a UPYES. Your userpage and it’s subpages is exactly where you are most welcome to put these things. If you think your views are correct and widespread you can even write them into projectspace. Consider as an example the following very critical dislike of a certain foundation aspect: WP:CANCER.

• Content that shows a clear intent to vandalize one of the Foundation's projects.

No. Let them try, then respond, unless you have perfect intuition or prescience. You may be misunderstanding satire. If you are correct, rely on WP:DISRUPTION, which is fully effective policy as is and will not be improved by forking into the Userpage guideline.

• False impression that the account may be officially affiliated with the Foundation or one of its projects.

Is this an existing problem? Currently, accounts affiliated with the foundation are supposed to be named with the suffix “(WMF)”. If this is not true, refer to Wikipedia:Username policy. Again, policies are not improved by forking bits into guidelines.

• Gossip about the Foundation or one of its projects.

Gossip may be entirely appropriate. Is it disruptive?

• Rumors about the Foundation.

Rumors can be treat the same as gossip above.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed - Wikipedia is not censored. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: In addition to Wikipedia being WP:NOTCENSORED, one's user page on Wikipedia is one of the best places to express one's opinion about the foundation. That's why we explicitly say on Wikipedia:User_pages "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community" is a legitimate use. This is an absurd Orwellian proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Ideological texts and pictures

Is it allowed to include a text or a picture of a political leader responsible for mass crimes, eg. Adolf Hitler?Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the context and why that text or image are being used. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the user accepts the crimes. Xx236 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User pages not in English

While patrolling the account creation log I've found some newly registered editors who have started a user page in a language other than English. I grab a random sentance and run it through a machine translator.

1) Clear cases of CSD U5 or U11 are nominated as such.

2) What do we do with user pages that appear to be good-faith drafting space for an article - but not in English? So far I've left a Talk page message with a welcome and alert to the existance of their native language wiki. We don't have" CSD-Non English".

Blue Riband► 13:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

No Extremism

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is general opposition to both the original and alternate proposals to amend the WP:UPNOT section. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Following up on WP:NONAZIS and WP:No Confederates I propose that WP:UPNOT be amended to include the following text:

In line with the above, expressly prohibited are any text, images or symbols that might reasonably be construed as indicating support or sympathy for extremist ideologies and or beliefs closely associated with discrimination, mass repression or violence against whole groups of people. Examples include but are not limited to racism and racial supremacy of any kind, slavery, antisemitism, homophobia, and totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and symbols directly related to them.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as OP and for the sake of consistency in the community's approach to the issue of controversial beliefs and the images related to them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Support per OP. We do need consistency in the community's approach to the issue of various extremist ideologies. It is necessary to formulate the stance on that issue, just as it was necessary to create WP:NONAZIS, WP:NORACISTS and WP:NOCONFED, and formulate the community's stance on those particular questions. Wikipedia would certainly be better off without all kinds of political extremism. —Sundostund (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose inclusion of communism in the list but would accept if you substitute the term "Stalinism" or perhaps "authoritarian totalitarianism" or something else. But I would support it without that. Andre🚐 01:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose due to the mention of communism. And would also oppose "Stalinism", as I doubt there are any symbols that are uniquely Stalinist. Furthermore, the problem with Nazis is not that they're extremist, the problem is that they're genocidal. Same with Confederates, who were not at the time particularly extremist. And then on the other hand, Martin Luther King explicitly identified as an extremist in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. This whole proposal completely misunderstands the problem and frankly I think it's quite silly. Loki (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Too broadly and clumsily worded.

   In line with the above,: Archaic writing style, makes paraphrasing difficult, creates an unnecessary barrier. If reference to the above is needed, summarise the limitation imposed.

   expressly: Self-referential text, indulgent, not helpful.

   might reasonably be construed as indicating ... sympathy ... associated with: Loose language like this is completely unhelpful in guiding an objective discussion. This is language of a principle, not a guideline.

   Examples include but are not limited to: Amounts to an open invitation to expand the list.

   Prohibited: text, images or symbols that support extreme discrimination, mass repression or violence. Examples include: racism and racial supremacy; slavery; antisemitism; homophobia; Nazism and Fascism.

   The above contains the core elements, except discards communism.

   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

4. Let's instead ban any symbols or flags associated with genocide or other atrocities against any group or peoples. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

   I'd like to see a clear definition of "associated with" before I support this, TBH. (The problem here is symbols like the hammer and sickle, which are absolutely associated with some regimes that did atrocities but mainly through their association with a much broader ideology.) Loki (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

   No one should support this, it would ban the flags and symbols of most countries and probably all ideologies. It's a whataboutism in the face of whataboutism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

   "This" meaning your alternate proposal Let's instead ban any symbols or flags associated with genocide or other atrocities against any group or peoples. Loki (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

   Well Wikipedia isn't meant to be a social media platform, so banning all political/national affiliations mightn't be an insane idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

5. Oppose "be construed as" is problematic. Construed by whom? One symbol can be seen by different people as having very different meanings. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
6. Oppose I agree with ActivelyDisinterested, the only symbols we should not tolerate are those directly associated with hatred of a specific group, as such discriminatory/hateful behaviour makes other editors feel targeted and unsafe/unwelcome, or specifically calling for violence. Beyond this, I don't think expression of political views should be prohibited on the basis of them being "extremist ideologies", in many cases a subjective and disputed assessment. Two examples: there are plenty of mainstream academics in the social sciences who are Marxist/Marxist-leaning while rejecting the atrocities of communist regimes. You don't need to agree with them to recognise Marxism makes up an integral part of modern Western scholarship, e.g. Benedict Anderson's theory of nationalism, or Eric Hobsbawm's historical writing. Equally, it's not hard to find modern scholars quoting the ideas of avowed Nazi Carl Schmitt, who I personally think was a detestable moron, but who has had a major influence on later theorists. Although it would be a borderline case, I don't think a hypothetical user page statement/UBX along the lines of "I agree with Carl Schmitt's political theory" would be a clear indication of hate. Jr8825 • Talk 23:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
7. Oppose. In my humble opinion, this looks like unnecessary instruction creep. The guideline is already problematic enough for undue censorship. Hell is made of good intentions, says the saying. I err on the side of objectivity and free flow of information. By the way, veganism and the animal rights movement are widely considered extremist ideologies. Thinker78 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
8. Oppose. The terms used are too broad. If possible it should be amended to focus on discrimination rather than abstract terms. In my views, Tomorrow and Tomorrow's proposal below deals with the crux of the issue and should be done instead. Further, the inclusion of the widely broad term "Communism" in reference to totalitarianism is ridiculous and reeks of Cold-War era propaganda; market intervention through Stalinism has been called "Communism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finton the magical salmon (talk • contribs) 02:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
9. Oppose - you are basically mandating political correctness, and the determination of what is acceptable is to be left to what? The body of editors at AN/I at the time? So what if an editor is a fascist? Really, so what? So what if they publicly identify as one? So what if an editor is an anti-fascist? So what if they are a communist? That isnt an attack on any other subset of editors. I can see the cause for barring expressions of hatred towards any other group of people, but this is absurd. Why would it be unacceptable for somebody to publicly display a symbol of communism, say for example the flag of the Soviet Union, but not a symbol of colonialism (at least to a large chunk of the world) like say the flag of the United Kingdom? The idea that, and Im not attacking anybody here, a body of people that is mostly comprised of white men from Western countries should determine what opinions are acceptable and what are not is insane to me. nableezy - 20:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
10. Oppose with some regret. Wholeheartedly concur that hate-based ideologies, and support for them, are disdainful. Genuinely appreciate the non-partisan approach in the proposed phrasing. But ultimately, consider this proposal sub-optimal compared to a prohibition on all user boxes dealing with external issues. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
11. Oppose as we cannot say that a certain political ideology is correct or incorrect. I want to agree, but this is basically advocating censorship. Cessaune (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
12. Oppose for all the reason's already given including by Jr8825 and Nableezy and Blueboar, this is unworkable, too broad and would create more problems than it would solve. It preasupposes that anyone 'hosting' a whole range of symbols are endorsing the worst possible manifestations associated with the worst possible users of that symbol and outlaws humour and irony and even context. I'd be fairly suspect if I come across a swastika on a user page, but does that actually happen? Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I take a diametrically opposite view… I would rather we allow bigots, Nazis, homophobes, etc to self-identify on their user pages… so we know who they are and can thus limit the damage they can do in actual article space. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  My view exactly. Thinker78 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• The issue with this is that Communism and Marxism are very broad concepts. We have user boxes for Stalin, Tito, Mao, even Hoxha and I wouldn't be against deleting them (and banning people who try to minimise their crimes). But banning such broad concepts should only be done if we are willing to apply it equally to all such ideological / political / national groupings. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that it would be best to completely remove 'political ideologies' and leave it to 'hate ideologies' For example: In line with the above, expressly prohibited are any text, images or symbols that might reasonably be construed as indicating support or sympathy for extremist ideologies and or beliefs closely associated with discrimination, mass repression or violence against whole groups of people. Examples include but are not limited to racism and racial supremacy of any kind, slavery, antisemitism and homophobia - Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  That seems like a constructive improvement. Andre🚐 02:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Extremist ideologies is extremely vague as stated in an above comment and should be specified to exclusively 'hate ideologies' and discrimination. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'll strikethrough extremist, thus changing it to read "ideologies or beliefs closely associated with..."

  Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Looks good. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Alternate proposal, just building on some of the feedback so the concept can be debated on its merits.

In line with the above, any text, images or symbols that indicate support or sympathy for ideologies or beliefs supporting or advocating for discrimination, mass repression or violence against whole groups of people is prohibited. Examples of such ideologies include include racism and racial supremacy of any kind, support for slavery, antisemitism and homophobia.

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Ad Orientem as original proposer. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Also realised I should ping @Andre as someone who particpated in the convo sparking this proposal. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I support your proposal. Andre🚐 01:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Hate ideologies are inherently political. There is no difference between genocide carried out for reasons of race or religion or social class. We are now just picking which political ideologies are most disfavored. Or alternatively which ones we want to protect. Twelve million people murdered = unacceptable. One hundred million people killed = it's complicated. Better to just let the proposal fail than codify this kind of bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm confused by your point. You say There is no difference between genocide carried out for reasons of race or religion or social class - I agree that's why this proposal would condemn all forms of hate equally, rather than having a list of ideologies. THAT I believe would be picking which political ideologies are most disfavored. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Are hate ideologies inherently political? That's a rather abstract point. The statement: totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism, Fascism, Communism contains an embedding of the assumptions and political winds of our present time and context. Which is an inevitability. But, regardless: to Tomorrow's point, by simply talking about the end result of hate in general, we can avoid politicizing the statement and also future-proof it. This all started because users were scaling Nazism to include neo-Confederacy. Then I and others object to equating the, in my view, broader ideology of Communism or Marxism on the same level as Nazism. But the policy does not need to say the word Nazism or Fascism to talk about the harms of racial animus writ large, and Tomorrow's compromise proposal is a way to add the anti-hate clause in a more general way without skewering specific named "isms" aside from racism itself and anti-Semitism: support for beliefs responsible for discrimination, mass repression or violence against whole groups of people. Examples include but are not limited to racism and racial supremacy of any kind Andre🚐 01:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I like this a lot more than the above proposal, but I'd like to suggest replacing "closely associated with" with "responsible for", given the clear presence of people on the project who want to suppress support for any extremist ideology. I also have a few minor phrasing edits: I think it should be "Examples of such ideologies include...", and probably it should be "support for slavery" instead of just "slavery". Loki (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar I agree with those changes, I'll add them now - except I might make "associated with" "supporting or advocating for" instead. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Opposed - as I said above, I would rather let the bigots, racists, Nazis, etc. identify themselves on their talk page - so we know who they are, and can make sure they do not damage actual articles based on their ideology. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Just making it abundantly clear for those trying to gauge consensus that I am for this proposal as proposer. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tomorrow and tomorrow "that indicate support or sympathy for ideologies or beliefs supporting or advocating for discrimination". Then you would find yourself banning Judaism, among other ideologies or beliefs. According to it, they are the chosen people and the religion prescribes for many discriminative practices. Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Appreciate the attempt, but I don't believe this is any better than the previous one. I see this only causing endless whataboutism's on what does or does not fit the definition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Share the concerns raised by Ad Orientem. Some interesting intersections between the proposed wording and at least 2 common ideologies which are broadly considered acceptable. And, ultimately, like the original, above, this proposal is sub-optimal compared to a prohibition on all user boxes dealing with external issues. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. As per the concerns raised by Ad Orientem and Ryk72, I believe that extremist ideologies should be clearly defined as all far-right and far-left ideologies, as the current proposal is too vague on that. It should be more specific. Also, it should include all anti-LGBT sentiments, not just homophobia. Transphobia appeared to be a huge issue in some of the recent discussions that I saw, so it must be named here. I would also propose that users, who post anti-LGBT comments, be candidates for immediate indefinite block if they express such views on-wiki. —Sundostund (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Far-Left ideology should not be included as it does not (in most cases) advocate for discrimination or mass repression. Finton the magical salmon (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  It should be included, as it is a form of political extremism, being the polar opposite of far-right ideology. We can't just ban all forms of Fascism and Nazism, and leave their polar opposites intact. When it comes to discrimination or mass repression, I have no idea how else to qualify several genocides and one hundred million people killed, by various left-wing/Communist/Marxist movements during the 20th century. —Sundostund (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• The only way to make this work would be to ban expressions of support for ANY political ideology… right, left or center. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist, and vis-versa. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  There are many political ideologies, but the extremist ones are located at the far-right and the far-left of political spectrum, certainly not at the center. We should ban only those that are, historically, proven to be extremist by perpetrating discrimination, mass repression and genocides. —Sundostund (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that I might consider an ideology “extreme” that you consider “centrist”, or vise-versa. Obviously, my take is the correct one, but the argument would be disruptive. Better to simply avoid the argument entirely by banning everything. Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Regardless of your and mine political stances, it would be very hard for both of us to "mix up" extremist ideologies with centrist ones. It is very obvious what political extremism is, both historically and presently. But, I get your point, and I agree – I myself would rather ban everything, than to see far-right extremism completely eradicated while the left-wing one remain present through userboxes, and such. —Sundostund (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  As I said previously any symbols of any ideology or states linked to racism, mass repression, exploitation, ethnic cleansing / forced population movements, genocide, etc needs to be banned equally (left, right, or those that believe they are "centre") or we just drop this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously, I fully support your proposal. There should be no place on Wikipedia for symbols of ideologies or states like the ones you mentioned. —Sundostund (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  You understand the impact would be that most if not all such symbols would be banned? I doubt any country in the world isn't considered in a bad light by someone, and the same is doubly true of ideologies. I'd be for that as this isn't meant to be a social media website, but it's a decision that seems to great for this small setting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  As long as we find a solution, that will ban the symbols of both far-right and far-left extremism, I will support that solution. Period. —Sundostund (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This is perfect. Do it. Cessaune (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2022 (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.

User pages red links

I have found that some long-time editors like to keep their user pages blank, which makes them appear with a red link in pages histories, watchlists and elsewhere. As an editor who patrols pages, I find the practice annoying because I focus my efforts on new users who have red links, ips, when the edit summary is not explanatory enough. Checking uncontroversial edits of experienced editors when I do not intend to do so is for me misspent time that accumulates. I don't know if others feel the same or if I'm alone feeling this way. Maybe editors' user pages after they have extended confirmed rights should stop having a red link, if it is an issue for a reasonable number of editors. Thinker78 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• hang on. You've now created [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] [8] seven user pages of other editors, each time referencing WP:NOBAN where your edit contradicted the plain meaning of that policy. This is also not including the one which was deleted after the editor objected to your intrusion--there you proceeded to argue with the editor about it. You were also told by another editor that this was inappropriate and your solution is to ask that the policy be changed? Protonk (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, totally not cool; some folks have actually had to have their userpages salted to avoid stuff like that. I have deleted those pages; please do not restore them or create more. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanking you both for speaking up, and for deleting my user page. I hadn't registered my strong preference. But this is me doing it now, and thanks for saving me the trouble of asking. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Would just want to note also that quite a few vandals have thought of that: they specifically create a user page in order to create the illusion that they are a longterm editor in good standing. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it would be a bad idea if there was some colour coding to go with levels of experience. This could probably be implemented as a gadget or script if it isn't already. I know there is one that will highlight administrators. However on Wikipedia, a red link indicates that a page doesn't exist, and that's all it indicates. That aside, I would recommend WP:POPUPS which will quickly and easily show you the age of the account and the number of edits, as well as any user right they have. You'll also be able to zoom through the diffs with great speed. You'll soon find that many experienced users don't have userpages, and many vandals do. It's not effective to judge a book by its cover. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that deliberately not having a user page is improper. Today, I noticed several veteran editors with red links in their sigs and this seems inherently unfriendly and uncivil. This will especially confuse new editors who won't understand the lack of a profile. In such cases, there ought to be a bland default which provides basic information about the account. Editors should not have to use custom scripts and tools like POPUPS and XTools to understand who they are dealing with. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Trying to post a paragraph on "Grand Canyon" - a protected page - lost in the process

I have no idea what the process is and where I am in the process. I retired from the US Nuclear Weapons Lab in Los Alamos, NM, where complex and semi-complex processes were explained to users in the form of flowcharts. I am of the opinion that Wikipedia needs to begin using flowcharts to show the process of posting to a protected article. The input pages are too complex, too many shoptalk options, and too many {{Stuff}} brackets that lead to rabbit holes.

How do I find out:

(1) If my edit paragraph is being considered for posting?

(2) Where I am in the process?

(3) Am I in a procedure that will lead me to publishing my paragraph or am I in limbo?

(4) Finally, what should one do when they feel lost in the Wiki-process to get back a feeling of conficence.

I have edited three other "non-protected" articles where it is simple to use the "edit" link.

DistanceEd (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@DistanceEd, you need to place your edit request on the talk page of the article, not in your user space. Also, this page here isn't the best place to ask for assistance on any wiki-editing issues you have; try The Teahouse in the future, that's where you can get answers from experienced editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO VERIFY CONTENT

I wrote an article and wondering how long it will take for it to be verified and appear on Wikipedia because i get notifications about the page having been published but i don't see it anywhere on Wikipedia and its stuck in draft mode. Any help or advice is welcome as i have other content to write and publish. DJ Broadband (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@DJ Broadband: Content in username sandbox space is not indexed, so it won't appear in search engines. You'd have to use the {{subst:submit}} template at the top of the page to get reviewers' attention, but none of them would accept it in the current state it's in (scarce sources (let alone not reliable and unencyclopedic tone). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

The research i did could only get me only that information and that is why i only have that, hopefully it can be reviewed and accepted. DJ Broadband (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:DJ Broadband/Pending. It's in the AFC queue, so you'll get a message on your user talk page once it's reviewed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Notification System

Someone should probably update the Notification System part; April 2013 isn’t exactly new anymore.. Judeinator9001 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)