Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Limit to user subpages

Is there a limit to how many subpages one can create in their userspace? Maybe this should be added to policy somewhere? -- œ^™ 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• We shouldn't make more rules than necessary. Were you worried about some WP:PERFORMANCE issue? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah kinda.. that and I was just browsing through the user namespace in Special:AllPages and noticed some users having pages and pages of subpages, and most of them being unused/empty, however the useful ones were just pages of userboxes or scripts. I was thinking this may be inappropriate due to WP:NOTWEBHOST but there's nothing at WP:NOT specifically mentioning subpages. -- œ^™ 02:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder how some people can even stand to have so many subpages... I mean, I only have... 48 between my 3 accounts, 32 of them being on my main one and more often than not I lose track of them sometimes. I've seen some users with hundreds of subpages, and wonder sometimes if they even know they have that many, or wonder how on Earth they keep track of them... Personally I think something should be implemented so that there should be, say, a 100 page limit in a userspace, unless someone requests it with a good reason. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 01:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

a well-meaning user thinks "This page would be better if everyone were supposed to do this" or "it would be easier if this were made clear for everyone" and adds more requirements.

Please see Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of No Israel.svg on userpages

The file File:No Israel.svg currently appears on several userpages of long-time contributors in good standing. But it would seem to me to be a violation of WP:UP#NOT, particularly item 9, which prohibits "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive". It seems that the issue was briefly addressed on an ANI thread back in January but nothing ever came of it. I would like to know if I'm over-reacting or if this has just never really been looked at before. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. That is blatantly polemical and divisive, and should be placed on the image blacklist here, as I am not sanguine about getting it deleted at Commons. God, that is disgusting. → ROUX ₪ 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just like this? done within two hours?!--OsamaK 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. This flag does not attack any group of editors or persons, no old active Wikipedia editor should do so. It describes my (and other tens of millions of people's) political opinion on certain issue: A country which (in my opinion) kills innocent human beings and the fact that I oppose Israel, as a state (it says nothing about Israeli people). I didn't ask to ban Israeli or Jewish editors (and I'll never), this sounds funny, right? I've always been welcoming all editors in Arabic Wikipedia, no matter what I think about their state policy. Anyone has the right to write something about his or her thoughts within few limits which I've always been believing in. You can say it's funny, stupid or disgusting (and yes, it may be); but saying that I'm trying to violate Wikipedia rules and divide its community is totally false. Please note that I'm trying to make a general rule: Any Wikipedia editor can express his or her political opinion about certain countries (and many already do that) as long as he or she respects other Wikipedians. Commons didn't remove this photo for three simple reasons: (1) no one could point to the 'violation', (2) no one could make a general rule for all anti-state situations, and (3) the community does not (and won't) agree on a spacial 'exception' for Israel (unfortunately, there seems some people think of Israel state as the Promised Land, which no one should criticize) or a general rule to ban all political opinions. Please also remember that Commons discussion took very long time and I'm sure that English Wikipedia doesn't need to waste its contributors' time on such an issue. Thank you Soap, again, for letting me know. Please let's agree that we may have very different opinions on many different issues, but we all here for one reason: Improving Wikipedia free contents.--OsamaK 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You may argue to change WP:UP#NOT #9, but I'm pretty sure the wider community will endorse that graphic as falling well within both the spirit and letter of that restriction. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll, if it says something (even in spirit) about what Soap mentioned: it does not.--OsamaK 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not appropriate for a userpage, or any part of Wikipedia for that matter. Chillum 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Osamak. There is no attack at any wikipedian. It’s just a political opinion. It likes to say "I don’t agree with the massacre happened by the state of Israel which kills innocent people."--Aboalbiss (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It flat out states that the home of many Wikipedians should not exist. And I trust we are adults enough around here to know exactly which extremist regimes and groups--the only people who ever say Israel shouldn't exist--say such things. The image is emblematic of pure anti-Semitism and nothing more. And no, my comment was not a swipe at Muslims, it was a swipe at the radical fringe elements who seek to destroy Israel. → ROUX ₪ 01:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I'm amazed with what you've got from this little picture. I said nothing about Israel existence (and yes, I have the right to write my opinion on that issue). Many people (for example, Richard Stallman) criticize Israel actions and policies without opposing (or mentioning) Israel existence, and BTW, if a user has some anti-Israel opinions (BTW, this image has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It might be if I said something like No Jews), cannot he or she criticize it in the same way as many people here criticize Nazism (as an idea)?--OsamaK 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's suppose that a Wikipedia editor had a large Palestinian flag with a bright red "strike through" symbol over it prominently displayed on their user page. The name of this hypothetical image is "No Palestine". Suppose that, when asked about this image, the editor said that they were protesting the fact that Palestinian partisans had committed acts of terrorism, such as rocket attacks aimed at civilian homes, and a suicide bombing in a dance club that killed many high school students. Suppose this editor said that he had no ill will towards individual Palestinian people in general, or towards Palestinian Wikipedia editors, but that it was personally important to him to speak out against acts in which innocent civilians were injured and killed. Would this be acceptable use of a user page, under the guidelines at Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? No, it certainly would not be acceptable. The "No Palestine" image would be very likely to be interpreted as a graphic message of anger and animosity towards individuals of Palestinian nationality. It might even lead some reasonable people to believe that the editor harbored ill will or even hatred towards Palestinians, despite his protests to the contrary. And it would certainly give the impression that the editor was unalterably opposed to the existence of a Palestinian state, under any conditions, despite the fact that many Palestinians are strongly opposed to attacks on Israeli civilians and want the Palestinian Authority to pursue a negotiated peace with Israel. I know that not everyone will agree that this is a good analogy, and I'm quite aware that these ideas can be debated endlessly. I will even say that some people have valid emotional reasons for feelings of anger and animosity towards persons of another nationality. The point however is that this debate should not be carried out on Wikipedia user pages, because it creates an environment of opposition and animosity, in which some editors may feel that they are being attacked because of their national or ethnic identity. Instead we should do the opposite and actively seek to create an environment of collegiality, where people of all nations can contribute to a worthwhile project, which is the creation of a free encyclopedia. I would therefore agree with those who say that prominent symbols or speech that are against a particular nationality, such as the "No Israel" image, are in violation of the user page guidelines. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to talk about what's right and what's wrong in Israeli–Arab conflict. There is no debate, and I've never tried to get involved in one, therefore I have to ignore 70% of your comment. If someone thinks my country does or did something bad, then he or she has the right to say so. If you want to have the correct example where criticizing an idea equals criticizing people who believe in it, then it will be using anti-religion symbols, which clearly criticizes the individuals behind certain faith. You may want to start a discussion on this. This one is totally different.--OsamaK 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My point was not to assess the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, it was to use an analogy to show how a symbol such as "No Israel" will generally be seen, correctly, as hostile towards a particular nation, and therefore hostile towards a particular nationality or ethnic group. As I said, "it creates an environment of opposition and animosity, in which some editors may feel that they are being attacked because of their national or ethnic identity. Instead we should do the opposite and actively seek to create an environment of collegiality." It's like the Olympics, or rather it's like how the Olympics should be. National and ethnic quarrels should be set aside in a spirit of cooperation and even friendship. If that's asking too much, we should at least try to avoid hostile and abusive symbols and speech. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To those who will feel hurt I'll say: "Hello! Welcome to the real world, where many people have many different opinions and still work together. Where there is no 'Promised Land'." People need to understand that Israel isn't (nor any other countries) a special case. What I'm trying to say is that: don't make it a big deal. Being an Israel lover isn't a pillar in Wikipedia. And no, it isn't a "hostile and abusive" symbol because, again, it's a personal political opinion. It's similar to this userbox which was used by tens of users saying the Bush should resign (Do they personally attack people who think Bush as 'the one'?). By the way, what do you, all of you, think of anti-religion symbols? Aren't they "hostile"? Don't they attack Wikipedians who have certain believes instead of criticizing certain pure political matter?--OsamaK 07:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that Israel isn't a special case. If you can point out other editors' user pages that have similar images, where the flag of another nation, state, or ethnic group is crossed out with a "strike through" symbol, the same guidelines should apply to them also. Please post in this talk page section any examples that you find. As for anti-religion symbols or images on user pages, they might also violate the user page policies, depending on the nature and usage of the specific image. For example, a crescent moon with a star is a symbol of Islam. If a user page had this symbol with a large "strike through" over it, that might very well be considered hostile towards persons of the Moslem faith. Feel free to cite specific user pages for further discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree on religion side, but not on the other one. I didn't cross a nation, religion or ethnic group symbol it's just a state symbol. Please consider it a pure political point of view on political issue, where Israeli Wikipedianains have nothing to do with it. I have nothing else to say, I'm on a wiki-break (starting today and for a week later), I may not be able to comment here.--OsamaK 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm back. There seems no further discussions, I'll request removing that image from the blacklist, because it does not make sense to block a 'legal' picture. Thank you all.--OsamaK 19:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It was removed. Thank you RockMFR.--OsamaK 19:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Silence does not mean that consensus has changed. The image may be used appropriately in mainspace, but not in userspace. Your page has been edited to remove the offending image and a message left on your talk page. Feel free to start an RFC if you'd like to see consensus changed, but until then, no, the image is not acceptable in userspace. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What consensus? And on what policy is it based on? No one, Nobody gave any reason. I've described my opinion very clearly. You cannot call it a 'consensus' when only 5-6 users think it is. Let's understand the bigger picture: All anti-states files/texts should be removed from user pages according to this 'consensus', such a thing can never happen without a large discussion and a general rule with no exceptions. Also, it isn't so not good to have a discussion without inviting all parties. Such a discussion can never make a 'consensus'.--OsamaK 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Get over it. Many reasons have been given for why you may not under any circumstances use that image on your userpage. Too bad, so sad, and the fact that other things exist has absolutely no bearing here. That image is offensive, divisive, and a thin veil for disgustingly anti-semitic views. So, in short: get over it. → ROUX ₪ 20:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

When 5-6 users disagree with you, and one agress, you certainly can't call THAT consensus for inclusion either. Just because you don't believe UP#NOT #9 applies, doesn't mean that there isn't a consensus (so far) that it does. Again, feel free to start an RfC on it if you'd like more input, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. Oh, and yes, feel free to bring up any other anti-state images on user pages for a similar discussion--I don't see anything about this debate that's particularly special, and the rules should indeed apply equally to all such divisive images. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the image from the other three userpages which used it. Let me know of equivalent images elsewhere, and I'll see that those are removed, too. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting user talk pages

There's a new discussion ongoing here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD U1, user talk pages, and the right to vanish. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please would you be able to read the topic article Harrison William Powell, and suggest any changes that need to be made and whether is is suitable to post on wikipedia. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playpersonifd (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

gordos beans with cheese

Gordos beans with cheese can be found at SFgatesfchronichle in archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.229.86 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

British military buttons

I would like to gather information about The above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normrigby (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the Wikipedia User page guidelines. You might want to try the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Or, if you search for "British military buttons" in the searchbox to the left, a number of articles come up that may be related to your interest. Regards, --BelovedFreak 22:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you put me on wikipedia

My name is Richard Mills AKA Meachy the kid an up an coming rapper/singer trying to get a come up if you can help by putting me on wikipedia that would be great thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meachy The Kid (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please have a read of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia is not here to promote you as a musician. If you meet notability guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (music), then it is likely that someone will write a Wikipedia article about you. Have you had significant coverage in reliable third-party sources? If not, you should probably look elsewhere. Regards, --BelovedFreak 22:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mickey Daniels and Bebe Daniels

my previous entry was not a random bit of vandalism and can be documented with genealogical information bebe daniels is not any relative of Mickey Daniels nor of his father Richard M Daniels Marlene Daniels Fund —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fundjo (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This talkpage is for discussing the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:User page. In future, you would probably get a better response by starting a discussion at the talkpage for the relevant article, eg. Talk:Bebe Daniels or Talk:Mickey Daniels. Otherwise, if there is i nformation in an article that you believe to be wrong, and there is no reliable source backing up this information, then feel free to remove it yourself. I have removed the information from the articles for the time being as a quick search on gooogle led me to no reliable sources. The information was added to Bebe Daniels by a user who has since been blocked, so it may have been vandalism. --BelovedFreak 22:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unearned "Merit badges"

General question: I found a user page with an impressive collection of "merit badges" (veteran editor, 20K+ edits, multiple years service, etc). Unfortunately none of the badges checked out with the contrib log and there is no evidence of there being a prior account. While "role templates" (admin, bureaucrat, etc) can be freely removed if they are not valid, is there is a standard practice for removal of these merit badges? Manning (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all honor system, and very informal. Just let it slide. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to "Removal of comments, warnings" section

Under the auspices of WP:BRD, I have reverted the bold changes [1] that Multixfer (talk · contribs) made to the WP:BLANKING section, and am bringing them here for discussion. Ignoring the WP:CREEPy aspects of the changes, I do not see how they are necessary as they do not really add anything to the guideline other than increasing the likelihood of harassment.

Specifically, I disagree with the addition of {{whois}} to this section, which has been excluded from being considered a "shared IP" template until this point. The {{whois}} template was explicitly created to not be a shared IP template, as its history illustrates. Additionally the text in the section that reads "shared IP header templates" is directly linked to Category:Shared IP header templates, which contains all of our shared IP templates (and notably, not the {{whois}} template).

Additionally this text:

“ Regarding shared IPs: shared IP and whois header templates may be removed if the IP has not edited disruptively, had had no disruptive edits for 6 months, or if the IP is not shared ”

strikes me as adding little to the existing guideline other than an additional layer of potentially confusing rules that will lead to greater harassment of IPs. We do not need arbitrary durations ("6 months") or highly subjective behavioral measurements ("no disruptive edits") to quantify what is already covered by WP:AGF as well as the header text listed at the top of this and every other guideline: "this page...is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

If an IP asserts that it is not shared and its edit history bears this out, what does branding him or her with an IP template really accomplish? Speaking as an administrator who has performed over 3000 blocks, I can assure you that I am in no way hindered when an IP's talk page does not have one of these templates on it. After all, the same information is generally just a click or two away via the whois/geolocate links that automatically appear in the footer of every IP's talk page. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but are you kidding me? I just went through all this crap at AN/I, seemed to find a consensus, only to have you undo it all? How does reinserting ambiguity help this project? I didn't act alone, rather there was a full discussion of this at AN/I. Either an IP must leave the SharedIP template alone or they are allowed to remove it and the guideline/policy MUST SPECIFY THIS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Currently, the guideline says it may not be removed, which has caused headaches, as noted at the AN/I. It has nothing to do with whether you are helped or hindered with the SharedIP template, it has to do EXACTLY with whether an IP editor is allowed to remove it or not. Just because you don't find that information particularly helpful is irrelevant. Are they or aren't they allowed to remove it? Because I assure you that this issue will arise again and no amount of redirecting people to AGF or some other page will resolve it. THIS is the policy quoted, THIS is the guideline that currently says an IP cannot remove a sharedIP template, and THIS is the direct problem. Every time an IP blanks that template from their talk page, someone comes along and reinserts it and quotes THIS GUIDELINE. Why can some IPs remove it but not others? Special rules for special people? Want to talk about "subjective"? This entire guideline is nothing but a big lie currently. I have been FORCED to allow anon IPs to remove this very template from their talk pages in spite of a "guideline" that specifies this is not allowed. Try to explain to me how this is perfectly normal, how the rule can say one thing yet mean another... sometimes if the person quoting it feels like it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize that WP:USER is a guideline, rather than a policy? Regardless, Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, but instead encourages users to use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines. The last three or four times the IP issue was discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), community consensus was pretty accurately summarized by Kim Bruning (talk · contribs) who pointed out that fighting with an IP over the contents of his or her own user space is the height of futility. While I was initially one of the most outspoken opponents of this view, I have to admit that we registered editors waste a lot less of our time now that we no longer get into edit wars with IPs over the contents of their own userspace. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this issue is covered by my addition to {{SharedIP}}: "This template should be used on IPs which appear to be or are likely to be shared by multiple users - typically IPs assigned to large institutions, or to a pool of dynamic IP addresses. Where there is no indication of this, or where the IP appears to be static and used by only one person, the template should not be used.". WP:BLANKING after all refers to "shared IP templates"; there's no point requiring these not to be removed if it doesn't seem to be a shared IP. Rd232 ^talk 16:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kralizek!, this keeps coming up at AN/I because people will keep (a) adding and (b) re-adding, warning the IP for removing, threatening with blocks, and (c) eventually either dragging the other party or being dragged to AN/I. The guidelines on this page are frequently quoted by the editor trying to keep the shared template. Ergo, it is worth altering it to be clear that - while IPs can be shared - it will not always be the case that the IP is shared, and it is not necessary to include the shared template on the talk page of an IP which appears to be used by only one editor. Simples! (where's that meerkat when you need him). Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Meercat sez "Keep yer whois info off my interwebz"

Here he is! And I agree that this needs to be clarified better on the specified guideline page. It has caused problems and will so down the line. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps our differences of opinion on this issue are because we are coming at it from two different perspectives on how the system actually works. As such, I hope you will allow me to explain the reasons behind my point of view on the subject.

Personally, my interest in this topic started when I began participating in WikiProject user warnings in early 2007, but has evolved considerably in the intervening years. As a result of the last big discussion on this issue at WP:VPP in April 2008 [2], the text of the guideline was sharpened to say "exceptions include...for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates." Therefore, if an anonymous user asserts that his or her IP is not shared, then why would the IP's talk page have a template on it from Category:Shared IP header templates? Unless the IP's edit history indicates that the IP is not static, WP:AGF indicates that we should accept the anonymous editor's assertion and either remove the shared IP template or replace it with a non-shared header like {{whois}}. However, since {{whois}} is explicitly not a shared IP template, the anonymous editor could then remove the header template at any time they wanted.

As I see it, this system only experiences issues under one of a couple of specific circumstances. The first is where an over-eager vandal fighter reverts the anonymous editor's removal of header templates. This typically results in either the IP losing the ability to edit their own talk page (assuming they are already blocked for other disruptive behavior), or the vandal fighter being warned and/or blocked for WP:HARASS or WP:3RR violations. The second circumstance is when an IP sock is abusively gaming the system, in which case an administrator or checkuser will investigate and if necessary terminate the IP's ability to edit the talk page in question. However neither of these circumstances can typically be resolved without administrator intervention, which is why these issues often end up at WP:AN/I.

Speaking as an admin who processes block and protection requests nearly every day at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, the system works quite well more than 99% of the time. Of the less than 1% when there are issues, 99% of those are resolved by giving over-eager vandal fighters a gentle reminder about what anonymous editors are and allowed to remove from their own talk pages. These types of problems would only be increased, not reduced, by adding {{whois}} to the list of things that cannot be removed by IPs. Likewise, creating arbitrary rules about the specific yet subjective circumstances when these sorts of headers may be removed is only going to result in more issues being taken to AN/I, rather than fewer. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT/11 aka WP:UP#GAMES. "particularly"

JamesBWatson reverted my removal of "particularly" (which, granted, with done with a poorly considered edit summary). That section (What may I not have on my user page?, #11) reads ("particularly emphasized"):

Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project.

With "particularly" included, the scope of the sentence is broad, covering all games, even if practiced with our best wikipedians, and is weaker, with the word diluting its power, because it doesn't necessarily apply to even the worst case of games. In this case, there is no bright line, and all sorts of stuff is sent to MfD for repeated policy-rationalisation debate.

If we remove the word "particularly", the sentence would then only refer to pages of participants who are not active, but it would clearly and definitively apply to them. I think this is preferable.

Closely related to this are James' comments in an MfD:

When I first came across hidden pages I didn't think they did a lot of harm, but things have changed. We have recently acquired a whole community of people who are here mainly or entirely to play games and/or build up social networks. ...

I, like James previously, don't think they do a lot of harm. (I further think that they do a small amount of good, and that forcibly deleting them does harm). But if James has learnt something, I'd like to see it. Where is this whole community of people who are here just to play games? James went on ...

... allowing this sort of thing [even with productive users] sends the message to newcomers that using Wikipedia purely for playing is alright. I used to be not very happy about pages such as this one, but thought they did little harm. However, because of the recent developments I have described, I now think they need to be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't fear that wikipedia is in danger from these game playing users, and am confident that we can keep games under control more effectively with more tolerance and a clearer requirement for simultaneous productive activity, and without giving the wrong message to non-contributors, simply by making the guideline more definitive, removing "particularly", as per above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between using pages primarily as games, and using games as a means of learning about Wikipedia. As WP has matured, it is clear that it is no longer attracting those who are here just to "improve articles" and perhaps we ought to recognize that allowing some amount of WP-oriented fun might be reasonable. Collect (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

More specific proposals on WP:UP#GAMES

Would the following have consensus?

• Wiki games, such as “can you find my hidden page” or “don’t press this link” can be educational games for users new to wiki editing. However, there are limits on the games we can allow you to play using wikipedia userspace:

• Unoriginal games may be played for a month following your first edit, provided that you show some sign that you intend to contribute to the encyclopedia.
• After one month, your unoriginal games should be removed. This is best done by posting {{db-user}} on the pages involved. If there is something in the pages that you wish to retain for future reference, then it is acceptable to redirect your userpages to your main userpage. You can then find the information in the history of the redirected page.
• Note that anything promotional, or related to non-wikipedia matters, is not OK.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's been firmly established that there is no clear consensus on secret pages. There have been at least four centrallized discussions on that matter that have been highly controversial and didn't result in consensus. Trying to modify the guideline now is going to bring an angry mob, complete with torches and pitchforks, from both camps, not to mention those who have an opinion but didn't notice the change until much later. I think that if we wanted to draw a firm line in the sand regarding the existance of these pages, then we'd have to try RFC, or maybe the Village Pump again, just to make sure we get a clear cross-leveling.

Though, in this case, it seems like you're just trying to clear out the pages that are no longer in use? And/or probably prevent newbies from using WP as a game platform instead of contributing? The former makes sense. On the latter, I would say that a bit of mentorship would be a lot more effective than forcing a deletion. bahamut0013^words_deeds 07:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would say that is firmly established is that “secret pages” like other userspace pages, are not speediable.

To date, the centralized discussions have been poorly focused. I see this one as focused on certain userpage pages for which I see consensus, having followed and participated in a large number of userpage MfDs.

I don’t any reason for my suggested changes to incite a mob, I mean only to reflect that fact that next to no one will defend a userspace play page that is not being used by either productive wikipedians or by newcomers, with an MfD very likely to result in either “blank” or “delete”. As I can predict that certain MfDs will end in “blank” or “delete”, I think it is more than reasonable to document it here.

Let me try again:

Secret pages, and other play pages, not related to wikipedia, are only allowed if the participants are either (a) active wikipedians, or (b) newcomers to wikipedia.

I do not mean to prevent newcomers from playing wiki games. I think newcomers playing wiki games, initially, and not exclusively, is a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was removed by Rlfindia (talk · contribs) on 14:13, 13 October 2009 for no apparent reason. Putting it back now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not intend to spend the time necessary to give a point by point answer to all of SmokeyJoe's long contributions. However, the essential point is that SmokeyJoe thinks that people should be allowed to use Wikipedia for purposes other than writing an encyclopedia, such as playing games, and will not accept that consensus is against it. There are several places in policies and guidelines that make this clear, including this guideline on User pages. SmokeyJoe has a history of responding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when such evidence is pointed out. Eventually, after the relevant passage in this guideline had been pointed out to him repeatedly, he attempted to effectively nullify it by unilaterally changing the wording to say only that use of Wikipedia by people not actively participating in the project was not allowed. This he did without any discussion. The fact remains that Wikipedia exists for the sole purpose of creating an encyclopedia, and there is strong consensus that other uses are not acceptable. This consensus is recorded in this guideline and elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that I have a history of responding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I have been attempting to clarify the situation where consensus is unclear. Consensus is clear that non-contributors may not use Wikipedia for games, no more than they may use it for any unrelated purpose. But applying that consensus brutally to new contributors (which happens) conflicts with WP:BITE, and forbidding *any* games for *active* wikipedians does not have consensus, and conflicts with Wikipedia:Editors matter.

Wikipedia does not exist for the sole purpose of creating an encyclopedia. It also exists to maintain the encyclopedia. It also exists to support the community of editors, to encourage them to remain, to continue to build, and to continue to maintain. Allowing some established editors to play a few games is a very small cost if it keeps their expertise and experience available for the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not unclear: various places where this is made explicit have been pointed out to SmokeyJoe, who persistently denies it.

I cannot see anything in WP:BITE which says that we should not tell newcomers that Wikipedia is not for playing games, nor anything which could reasonably be interpreted that way.

I don't see that the consensus that Wikipedia is not for playing games conflicts with Wikipedia:Editors matter, and frankly it doesn't matter whether it does or not, as that page is only the opinion of a small group of editors, and is not a policy or guideline. I could just as easily create a page of my own, expressing my own opinions, and then cite it.

I am not convinced that there are established contributors who make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia, but would leave if they were told that any games playing must be done elsewhere. Besides, if I am wrong then does it matter? We have thousands of active editors who don't abuse Wikipedia by using it for games, and it would not be a huge loss to abandon the few who do. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don'ttypo think we agree that games played by non-new (~1 month) editors who don't contribute should be deleted. I'd prefer to see a simple unambiguous statement to this effect. Newcomers and contributors can be in another sentence.

I am more interested in games that are borderline Wikipedia-related educational. Would give your opinions on these two: (1) User:Oddmartian2/Wikipoem; and (2) User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I accept that there are some things on Wikipedia which exist only as jokes, and that some of these could be referred to as "games", and I do not strongly object to them, and accept that they will not be deleted. However, it is a very different matter when people spend considerable amounts of time and effort creating elaborate games, such as some of the ridiculous "hidden pages" mazes which were produced a little while ago. Nor do I think this sort of thing would be acceptable if it were done by editors who also made significant contributions. In principal Wikipedia is not for playing games at all; to say that in practice we allow some leeway for small-scale humour to active editors is one thing, but to make a policy statement that any and all games made by established editors will be accepted is another. The current version of the user page guideline says, amongst other things, "You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere..." and includes in its list of examples of unrelated content "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project". I think that is a reasonable balance, and I also think that there is broad consensus in support of placing the balance about here. Yes, there are people (such as yourself) who would like to make this more liberal, and there are people who would like to make it less so, but the overall balance in the current version of the guideline is reasonably close to capturing a view which is generally accepted. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that the current consensus is far from where I'd like it (The typo above didn't help). The "particularly" removal was more about clarifying that certain pages will always be deleted.

I'd like to distinguish between silly games (eg secret pages), and educational games. Admittedly, my definition of educational has been very generous.

But beyond that I worry about the tenor of the environment. To have some editors checking out that other editors are behaving to standard, and then enforcing administratively, is to drift toward an intolerant rules based regime. I don't want that, particularly if it affects newcomers or overall good editors. I'd prefer to see wayward editors "encouraged" to (re)turn to productive editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG a reason to delete the project? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case where consensus is changing; thinking about MfDs for these in the last 2 years, my impression is that we are gradually becoming less willing to accept these games (i admit that I have not attempted to actually count). I consider this an appropriate change in an organization that is gradually getting more responsible, more serious, and more widely observed. It detracts from our reputation. I doubt we'll lose any contributors--they have abundant opportunities elsewhere for that part of their life on the net. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reactive as well. We have increasing numbers of people trying to use Wikipedia for their own purposes, be that entertainment or promotion. Gigs (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Subpages of indefinitely blocked users

They seem all to be candidates for deletion as maintenance when old enough. I don't think there are exceptions, unlike temporary userpages/usertalkpages, we don't have to worry about sockpuppet tags and such. It seems uncontroversial enough to be done by a bot, no ? To be sure, it could delete them when the user has been blocked for at least 2 years, exclude pages that have been edited by another user or linked, those could be listed somewhere for manual or semi-automatic deletion. Cenarium (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate userboxes and other useful fluffery may be created as user subpages, so pages transcluded elsewhere (or redirects to pages transcluded elsewhere) should be excluded from automatic deletions. There are also wikiscripts: Special:WhatLinksHere cannot detect whether these are used, and I don't think normal redirects work, but useful ones can be moved to a new maintainer, then the old replaced by an importScript() statement for backwards compatibility. • Anakin ^(talk) 02:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Florent Buca

Is this appropriate? WP:UP#NOT states as an example "Extensive self-promotional material that is unrelated to your activities as a Wikipedian". Now this is certainly extensive and self-promotional, but this user's only edits have been creating the article Florent Buca (of which this is a copy) and creating his user page, so I suppose it could be argued that it does directly refer to his activities as a Wikipedian!   pablo_hablo. 09:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If the article has been deleted as COI/spam, I've usually found the page will go at MfD. A copy of a deleted article can be kept if the user is working to improve it, but it it's unimprovable..... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret pages in userspace

A discussion about secret pages in userspace and whether they are allowed under WP:NOT and WP:UP is ongoing at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page. Feel free to join the debate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is consensus that the following is not OK, and should be deleted at MfD:
  • Pages that are for social networking
  • Pages that are not related to the project, and are not the product of a genuine newcomer.
  • Games without either novelty or educational merit, even if hosted by a valued wikipedian.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This debate is telling me that consensus is against stuff unrelated to Wikipedia, regardless of the value of the editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User removal of active block-notices

Seems like users are explicitly allowed to do this (or other editors are warned against restoring) by the wording of WP:BLANKING. However, to me, this contradicts the goal of "communicating with other editors about this editor" rather than just communicating with this editor himself. Am I missing some reasoning here? DMacks (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What I have taken from past debates at WP:VPP regarding WP:BLANKING, is that editors may remove virtually any message from their own userspace unless that removal enables the user to potentially game the system. Assuming that is the case, you question then becomes, "does removing an active block notice enable the user to potentially game the system?" Personally, I have a hard time coming up with a good circumstance where a blocked editor could game the system by removing their block notification template. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Error in description of template {{user page}}

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page it says about {{user page}}:

"The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page."

I think this should rather read:

"The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Example_User."

because this is what the template does.

AmigoCgn (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors creating userpages for new editors

Editors occasionally create user pages for new editors. I think this is a bad idea, not least because the red link is useful for various patrollers, etc. Should the guidance say anything about this? I think creating talk pages to welcome users is a very good idea, but users should decide what they want on their user page. I've seen categories added, for instance. Not harmful, all good faith, but still... Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think that if a userpage is a redlink it should stay that way until the user themselves blue-links it. After that, it is fair game for editors to make changes in good faith, but creating the userpage for them is a bad idea all around. –xeno^talk 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. We should wait for users (in good standing) to create their own userpages. Categories could be added to talk or other subpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Total agreement. Creation should be left to the editors, but additional modifications are open to the regular wiki system of "anyone can edit". EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not too sure how this would be useful, or fix a problem, because I don't see one. If the users don't want it, they can blank it or request deletion via CSD U1. How is the redlink useful to anyone? A quick look at a user's contribs will show thier approximate level of experience, if such a look was necessary. New page patrollers should be looking a user's recent contribs anyway before they start slapping tags on anything. bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Red userpages stick out like sore thumbs on my watchlist; red talk pages doubly so. I'm more likely to investigate a random diff from a redlink editor than an established one. It is useful. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I again refer to my point that reverting anything has an obligation of investigation, which is I believe the spirit of AGF. I see your point, but that's tantamount in my mind to admitting to your wife that you do check out other women when she's not looking. Personally, I check every diff in my watchlist, regardless of whom did it and what they put for an edit summary, but then, my watchlist probably isn't half as busy as yours is. bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, my watchlist is weighing in at 3,214 at the moment; I'd rather not check every diff. :) Also, if you're wondering where this question came from, it spun off from a discussion at User talk:Dougweller#Good faith creation of user pages. (if you're not wondering where the question came from... uh... well, it still came from there). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Even if I disagree with you, I'm still in your fanclub; I already stalked you to that discussion. In any case, I could see it as a guideline, but I would be opposed to somebody getting hauled off to the whipping post over doing it a few times. bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Ego... growing...
            All kidding aside, yes, I'm not seeing this as an "OMG you made someone's userpage for them you go DIE now!!!1!!one!!"-type offense, just more of a mentioning that it shouldn't be done so that we have something to point at and say "see, this shouldn't be done". EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, lost track of this. I'm going to create a new section 'Who should create user pages' saying that in general, only the user themselves should create a user page, with the exception of creating a user page to add sock tags --- and? what other exceptions? Sorry I lost track of this discussion, I could have sworn it was on my watch list. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose adding this, per WP:CREEP, unless someone can convince me this has been a real problem. It also supports the idea that users own their userpage, which is addressed on this same page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support adding this, but I do not believe that it merits a new section. I would suggesting adding one or two sentences immediately after, and as an extension of, the advice (see WP:UP#OWN) that: "In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." –Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this: I totally agree with MSGJ (Martin). Also there is the question "what other exceptions?" which Dougweller raised: sooner or later some exception will come up which has not been anticipated. This, in my opinion, is one of the things which has been most damaging to Wikipedia over the last few years: the gradual shift from a fairly informal set of general principals towards an attempt to have an exact set of rules, with lists of exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions. If we must have anything about it then I think it should be a simple sentence or two, saying something like "except under exceptional circumstances", rather than a futile attempt to specify exact exceptions, which in the long run never works. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point and I agree. Black Falcon, it's the creation of user pages for new users that people have been concerned about recently, not so much editing them. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines that creating a page ultimately requires making an edit to a page (and a qualitatively significant one), so I viewed the former as a subset of the latter. I realize that it's perhaps not the conventional way of considering page creation, but it is technically accurate. I think revising

In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission.

to

In general, it is considered polite to avoid creating or substantially editing another's user page without their permission. (emphasis added)

should suffice, perhaps with an added sentence for explanation. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Long-term archival of articles in userspace

Userspace is not meant to be a permanent repository for draft articles, so what is the suggested method of dealing with such pages? Engaging the user directly is obviously the preferred method when the user is active, but what's to be done when the user is inactive (but not retired)?

A MfD nomination requesting a pagemove to the mainspace (where it could then be discussed at AfD) would do the job, but it seems like a wasted step. If discussion about the page must take place at a deletion venue, then that venue ought to be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. So, is a MfD nomination a necessary step to move a userspace draft of an article to mainspace and list it at AfD? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If the page is ready for public consumption I don't see why a bold move wouldn't work, but some people might take offense to that. –xeno^talk 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I am glad that there would be at least some support for that and I would be willing to take the (mild, in my opinion) risk of upsetting a user by moving a ready-for-mainspace draft article (this assumes, of course, that the user has been inactive for a long time). If the user returns and is miffed that someone published the article without his consent, then at least it's still possible to work things out with him, especially since the article still exists. I am more concerned about pages that probably would not survive AfD, where a user genuinely could be upset that someone effectively deleted a userspace draft under AfD standards. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I would hope that a draft moved to mainspace and then deleted would be put back into userspace, possibly blanked depending on its merits, or that if deleted, and note give to the user saying that he may request undeletion. Returning from a break to find your userspace material deleted can be disconcerting and unwelcoming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be poor form to move a clearly unready draft into articlespace such that it would be low-hanging fruit to be successfully deleted at AFD. The advice by SmokeyJoe below at 22:43 speaks to this. Only if you are willing to defend it at AFD should you move it into articlespace. –xeno^talk 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that makes sense as long as one can reasonably assume that a page was created in good faith. If it is likely that a userspace draft is nothing more than a promotional piece, then I suppose MFD would be the appropriate choice (unless the promotion is unambiguous, in which case WP:CSD#G11 applies). Thank you both for your comments. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you find such a page that you believe belongs in mainspace, your should move it there and defend it at AfD if someone else lists it.

If you find such a page that is not worthy of mainspace, then blank it, with a decent edit summary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe that sometimes blanking a page can be the best thing to do, and I have often done that. However, there are various situations in which a page should definitely be deleted. There is not the slightest doubt that some users use userspace copies as a way of evading Wikipedia's policies: this would be deleted if I posted it as an article, so I won't post it as an article, and I can keep it as long as I like. If it's blanked I can revert. Furthermore, if an article has been userfied specifically for the purpose of enabling it to be improved to address the issues which led to its deletion, then that is what should be done. If little or no progress has been made after several months then the decision by the community to delete should be honoured: one user should not be able to thwart that decision. This is so not only if the user had that intention, but also if the original intention was to improve it, but in fact it has been abandoned. Quite simply, material which it has been decided should be deleted should be deleted. It is one thing to allow a brief stay of execution to let the issues which led to deletion be addressed, but it is quite another thing to allow the decision to be ignored. Such pages qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). That criterion makes an exception for "content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)". (My emphasis.) There is no doubt at all that userfication is sometimes used with the intention of circumventing Wikipedia's deletion policy, but even when that is not the intention, if that is the effect then the material should be deleted. In practice it is unlikely to be useful to nominate it for speedy deletion, but I mention it to indicate that policy is quite clear. The exception exists only to allow improvement, and if improvement is not taking place then the reason for the exception does not apply. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Userpage info

If a user, at one point, had their email address on their userpage but removed it due to harassment they were receiving for edits, is there some way they can have those versions of the userpage suppressed so that the address cannot be viewed by regular users? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The revisions in the page history that contain the email address can be deleted by an administrator, which will leave the address visible only to administrators who check the deleted pages history, or they can be oversighted, which will hide the address even from administrators. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding noindex to userspace pages

See WP:VPP#Userspace guidelines to allow NOINDEX as a remedy? and this edit by Xeno.

Amending Xeno's edit to add the critical piece that discussion and consensus is best before removal of a {{noindex}} tag, which makes it effective. Noting that the {{noindex}} template is transparent and harmless to legitimate userspace use and can only help if there's a possible concern. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reverted addition. It's good to be enthusiastic and forward thinking. Changing to noindexed userspace is a contentious change the community's turned down in the past, repeatedly. Adding license to do it piecemeal or ad hoc, and with to sidestep discussing a userpage among cited aims plus provisions they're forbidden from doing anything about it unless they seek and achieve consensus, after opening another village pump discussion that's been open not even a day I think is a bit too enthusiastic. –Whitehorse1 16:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding. This isn't "changing to noindexed userspace". It lets other users NOINDEX a userspace page. Currently that's difficult because addditions to userspace has very wide leeway for removal. If there is a problem, such as BLP or the like, it's better to de-spider first, then discuss. The tag can be removed if the concerns are resolved or consensus is comfoortable with it.

I'm not seeing any real objection at the VPP discussion, indeed it was another user (Xeno) who made this edit initially. It looks like you're the only person objecting there. Everyone else seems to be fairly comfortable with the idea. A significant number would like to go further than this rather modest addition. Would you reconsider your stance on the basis this seems to be something that has more comfort than not, is transparent to valid editing, and is only capable of removing harm? Please take another look? Thanks - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I am misunderstanding. The very core of the change is non-indexing userspace. Specifically, individual pages in that namespace, chief among them often the userpage. For problematic userpages we do have templates that switch on noindexing (such as {{db-attack}}, {{sockpuppet}}, {{banned user}}, {{db-copyvio}}), and I am in support of them.

The VPP discussion had been open less than a day at the time the edit was made, and the other user you mention had even commented there the several times proposed noindex of userspace had not met with consensus. Aside from you as proposer and me, just six users commented, and two of those just asking questions related to the proposal while another only mentioned templates of some bearing on the topic. One user expressed what'd be described as lukewarm support at best, ambivalent is probably closer. That leaves, like, two people. It may be I'm the only person yet to express reservation there, but then it really isn't the most participated in discussion. Another three since chipped in, and in favor. We've the earlier proposals eventually linked at the VPP discussion which, notwithstanding users that did like them, saw strong opposition. Sure, no problem, I'd certainly be comfortable taking another look at this. I'll rethink the proposal, and'll give the points you brought up some careful thought. Thanks, Whitehorse1. 02:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

←Reading through various archives related to this left me with as many questions as answers. I'm uncertain about its scope, application, implementation and value. Both xeno's edit here ("will remove it from search engines and may preclude the necessity of a formal discussion") and your proposal ("guidelines state that where a user page may be used inappropriately the user should be asked, and deletion may be discussed. This can take considerable time and effort though") present tagging as an action to take to sidestep effort or "headache" of discussing material.

The rationale considers since userspace is distinct from mainspace, with subpages, absence of categorizing etc., user pages may go a long time between being noticed or before being remedied. Yet it's not possible to tag it if it's not noticed. It's when a page is noticed, action can be performed. Essentially you're saying the user can't remove it, while opting to not raise it for discussion, though in contrast the user must build consensus, yet the content deemed inappropriate may be neither (where only individual segments are the focus) redacted or (where a whole page is the focus) removed by deletion being sought.

Problem user content of the unambiguous type comes under speedy deletion; the ambiguous type comes under miscellany for deletion. If it is problematic, requiring action upon it, one of those two methods exists. It's explicitly stated on this page that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. This was added after this, here. When such material is encountered it needs to go, not receive a tag it shouldn't be spidered.

I think the problem of the userspace guideline, its subjectiveness, is also its strength. I think it has to be like that, too. Its scope though is vast. The provisions in the present guideline extend to abandoned otherwise uncontroversial userspace drafts and the like. Noindex is surely opaque, for a legitimate use of userspace, short contributor profiles and the like, as the wider sphere of the web is unable to see in. On reflection, the guideline's form and scope are a significant part of why I'm uncertain about scope and application of the noindex tagging.

I wonder, is there value in increasing use of {{historical}}, which through namespace detection adapts to userspace, as here? That may give a page context it otherwise lacks.

Also, why is Noindex not implemented by the {{mfd}} template? Disabling spidering for the duration of the discussion seems unobjectionable and reasonable to me. Or even, new parameters could be added to the template to override a default, so it can be enabled using |blp=yes or |noindex=yes, aliased to each other, with template documentation advising their use for contentious content on a living person, or otherwise sensitive material? –Whitehorse1 00:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The MfD template noindexes because the material so tagged is often objectionable or promotional in nature. Gigs (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The MfD discussion pages're noindexed, I was talking about the {{Mfd}} template applied to miscellaneous-pages proposed for deletion which doesn't seem to do so. –Whitehorse1 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. It looks like it does. The VPP discussion mentioned manually noindexing while under formal MFD discussion, and I could've sworn it didn't already either. –Whitehorse1 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I (and I'm sure some others) already noindex pages on occasion as a low volume way to not have to go thru MFD. This is permitted by WP:UP#OWN and WP:BOLD. Adding it here just ensures the guideline reflects common practices. –xeno^talk 16:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Either of us two adding noindex to a page in special cirumstances when judged suitable, is v. different from changing a guideline to say 'this is the common established practice, do this'. –Whitehorse1 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that's what the paragraph said, though [3]. (Now having just read what FT2 changed it to, I liked my version better. I especially don't like the "should not be ... removed without consensus" - BRD ought apply and the status quo - indexing - is the default position). –xeno^talk 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
      • That is what you said, in your preceding comment considered with the banner that guidelines have at the top. BRD, is an essay. It's not in dispute there are many who support or approve of it, but there are others still who think it encourages edit-warring or're otherwise not behind it. Is indexing the status quo default position? You said six days ago at the VPP proposals to noindex userspace had not found consensus [4]. The focus is ad hoc tagging though. The guideline is open to wide interpretation as well as broad. The material considered to fall within its interpretation is many and varied, whereas something like this is clear promotion. Had I come across it (and the {{mfd}} didn't implement noindexing as it's now become clear it does), I would probably have {{noindex}} (+ {{mfd}} ) tagged it myself. –Whitehorse1 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Is it clear with concerns/uncertainties I've raised above what I'm talking about? If I've explained poorly I'll do my best to clarify. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition + discussion of any refinement needed

The VPP discussion's been there a week now,along with a second discussion started above. Combined responses:

7 appear to be in favor of allowing tagging of userspace with {{noindex}} by uninvolved users (either specific pages or entire namespace) - Nominator, Xeno, Roux, SPhilbrick, Jclemens, Ohms law, Kslays

1 appears broadly in favor though wary of instruction creep - Killondude

2 commented and did not appear to object - The Wordsmith, Gadget850

1 Not in favor - Whitehorse1

Adding back as clear consensus at VPP after a week + no other objections were made on this page other than same one person + there is both a very low risk of harm (it doesn't interfere with legitimate uses) and significant benefits to project (in addressing userspace concerns).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Xeno and Whitehorse1 and invitation to improve

A quick recap of key points:

1. Status quo and proposal - Because there is no consensus to unindex the entire namespace, the proposal was to allow case-by-case unindexing of pages which gave rise to concern.
2. Effect - The tags don't impede editing in the slightest, so adding them does no harm to legitimate uses. Its sole effect is to prevent external spidering.
3. Current remedies - Not all pages with concerns are suitable for CSD or MFD (it may be a BLP in the course of drafting and not yet cited or balanced, MFD may be too heavyweight and discouraging to the user, or the page may simply need edits requested rather than outright deletion, for example).
4. "May not be removed without discussion" - the reason for this is that unless WP:UP otherwise states, users may decide what's on their user pages and subpages. So a user who wants to promote something on their userpage has the right to remove any edits or tags others place there, and it's easy to lawyer tendentiously over their addition or possible issues. This is a tag placed for good cause; unlike most edits to others' userspace it should not be free to be removed just because the user wants their content spidered. If the content matters and is suitable to spider then it'll still be suitable after discussion. This way gives good motivation to fix the issues; if they choose not to then it's an internal linked page only and can be left or discussed at leisure.
5. Costs and benefits - Re-permitting spidering of an noindexed page isn't as likely to imply urgency, compared to unindexing a page due to a concern. If the community or tagging user agrees the page should be spidered (or it has been fixed), then the tag can easily be removed.
6. Mirroring - Agree that we cannot address mirrors and spiders that don't honor robots.txt. But that's true for all content, including all other uses of {{noindex}}. Not relevant. This will be honored by most major search engines.

Xeno - I appreciate you think your wording was better. My concern is that (like a few other tags) a noindex tag on a userpage stays until it's removed by discussion. That's not the norm for most of userspace but you can see why it needs to be that way. If the wording can be improved while keeping that explicit, please do.

Whitehorse1 - I understand you have concerns. Although consensus seems to agree with adding this, if they can be met in any practical way I have summarized the points above so we can discuss it further.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What does "except by consensus" mean? It's kind of confusing. Anyway at the last RfC there was actually pretty strong consensus for compulsory tagging of all userspace pages with a banner informing readers that they weren't reading an article. Never was implemented, but we had consensus for it. Gigs (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I just couldn't think of a better short wording. The sense it's trying to convey is "if someone noindexed your user page, don't remove the tag unilaterally without either discussing with them or some kind of wider consensus." If you can word it better, please do. That was the best I managed, it's "one small step" to help handle one aspect of the issue. If there happened to be consensus for more in future, then more would be done I guess. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think that "nor removed without discussion or consensus" goes too far - I've removed it for now. We are setting out a new rule here and the pendulum is swinging a bit far from where it was before. If the user does remove the noindex tag then the available and appropriate remedy is to take the page to MFD. –xeno^talk 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree on that. It was covered in the proposal, and saying "do not remove tag X without discussion" is quite a small change given the good it can do. VPP + talk page discussions open for a week is enough to check if there was general support (there was) or any substantial level of objection (there wasn't).

1. Many issues aren't suitable for MFD if disagreed.
2. Problems are much more nuanced; often the material is not a clearcut remove and really needs editing. This on a user page can easily be 'lawyered, delayed or unsatisfactory. Noindex solves the overriding concern without affecting legitimate uses, but if it can be removed without any discussion it doesn't solve a thing and the proposal (which got a very clear consensus) would not achieve its aim.
3. Some 50% of views on the proposal supported a blanket NOINDEX of userspace. While that isn't what was proposed it does suggest that allowing noindex to "stick" pending discussion is within the clear consensus.

I've reinstated for these reasons. The whole purpose of a consensus-seeking exercise is to check if users will or won't endorse a change and they clearly had. If it was a radical change then that might be different, but this doesn't affect legitimate editing; its sole use is to allow de-indexing to be achieved upon concern until discussed and sorted out. Considering the "no harm" aspect, strong consensus, and that about 50% wanted to go far further, reinstatement looks right.

Is there any overridingly strong argument that was not considered in the discussion? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to've thought I brought up some good points; I guess not though. :\ –Whitehorse1 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Where in the proposal was it said that a NOINDEX tag unilaterally placed could not be removed without discussion? –xeno^talk 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously any edit can be placed and removed already. (X can add noindex or any other reasonable tag to Y's user page already, and Y can remove it if they don't like it). An edit that merely noted the status quo would not be a "proposal", it would just be an edit noting the status quo.

The proposal clearly wasn't a suggestion to just note the status quo. "A NOINDEX tag can be added by any admin" tends to make it clear that this means add and not arbitrarily removed. In case it wasn't absolutely clear, the proposal then notes under rationale, "Allows immediate handling, with follow-up by discussion at leisure, if the page creator objects to NOINDEX..." -- again, making clear the route is discussion, not "if the user objects they can remove it as usual". So it was clear in the proposal.

To make it clearer, the proposal was posted at 19:41, 24 February. The first question asked was at 19:52 and the reply at 20:17 stated that the point being asked wasn't quite correct and clear it was an additional option to MFD ("[A]n additional option... At present it's unclear if an admin could NOINDEX someone's user page, and if they did a belligerent user could arguably remove it") .

All of these were visible under 40 minutes from the proposal being posted. The proposal was then open for over 9 days (24 Feb - 5 March) during which time comments were summarized as above. About 50% wanted it to go much further, but that wasn't the proposal being put forward.

As well as the above, at 07:29 25 February (less than 12 hours after the proposal was posted) the further post was made "All that is missing is consensus that if there is a concern over a userspace page, it can be tagged as NOINDEX by an admin (which is transparent to any legitimate use) and this must be left in place unless consensus agrees otherwise. That's what is being proposed". Still no objections except the same person who had objected already. Again the comments during the 8.5 days after this were the same as summarized above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I think this argument is by-and-large academic at this point since I doubt many people will go around no-indexing anyway. –xeno^talk 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd put Roux as in favor from his comment, Xeno differs I believe on the removal aspects; Killiondude's comment I'd interpreted above as lukewarm at best, probably ambivalent; still, glass half full or half empty I suppose. That'd make it about 5 in favor; the degree to which that's further tempered by previous marked opposition to noindexing proposals might be another matter.

On noindexing the user namespace at least, we've a contentious change repeatedly turned down in the past. The rfc a year ago saw wide participation; when proposed again six months-ish ago similarly failed to gain a consensus of support. Given that, it shouldn't be implemented by side route or by attrition.

The thing about the User page guideline is it comprises vague sweeping statements that are being the subject of wildly different interpretations.The new provisions for userspace instruct people to noindex tag what they consider "inappropriate" or "contrary to" the guideline or a "source of concern", entirely without qualification.

The MFD archives show it's seeing pages right from clear self promotion I linked above, to one-line userpage statements of someone saying they're an up and coming musician or short contributor bios written in a perfectly ordinary and mundane corporate report author's profile style that the contributor is presumably used to using.

There seems to be a disturbing trend as well of people "having a good ol' nose", basically. Rather than the intended emphasis on pov forks, preserving hotly disputed versions or similar, what's going on is acting on things like innocuous old scrappy drafts & similar, be it by deletion, blanking or quick & easy tagging. –Whitehorse1 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And (to take your last point first) that's exactly what this will help, because a page that's a concern right now goes to MFD. This way a concerned user can noindex it and it doesn't affect any legitimate internal use within the project. It doesn't impede any reasonable use whatsoever. It takes a lot of the "heat" out of such discussions by allowing the indexing concerns to be met. User pages are intended for project use anyhow - even their personal inclusions are for the benefit of other community members not the wider world - so this way allows the best of both worlds. Suppose an uninvolved user thinks X's userpage or subpage contains material that is "too promotional" or something. The worst case is they tag it (which does zero harm and is virtually invisible to X), and if X really wants to have their userpage reindexed, which isn't the main purpose of userspace, X needs to seek some measure of agreement or consensus over the concerns. Or X can fix it, or leave it "as is". Easy and pretty mild stuff. Effective damper on unsuitable use (WP:NOT#HOST) though. Even if ignored completely it doesn't impede X from any legitimate communal use of the page whatsoever because noindex only affects external indexing. The user with a concern is happy, any possible issue is reduced in impact and the user and page are for all project purposes, not even slightly in a different position.

Taking the other points, the proposal was considered for 8 or 9 days, fully explained and detailed, linked here as well. The wording proposed was posted and removed and clearly described. Anyone could have readily said "I think it's a bad idea", for example. Roux stated (in effect) wouldn't it be as easy to blanket noindex the entire namespace, which is hard to interpret as any kind of objection; Killiondude stated he'd done this himself, saw merit in it, his sole hesitation was creep, not any objection to the principle of it, and so on. Again, it's worth noting that while this was not a proposal to noindex userspace, about 50% of responses did suggest or imply support for doing that, which would go a lot further.

If there is a way this significantly impedes legitimate user page usage for project purposes, please let me know? Realistically {{noindex}} is a completely unobtrusive tag. Without express "visible=yes", it's actually completely invisible. It adds __NOINDEX__ to the page. That is all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We're at cross purposes. A small amount of personal information, some notes or works in progress, todo lists and the like are perfectly legitimate uses of userspace. This is the same argument you used advocating noindex of all non-content namespaces (please correct me if I'm wrong); the consensus was to allow indexing. You've talked about legitimate user page usage, but what I'm saying is, according to the community, indexing pages of users in good standing is legitimate and acceptable, even desirous. Among benefits highlighted in earlier discussions were openness, it attracts involvement, sits in line with the principles of the project, and provides vital background context; cutting off from the rest of the web prevents that. I've already said with examples it's acceptable in some cases.

I'm wondering about placing {{disputedtag}} on the guideline section. Instructing people to noindex tag won't _help_ the increase of acting on abandoned otherwise uncontroversial userspace drafts and the like, it'll make it worse. As I talked about earlier, the proposal presented it as a low effort quick action to take on supposedly problematic material. With this, you don't even need to create an MfD subpage. If there's nothing wrong with a userpage, there's no reason anybody should be touching it. –Whitehorse1 00:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus (you know that of course) and I'm just not seeing any failing of consensus here. Seriously, if there was considerable disagreement it was not visible then, and a week later it's not visible now. Disputed would mean somebody has added it and others disagree, or a disagreement of the WP:BRD type. It isn't about winning or losing, "I and perhaps one other person don't agree" just isn't going to prove the endorsement was disputed. At the same time as you are arguing on the basis of what "the community consensus" is, you're trying extremely hard to ignore the fact that in this case what you wish the consensus to have been, wasn't. consensus can change. Maybe this shows approval of a more open approach to the matter that previously.

The points you make are also non-issues. If a user page was tagged as noindex and the user page owner disagreed, then the consensus of others is what will finally carry weight - exactly the same as most things. A small amount of personal information is allowed so if the community feels a small amount is all that's there, they will surely agree that the noindex tag may be removed, hence not an issue. And yes, you would still MFD unsuitable pages.

On this matter other users didn't seem to significantly agree with you. I cannot see one other person having said "endorse Whitehorse1" or "per Whitehorse1" for example, or having argued a similar view. Not one. You even removed the edit at one point as premature (which was appropriate) leading to a talk page thread, and even so not one other reader disagreed as a result of seeing the diff presented. Not one.

If you can point to evidence that there was no actual consensus in the proposal, do. I don't think that's so. A number of people contributed and others saw it and did not feel moved to object. Those who did comment almost entirely endorsed it. You unfortunately were the sole person to strongly feel opposed. It happens. There are matters I've felt strongly on that didn't go as I believed best, because I was in a minority. The disagreement of a small minority does not make a matter non-consensus. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying the earlier discussion consensus, such as it was. Here, not a single person commented on the original discussion after 2 days, and it auto-archived after just a few days. The point almost everyone agreed is made substantially weaker when hardly anyone participated anyway. This isn't about me disliking an outcome as you say. If it were, I'd suck it up. Incidentally, the disputed tag simply adds 'the following section's wording or inclusion in this guideline is disputed or under discussion.'

It'd be unreasonable to avoid adding anything to guidelines or policies if existing parts are misinterpreted or ambiguously interpreted. There does seem solid basis here though to think the addition may exacerbate interpretation issues. Yes, consensus can change; it can even change quite quickly. I've not seen evidence it has changed though: You seem to ignore the extremely well attended earlier discussions that weren't in favor of (globally) noindexing, over this one composed of fewer than 10 people that was. One of whom, disagrees above with a central part of the proposal and acquiesces since they doubt it'll be used much, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. If you're just counting signatures of whoever didn't say no, then yes there's consensus. However, consensus, as you know, is not a vote but built on arguments. ...Although, you've also dismissed my points as non-issues.

At all times I've bent over backwards to work collaboratively here, providing examples of cases for disabling noindexing, asking if concerns were clear, bringing up specific problems, even replying to you on my usertalkpage agreeing to look at and improve on it while it's live on the page. You could have sought to contribute ways to address concerns about its application. Instead, you pretty much alleged I was petulant, obstructive and obstinate. I'm still willing to collaborate with you or anyone else on this. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 05:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look up, you'll find I did just that. During the 8 or 9 days of discussion those are visible on the VPP page, and even after it, a number of posts addressing concerns you (and perhaps later Xeno) might have had, which were unprompted but made specifically because it's about collaboration and the fact a discussion's concluded one view doesn't mean others' concerns should be fogotten. Specifically in those you'll find numerous comments regarding application, usage, removal, consensus, and impressions of (lack of) harm done. I would say that was clearly "seeking to contribute ways to address concerns about its application". Most of those were not responded to. To name three: a statement that 'noindexing the entire space was previously rejected' doesn't speak to a proposal that merely requires a user to check consensus before reindexing a specific page where others have concerns; the addition of noindex does not affect any legitimate editing; and "consensus needed for X" is commonplace on many policies and guidelines so "may be misinterpreted" is unlikely.

The core of the objection is... what? That consensus hasn't endorsed noindexing the entire space unconditionally, therefore specific pages causing concern need consensus before reindexing is against the community's view? That it won't be used much? That many people who didn't comment saw it, and yet of those who commented almost all were in favor and almost none (well, one) spoke against in the course of 9 days? That in counting arguments rather than heads it's clear that the majority who felt it was a big enough deal to leave a comment, almost entirely felt it was a good idea and almost half stated it should even go further? That some specific harm will be done by requiring users with contentious (but not deletable) userpage material to check consensus before it's spidered on search engines? That harm will be done by being able to forcible noindex userspace content of concern during an MFD even if the user for that page demands the right to have it spidered? I just don't see a strong point.

I'm sorry, but try as I can, the central points you're giving, whether that you were not responded to (you were/are), that the consensus was disputed or flawed (Not as far as I can see), or that arguments not !votes count (same either way), just doesn't seem to go anywhere. Each of those was visibly attended to in the discussion and afterwards. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To try and address what you've said I've posted (below, outdented) a possible starting point. –Whitehorse1 01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unanimously accepted:

1. site global userpage noindexing per community is undesirable
2. individual userpage indexing in certain circumstances is desirable

Generally accepted:

1. the userpages guideline is subject to widely different interpretations
   1. as such, editors act on pages outside those which the guideline provisions were intended to address
      1. acting on such pages has drawbacks:
         1. unnecessary – time, lost opportunity cost (poss. multiple editors per page e.g. w/MfDTooltip Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion)
         2. can be bitey (deterring or discouraging contributors, old or new)
      2. of the actions suggested in the guideline, adding a noindex tag is the easiest / most visually discreet action
         1. accordingly, of all the listed actions a higher volume of use is probable
         2. additionally, the introduction of this easier non-labor-intensive action may exacerbate the problem (a.) above, because of its ease of use
2. to remove a noindex tag, a tagged user must 'build consensus'
   1. if tagger says they may not remove it, where do they go?
      1. if MfD may be too heavyweight or discouraging to the user, AN/ITooltip Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents may be equally or more so
3. the following templates switch on noindexing automatically:
1. {{copyvio}}, {{sockpuppet}}, {{db-attack}}
   1. any pages suited for those should have those used
2. {{mfd}}
   1. a userpage or subpage clearly suited for deletion should have mfd applied; noindex tagging will not delete it. (the mfd template simultaneously noindexes)

Self evident:

1. must be a good and valid reason to apply a noindex tag
2. high volume, non manual, or en masse tagging means less time was allowed to consider a page, therefore risks going against (unanimously accepted) point 1, plus generally accepted point 1, as well as self evident point 1

Solutions:

1. seek to clarify when is it appropriate to act (period) and when is it not. e.g.:
   1. not okay: may require action
      1. blatant & excessive self promotion
      2. long-term repository-style preserving of previously deleted material, pov forks, hotly-disputed versions
      3. long-term repository-style storage of a page that has not been and cannot conceivably become a valid article. e.g., '9 year olds writing obituaries on pet hamsters and articles on rock bands who will hold their first rehearsal next Tuesday if they can find a bass guitarist' (orig. by User:WereSpielChequers)
      4. bio of living person (BLPTooltip Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)/corporation attack page
      5. in-progress draft of BLP that is not yet cited or balanced, but not a BLP violation or attack page
   2. okay and acceptable: requires no action
      1. a statement or two on a userpage saying, for example, they're an up and coming musician
      2. small contributor bios that happen to be written in 'corporate-speak', that the contributor may be used to
      3. any notes, draft or work in progress that isn't a "problem", isn't a problem; applies irrespective of age or otherwise how diligent the contributor is in completing it
2. seek to clarify appropriate and not appropriate noindex tagging, possibly through examples
    corollary: avoid facilitating 'lawyering' over pages that should be indexed yet are dissimilar to examples
   1. example v. above may be an appropriate example of suitable candidate for noindex tagging
3. seek to clarify where a user may build consensus necessary for them to de-tag, when tagger disagrees

...  –Whitehorse1 01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This kind of detail may help to find if there is an issue or not. I do disagree with some of the matters you're citing as kind of principles:

1. You've stated "site global userpage noindexing per community is undesirable" as "unanimous". In fact far from it. It didnt get consensus in prior discussions, but it did get considerable support, and in this case about 50% said that blanket mandatory noindex was more desirable - that's very far from "unanimous" too. This was not the proposal. In any event I agree (if it wasnt obvious) that past noindex of the entire space has not reached consensus. Basically not salient.
2. Not convinced that a claim of a guideline having "widely differing interpretations" in other areas is relevant at all.
3. Disagree with "unnecessary" as a concern, would agree that egregiously WP:POINTy use could perhaps be bitey. (Hence my initial suggestion only an admin could do this). But on reflection, disagree. No real evidence of a problem. Someone adds "noindex" to a page. Little to no harm is my impression. Its not a deletion, it's not a comment on the person. Its de-indexing the content only. It does not even leave a message for the user unless the tagger chooses to do so.
4. Disagree with the conclusion that something being easy means it was not thought out.
5. Disagree that it contradicts a general noindex for the space - tagged pages will by definition be those where a specific concern exists, not random pages or the whole userspace generally. (No consensus on blocking all users doesn't even slightly contradict blocking some users, so to speak.)

On to the points where we might have more productive discussion:

1. The wiki is fixable. If a page such as a small but appropriate bio, or an appropriate user page in a corporate-speak style is written, and noindexed by another user, then a few things immediately come to mind:
   • The tag would not harm legitimate purposes. The purpose of user pages is to allow other collaborators to know a bit about those they work with. Nowhere in WP:UP does it say the purpose of user pages is to create an external search for the user. It has that effect, but that's not its "purpose". I hope we can agree on that. (Speculatively, if someone did try to add to WP:UP a clause like "The aim of user pages is to facilitate collaboration and allow users to have a searchable page of arbitrary content on the internet" it would probaby be rejected.)
   • It is not likely to be mass used for small appropriate user pages. If it is, then we may need to clarify a bit, but that's part of the usual development of norms.
   • A tagged page will very likely get one of 2 responses - indifference (becaue it has no effect on editing) or an inquiry to the tagger who will explain what the concern is - ie dialog.
   • Only if unreasonably tagged and discussion goes nowhere is there more needing saying.
2. Agree "if there isnt a problem then there isnt a problem", and age as usual is not a criterion. (Except for the one case of oversightable information about minors, which will vanish anyway so not relevant here).
3. Three remaining points are worth discussion:
   • Clarifying of appropriate and inappropriate noindex tagging, if there were issues on it -- the proposal suggested "only admins may tag; no tagging to make a point" for those exact reasons. I think if there was an issue then restricting tagging to admins would be a good way to prevent this issue. In all other cases where there is a new area of development, it gets refined over time. This may be refined too, as cases emerge.
   • Avoiding lawyering - same really, see previous bullet?
   • Ensuring if there is a concern a user knows how to seek consensus as stated - agree. I am hooping to see {{uninvolved}} promoted as a universal standard means to get help on a page or issue. If so this would be an ideal candidate for it, and include it in the text of {{uw-userspacenoindex}}

Quick thoughts as I'm away from home today. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. The word choices could've been clearer. The Unanimously accepted part just meant what we (those taking part in this discussion) all agree on, e.g. that, at least last time it was looked at, the consensus by some margin was to keep userspace indexed by default. Age was meant to refer to the age of the page not author (a mundane uncontroversial draft is no more a problem when 5 months old than when 2 weeks old).

Comparitively, tagging for something other than deletion may be less harmful, but that doesn't mean it is harmless. It still increases the amount of noindexed pages within a namespace, where consensus is to index -- the attrition problem. It still wastes time. I can also see how noindex tagging on userspace pages unnecessarily, i.e. with weak reasons, will increase readiness and prevalence of acting on them by other methods as the given weak reason comes to be seen as a need to intervene.

"Widely differing interpretations" of any guideline will always be, at least to some extent, a consequence of how that guideline is written, and therefore can be improved upon. Its ease of use doesn't quite mean an individual tagging was not thought out, but that it is more likely to be used; combined with an already ambiguous and differently-interpreted guideline, that promises uncertainty about its use. A look through the mfd archives or the timeline for drafts discussion below shows lots of uncertainty over what's acceptable for userspace and in what circumstances. The {{uninvolved}} template is good; I hadn't seen that before. –Whitehorse1 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating a Subpage

I don't think it is very necessary to create a link on your user page because you can just type in the Search box "Special:MyPage/Sandbox". Keyboard mouse (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can. But then again that's more complicated, especially to new users, than simply clicking on their name in the upper right corner and then on the link that appears. Regards SoWhy 16:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A link for personal sandbox would be useful. Too complicated for new users otherwise.--Fountain Posters (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on a timeline for userspace drafts

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Codify_a_timeline_for_stale_userspace_drafts Gigs (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing the noindex tag

Although I agree that it has no effect on talk pages, I wonder if the comment about not removing it should be replaced but alongside the comment about adding it. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost by definition a namespace such as user talk: that's entirely noindexed, won't have noindex tags on any of its pages. So the only pages one might see a noindex tag and therefore have the possibility to remove it will be in user page (which is indexed and where noindex is therefore meaningful).

So in effect, users can be told "don't remove noindex tags without discussion" without further details, because the only place they would find a noindex tag in their user pages is in User:X or its subpages, not User talk:. Listing it with the other "stuff not to remove" and not confusing it by noting it only applies to one branch of userspace (when they won't ever need to remove it from user talk because it'll never get added there)... that's my 1st thoughts. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

user:Xeno made a similar point elsewhere; the observation below is one outcome of it. By mixing up "user page" and "user space" it gets a bit confusing what's covered at times. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, confusing user space and user page doesn't help. We don't want people removing noindex tags from User:X or its subpages and we should say so to avoid problems. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Should be better now, with the reworked guideline being clearer about whether it covers user space, user pages or just the user page. Added back, go take a look. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename and copyedit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Page moved. NW (Talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Following discussion I've had a go at redrafting WP:UP which needed a good cleanup. I was amazed how much improvement is possible.

• Proposed reworked draft: User:FT2/User pages
• What's moved where and list of changes: User talk:FT2/User pages

I've deliberately made few or no substantive changes to allow focus on style and flow improvement.

I would also suggest a rename to "Wikipedia:User pages", removing the ambiguity that "user page" normally means just the one main user page.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. Style and flow is not something you get from a multitude of small edits. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, generally. –xeno^talk 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Much better. Changing the name is a very good idea. Do we need to point out that the 'right to vanish' may be denied? Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Edited to include "discretionary". Also added "If agreed..." to remove implication it's automatic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support rename. I think user talkspace is included by implication, too. This will enhance clarity. –Whitehorse1 00:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

5 days on... anyone with any objections? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• The logical structure is good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support rename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2010 (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.

"restoring talk page notices and Whois templates is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule"

Who is this aimed at? Everyone? If IPs aren't supposed to remove Whois notices, does this apply to editors restoring them? Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Those restoring. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative material

Separate to the above, would anyone have thoughts on this? It's possibly worth adding a short section to clarify.

=== Storage of negative material === For this section, negative material includes: (1) lists of negative evidence, claims, perceived flaws, and past actions of other users, and (2) negative or excessively critical material for draft articles or dispute cases that are not being visibly worked on. Wikipedia articles, processes, discussions, and disputes can require very negative or critical material to be considered or taken note of. However users should not keep compilations of negative notes and information related to others in public view on the wiki without very good reason. Compilation of factual reasonable wiki-based evidence on a subpage, for purposes such as preparing for imminent dispute resolution process or discussion, is usually permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner, and should usually be removed or courtesy blanked afterwards. Material for legitimate active article development may also be reasonable to keep (note: tag as {{userspace draft}}, and BLP policy can override this). In general though, negative evidence of these kinds should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (ie not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. Sections of talk dialog containing personal attacks can also be worth collapsing, courtesy blanking, or archiving at times, once the discussion is ended, though this is more likely to be down to the user's discretion.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the current:

(1) "Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason"

over

(2) "actual compilations of negative information related to others should generally not be maintained in public view on the wiki without very good reason."

This view is based on some encounters with disputes over such things brought to MfD. The first is direct and in simple terms. It is hard to argue (wikilaywer) with. If you want to list negative information, the onus is on you to have a "very good reason". The second contains extraneous words introducing ambiguity. What is the intended modifying effect of "actual"? Compilation? "Generally" is an escape clause for every worked up person, every worked up person believes that their situation is special. When someones records-transitioning-into-rants gets called into question, I would much rather be quoting and explain the first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Slight concern is people 'lawyering about user talk threads, SPI/ANI threads, other legitimate discussion, etc. Although ideally all such material could vanish or be collapsed, this section's mainly about users who try and indefinitely keep stuff they wrote that's about specific individual/s, group/s or user/s (or copied from elsewhere). It's not so much about genuine archived talk threads, and not really at all about project space, etc. Any suggestion for a wording that would do what you're saying but take this into account? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Slightly edited, re-check? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It took me a long time to find the edits you refer to. You edited the box above! It now says "However users should not keep compilations of negative notes and information related to others in public view on the wiki without very good reason". I support it. The sort of cases I remember coming to MfD involve material composed entirely by the user, and maybe one or two talk pages containing multiple and lengthy screeds. I don't see this text being misapplied to meaningful multi-sided discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comments from other people's pages?

WP:UP#CMT states Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages. Is there any policy regarding the removal of comments from other peoples' pages? (That is, A writes on B's page, and then C deletes A's comment.) Jpatokal (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:TPO. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, but surely that's for article talk pages, not user talk pages? I wouldn't be very happy if somebody started refactoring my talk page! Jpatokal (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that guideline is for all talk pages. But you're right - not all parts may be relevant in all situations. I don't know of any specific guideline for user talk pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding, the general view is that C should not remove A's comments from B's user talk page unless it is a serious WP:CIVIL violation, or A is a banned editor editing with a sockpuppet (the later case being where all their edits are reverted). If C removed A's comments just to remove them, that would be refactoring and against guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Small grammatical error

Under General Guidance>Personal and privacy-breaching material it says, "It could be copied elsewhere or even used to harass you in future". I can't fix it myself, but it looks like it is missing a "the" before "future", or perhaps it is meant to read "future circumstances". /pedant ReySquared (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I edited the section and took the opportunity to slightly reword it. We'll see what others think. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Should guest books NOT be part of the site

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

---

Resolved

 – Consensus here seems to indicate that there is a lot of support to keep guest books around. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are several editors who have guest books on their user pages (you can see several of them here). It was my understanding that guest books fell under the WP:NOTBLOG section of WP:NOT, but they are not specifically mentioned there. So, I want to bring the discussion here to determine if guest books should be listed there as they serve no purpose whatsoever as far as working to improve the encyclopedia. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• As I understand it the consensus is there's reasonably free reign with what goes on in user space as long as it's vaguely connected to the process of building an encyclopedia. Guest books encourage the spirit of community, consultation and interaction that a collaborative project like Wikipedia is built upon and as such they're at least arguably an asset to the project. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No. As a veteran of the userbox wars still no. Trying to control what legit editors put in their user namespace isn't worth the drama it cause.©Geni 00:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with Dust and Geni on this. They're relatively harmless, and they're uplifting to some people. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Geni and Jimbo. Trying to change people's user pages just upsets them. --Falcorian ^(talk) 03:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Should really be discussed at WT:UP. Coincidentally, there's an ongoing discussion there about secret pages. –xeno^talk 00:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We are human beings and to work efficiently and have good morale some of us need these things that make us feel our work is appreciated.Camelbinky (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they do any harm, as long as that is not all that users are doing; in my time, I've occasionally seen Jimbo invited to sign users' guest books, and done so. If users are only dong this, and using charitable resources as a social network, then we owe it to our financial contributors not to be seen to be wasting their money. Until then, a reasonable amount of leeway should be allowed. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has his own too User:Jimbo Wales/guestbook, see his quote at the bottom of it--Jac16888^Talk 01:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Stop trying to mess with peoples' userpage. Insofar as WP:NOT applies to benign userspace content from editors who are not disrupting the encyclopedia, you should ignore it. Monitoring someone else's space to see if it meets your definition of "productive" is the opposite of productive. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please assume a little good faith here. Instead of boldly deleting all the guestbooks, I came here to have a discussion about it. I'm not trying to "mess with peoples' userpage[s]". I'm merely asking about this feature which has absolutely zero relation to working together on the encyclopedia. I've reworded the header to better reflect what I'm asking. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume mean well, hut the basis for creating some overarching policy about userspace is suspect to say the least. I have a dozen things on my user page that may not serve the encyclopedia in your opinion. The wonderful thing is I don't care what your opinion of my userspace is--i don't mean to be combative, but your opinion is almost completely irrelevant. It is MY space, carved out by community norm to give me a place to do what I want in order to keep myself sane. Often that is just a navigational aid or a picture I like or a plug for a wikiproject. But sometimes it is a quote or a game or a rant or whatever. Unless I actually don't contribute to the encyclopedia or I am actively creating problems, organizing some well meaning transfer of control of that space (and that is what is happening, since your opinion goes from irrelevant to central in the calculation of what goes in the user page) is always negative sum. You are going to pis people off, add nothing of value and create busywork in a space that doesn't need it. Protonk (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are a good thing, but I think it would be an uphill battle to suppress guest books. They seem a manifestation of immaturity. They may involve camaraderie but of a particularly vacuous sort. I think they foster personal bonds that are at best irrelevant to building the encyclopedia. I would not advocate taking any action against them because the howls of protest would be unbearable. Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please, since when is a "list of associates", a "show of camaraderie" a "Blog" last time I saw a Blog I saw "hey what's up ? saw your mom, Hey how's your sis.....? Please what's wrong with a list of fellow editors showing "Community Unity"?

Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

list of associates are not always productive to building community spirit. Gnangarra 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And "Smoking " is not "Always" the cause of Cancer Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

and ducks always quack like ducks. Gnangarra 03:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting my point. Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Geni. This stuff seems harmless, the benefits of a ban are uncertain, they are not worth pissing off even a single editor. Perhaps, at best, I might support MFD of abandoned guest books of the kids who grew up ... NVO (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• I've already commented above, but after reviewing the discussion on secret pages at WP:UP, I would add that I'm happy with guestbooks being discouraged through policy - after all, we want to encourage people to be actively improving the encyclopedia rather than tinkering with userspace - but that it's not a policy that should be enforced through warning messages or deletions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  I agree: we should discourage guestbooks, but "enforcement" should be (mostly) voluntary and non-conflictual, with the exception of deleting abandoned guestbooks. The gain from deleting guestbooks is not enough to justify the negative consequences (time spent, conflict, drama, etc.) of attempting to delete them. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

These things serve no encylopaedic purpose, but having a policy against them serves no purpose either. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• If guestbooks serve in building a sense of community (and probably they do, at least a little), they contribute indirectly to the encyclopedia, and should be tolerated. Note also the negative consequences of enforcement, per Black Falcon. There is a slight contradiction at times between WP:NOTMYSPACE and the fact that this is a community-built and maintained encyclopedia. Some community-ish stuff serves an indirect purpose for the encyclopedia without crossing a line into merely using WP bandwidth for other purposes, and that should be recognised. I'm not definitively saying guestbooks do that (I've not come across the idea before...), but they may fall into the class of things which do. Rd232 ^talk 08:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are decent arguments for benefits of hosting guestbooks. The arguments in support of hidden/secret pages are much weaker, and we have trouble achieving consensus on whether they should be deleted. see Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Secret_pages:_Ok_or_not.3F. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Guestbooks, not much of a problem. Hidden pages, waste of space, myspacery. The so-called "sandboxians" who spend most of their time here playing sill games in the sandbox - well, that should be a WP:NOT. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Kill with fire. It's tolerance of this sort of pointless rubbish that leads to more damaging things, such as not being able to stop people abusing the retired template, or not being allowed to label banned editors as banned because it might hurt their feelings, and all the other clap-trap that has previously fallen under this wierd idea that there is some sort of user page bill of rights here. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that Jimbo has one makes it a bit hard to take that strong a line. See also the quote at the bottom of User:Jimbo Wales/guestbook. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The fact that Jimbo has one is no more relevant than the fact that any other editor has one. DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Jimbo thinks the article title 'climategate' is blatantly and obviously not a violation of NPOV. If his opinion makes jack difference in that serious issue, I hardly think his posession of a guestbook is a dealbreaker in this discussion. He thinks it fosters people being nice and friendly to each other, I think it encourages site norms here that do far more harm to the community friendliness than deleting people's guestbooks ever would. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Stop wasting our time with this perennial proposal - I don't have a guestbook, have never signed one. I do find it odd that otherwise sane editors waste huge amounts of their time seeking them out in order to complain about them. Guestbooks seem pretty harmless, and I am sure that for those who use them they foster friendship and collegiality. For those of us who don't use them they are pretty much irrelevant. DuncanHill (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • • I searched the archives of the pages where I thought the discussion might be, but found no discussions. I don't waste my time seeking out guestbooks in order to complain about them. Perhaps it would be good if people like you didn't assume bad faith on the part of people who bring up these things. I asked a simple question offered my opinion on the issue, and requested that people offer their opinion on that issue. I didn't ask for catcalls from the peanut gallery. Please try to be a little more productive in your comments instead of ragging on someone who asked a sincere question. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, it's just I've seen this so many times on AN, ANI, XfD and god knows where else, that I assumed an experienced editor would have seen it too. The only guestbooks I've ever even seen have been ones that have been linked to from these discussions, so I've no idea how anyone would find enough of them to think that they were a problem. DuncanHill (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • hear hear. That should be the summary with which this discussion is closed, preferably ASAP. Rd232 ^talk 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:VPP –xeno^talk 13:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose banning of guestbooks Per Jimbo's quote. Also, I don't see a big issue in having one. There are also several admins that have one. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this, but I think it's ironic that people keep referring to the quote at the bottom of Jimbo's guestbook as some kind of point in favour of guestbooks. It rebuts an argument-against-guestbooks by pointing to Esperanza, which has itself been sunsetted. –xeno^talk 13:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  Did you read the rest of Jimbo's quote? Guestbooks are also about saying hello and being friendly. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  I just think it's amusing, that's all. I generally agree with the sentiment that guestbooks are mostly harmless and if they aren't the only thing someone is doing on Wikipedia, should be left alone. –xeno^talk 13:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Let it go. Do I think guestbooks are silly and pointless? Yes I do. Do they harm Wikipedia in any way? No they do not. In my opinion about 95% of userspace edits (other than drafting new pages) are an off topic waste, but so what? There's no harm in it, and there is harm in stirring up drama just because you don't happen to like something. If you don't like guestbooks, it's not hard to ignore them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• As with many other silly user page features, guestbooks are for community building, which can lead to effective collaboration. Should not be prohibited. The spirit of NOT is that people should not use Wikipedia exclusively for social or personal activities without actually contributing to the project. This is obviously not a case of that. Dcoetzee 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Allow people to have guestbooks, a variant of a talk page, giving a minimal but informative feedback to the operator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As it appears that most people are not interested in getting rid of them, that's what I wanted to know. Anyone who feels like it welcome to close this section. There's no point in keeping it open. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:33, 15 April 2010 (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.

Deleting one's own user pages

If a user is retiring and asking to delete his/her user pages the request should be granted. Why? Usually the users, who request their user pages to be deleted are very, very upset and hurt. Most of the time the users will reconsider few hours or few days later, but, when the request is made, it is better to comply with it even, if it is not the right thing to do. After all how anybody's user pages could be compared to the suffering of a person? It is not even important, if a person has the reasons to be upset and hurt, it is important that for whatever reason he/she is. As I mentioned above in most of the times, a user will come back, and have his/her user page undeleted, but, if he/she will not, so it be. A leaving wikipedia user should not feel himself/herself as a tormented piece of a flesh that is attached to his/her Wikipedia user pages forever.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And we typically do delete such pages on request. However their main user talk page is typically not deleted, because it holds a record of the messages left for that user. –xeno^talk 01:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the main user talk pages, it is what I am talking about. I do not know how often users request to delete their main talk pages. I do not think it happens very often. I know I requested my talk page to be deleted, and today I saw that one admin (Spartaz) deleted his own pages, and what a drama it created. I cannot explain why on January 26 I requested my talk page to be deleted. There were absolutely nothing there that could have hurt me more than I already was on that day, just the opposite. There were some nice messages, barnstars, FP promotion notifications at my talk page, yet I did, and when I was repeatedly refused in deletion of my talk page, it made me feel even much worse than I did before. All I needed were just few hours to feel better, and maybe some words of understanding... As I said above in most cases a user will reconsider deletion of his/her talk pages few hours or few days later, but, if he/she will not, so it be. If a user is gone how his/her talk page's history could be so important? --Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This courtesy should be granted because it costs us nothing. If a user unretires, then the talk page obviously needs to be undeleted for transparency. I consider the courtesy of own talk page deletion to be part of the right to vanish (which is actually a courtesy, not a right). Jehochman ^Brrr 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User pages may be speedily deleted via {{db-u1}} ... and restored just as easily if the editor wishes. However regarding talk pages, I agree completely with Jehochman.— Kralizec! (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we do not normally delete user talk pages, and never by speedy. They are kept as a record of an editor's interactions with other editors. In the case of retiring admins they are likely to contain material relevant to admin actions they have taken, and which need to be visible to ensure that actions can be reviewed. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk pages frequently contain records of transactions which may continue to be relevant after the user has left. A while ago I needed to check the history relating to certain editing, and found that i could not read some of what i needed to because a user had managed to get her user talk page deleted by a bit of trickery. I managed to get the page restored, but I see no reason why I should not have had direct access to it. Finding what had happened to it and recovering it took time and effort that could have been more usefully employed. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sometimes (often?) when badgered users quit (even temporarily) their pages might be targeted for more parting insults, as evidenced by the keen observation: a "user should not feel himself/herself as a tormented piece of a flesh" (well stated, I think that happens a lot). Perhaps a small, dedicated group of decent users could patrol for such parting insults, you know: "I am a recent insults patroller". Those user-page changes could be quick, logged with summary undid WP:CIVIL vio. For protection, the decent people could use WP:SOCK#legit alias usernames (perhaps known only to decent admins), to thwart the insults being directed at them (after the token victim has quit WP and the tormenters lack a squirming target). In the past, people have tried to organize a set of decent people, as a haven against WP:Wikihounding, but more groups would be helpful. It is much easier to simply protect people, with support, than to ban difficult, insulting users who are eager for a conflict. Shield the victim from abuse, and the abusers often lose interest, without needing to directly confront them or call an exorcist. In the guideline, mention the idea that other users are expected to undo hate-posts to a retired user page. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)