Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Proposed deletion for userspace

Please see here for a proposal to reinstate proposed deletion for userspace under certain circumstances (related to #PROD in userspace above).

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Surprise

I got first block on a local wiki for removing contents from my user page...Local wiki dont have the user_talk page guidelines and i followed the guideline of en.wiki...I think this rule also need to be reviewed...--Kalarickan | My Interactions 08:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Which wiki? Could you link diffs? Were you removing warnings? Gigs (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This should probably be at meta, but here it is from mlwiki. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
At ml.wp there is a guideline for talkpages and it clearly states don't remove but archive (User:Binukalarickan has an edit on that page, which he reverted himself!). Binukalarickan was repeatedly doing many disruptive edits by claiming no exclusive guideline or by gaming the system against existing policies or best practice. Many ml.wp users informed and warned him about his edits with AGF but he was not in a cooperative mood with others. At last get blocked for 3 days.--Praveen:talk 06:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • None of this is at all relevant. Each project has it's own procedures based on what its users want. This is not the place to appeal a block from another wiki or to attempt to influence policy decisions at that wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for global limit on size of user talk page

Just thought I'd alert people to an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether there will be a global size limit for user talk pages, so that they load more easily.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_page_accessibility. Rd232 talk 01:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are hereby prohibited from doing anything inappropriate

I'm concerned about this edit. I won't revert it, but it seems to give ANI and everyone else at Wikipedia carte blanche to remove whatever they think is "inappropriate" from any user's talk page. I would at least like this changed to "grossly inappropriate".

The problem now is twofold. First, it's an invitation for anyone to meddle with anyone else's talk page based merely on an "I don't like it" rationale. Just imagine what chaos we would have if article content could be removed merely because it's "inappropriate". It should be MORE difficult to remove user talk page content than article content, not LESS difficult, because user talk page content is not a final product that Wikipedia is presenting to the world.

The second problem is that telling users not to do anything inappropriate is so vague as to be useless guidance for the user. So, I would prefer if we could protect user talk pages a bit more here. After all, WP:IAR is always available in extraordinary situations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That edit doesn't really change anything. The key section is the existing paragraph

The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable. In some cases a more experienced editor may make non-trivial edits to another user's user space, in which case that editor should leave a note explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons. If the user does not agree, or does not effectively remedy the concerns, or the matter is unsure or controversial, then other steps in this section can be taken including uninvolved user opinions or proposing the page for deletion.

Rd232 talk 11:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If the edit doesn't change anything, then I'd urge for it to be reverted. Anyway, thanks for your reply. I've pretty much said all I wanted to say. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The main reason I made the change referenced above was from concern about the general principle that we generally do not try to precisely define what bad behavior is. The previous (and new) edit (diff) suggested that only material specifically prohibited in the guideline could be regarded as inappropriate, whereas it is more normal for procedures to provide general guidance, and for case-by-case consensus to decide whether a particular outcome is good or bad (i.e. we follow the "spirit" of the law, rather than what the law actually says). I take your point that it could be highly disruptive for editor A to remove material from B's userspace because A claims it is inappropriate. However, if a dispute arose, the matter could easily be brought to a noticeboard (WP:WQA would suffice) where other editors would quickly resolve the matter, or escalate it to WP:ANI. I think we need to leave a good hint to editors that they do not own any page, and material which consensus thinks is inappropriate will be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

IPs removing block notices from talk pages

Aren't those supposed to remain up, at least for current blocks? There's no mention of it here. Enigmamsg 23:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see here. Regards, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of that link? It appears that nothing got resolved. Enigmamsg 05:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, so there's no consensus for block notices to remain up if the IP removes it from their own talkpage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The policy as it stands now is rather insane; it is allowed to remove current, active block notices, but it isn't allowed to remove denied unblock requests. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
No, the policy does not explicitly say either way about removing any current, active block notices, like I pointed out in the link above to the discussion about it. Blood Red Sandman has said that "...it is generally held that block notifications should remain in place for the duration of the block, this is not actually set out in policy." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You have new message templates.

I don't know where to really turn from this. This is in regards from this edit. Is it against Wikipedia policy to have a simple parody of you have a new message banner on a user or user talk page. − Jhenderson 777 02:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, see here... WP:SMI. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not going to tell names but there is others that have done this as well, so unfortunately I didn't see anything wrong with it at the time. − Jhenderson 777 02:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

Why does WP:BLANKING point to this page rather than to Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism? I thought "blanking" can refer as much to articles as it can to user pages. PleaseStand (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because someone created it for the current purpose. Would it have been better if it instead referred to vandalism? Possibly. Does that mean it should be changed? Probably not, because it's currently used for its current purpose, and changing it would cause confusion for little benefit. Looking at the edit history of the redirect, specifically this revert, confirms this. --Mepolypse (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems that revert was a year ago. We can try to DAB it again, propose it here on the talkpage or notify the user who reverted. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, this should be disambiguated. --Bsherr (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Why? Are people linking to shortcuts such as WP:BLANKING without checking where such shortcuts go? That seems sloppy. Surely the people who link to that shortcut for its current purpose outweigh those don't check where it goes and who expect something else? If I for example vaguely remember that WP:SMI points to advice that simulating a you-have-new-messages-banner on one's user page is discouraged (hint, hint) I would surely check where that shortcut goes if I wasn't sure. If I was sure and had linked to that often I would expect it to remain a redirect to an equivalent section and would find it impractical if it suddenly turned into a dab page. --Mepolypse (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the shortcut is actually a full English word for something that is independently its own multicontextual topic on Wikipedia. Really, it's WP:Blanking, not WP:BLANKING, that should be disambiguated, but I think disambiguating one without redirecting the other to the disambiguation would be confusing, but maybe that's the best solution. --Bsherr (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal For A New Type Of Infobox

Moved to Wikipedia:Requested templates § Proposal For A New Type Of Infobox
 – Bsherr (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Needed?

Should the statement "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable" be clarified with some sort of hint about what "short term" means? For example, what of a page that is slowly being built up in userspace and which, if/when finished, would otherwise be an acceptable Wikipedia article? Is there a time limit for creating an article in userspace to be lateR moved to the main encyclopedia? Guy Macon 03:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been proposals in the past at WT:CSD about deletion of abandoned drafts in user space and the article incubator, but nothing has succeeded. There is no explicit time limit. Consensus at WP:MFD determines it. It's difficult, therefore, to be more specific. But if you have a suggestion, do share it, please, and it might be worthwhile to consider it as a rule. --Bsherr (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it has been said, without opposition, that 6 months for an unsourced BLP is too long. I think that anything that rings of promotion is unacceptable regardless of time; usually the external links need to be removed immediately. Other subjects, academic or historical, of no possible harm or promotion, are not a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
In the case of a completely unsourced BLP it is my opinion that it should be held to the same standard as a BLP in mainspace, unless at least one source is attached it needs to go after 10 days. BLPs are a different animal than pretty much any other type of article and cannot be allowed to remain unsourced because of the potential for legal trouble no matter what namesapce they are in. The rest of what Joe says sounds good to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Bear in mind though that proposed deletion doesn't apply to the user namespace, so any standard is subject to consensus at MFD. It's always case by case. MFD may decide to keep a BLP longer than six months, or as short as the time it takes after creation to nominate it and come to consensus. --Bsherr (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If I understand the above correctly (IOW, I am seeking to be corrected), a "normal" article (not a BLP, not objectionable for other reasons, suitable (other than being unfinished) as a Wikipedia article) can sit in userspace indefinitely as long as progress is being made (not abandoned). I would also venture to say that if someone finds it problematic enough to nominate it for deletion at WP:MFD, then it isn't the sort of "normal" article I described above. Unless, of course the only reason for nominating it is how old it is. Getting back to improving this page, reading what I just wrote, even if everyone agrees that I got it right, I don't see a good way to edit the "Short term hosting of..." statement to reflect something this vague and nebulous. Guy Macon 00:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe that is the consensus. My understanding is that MFD will employ the standard of whether the user page advances the encyclopedia. Actaully, very little that goes to MFD is governed by any more specific of a standard. --Bsherr (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I wasn't advocating 6 months, just reporting that no one suggests that 6 months is reasonable. If 10 days without a source is the rule for mainspace, the same should apply to userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of slowly and carefully building up an article in userspace then releasing it only when it is good enough? IMO, making it noindex is sufficient. Guy Macon

Would not removal of the bad external links be sufficient? Most c.v. are "self-promotional" and I would hate to see a change make them all suddenly deletable when WP has always said that short amounts of material about oneself is a proper use of userspace. The Law of Unintrended Consequences should be noted here, lest we find a cure far worse than the disease. Collect (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

editing user talk pages - possible revision

I don't want to get involved with this debate too much (since I'm currently having a tussle with another editor over it), but I've run into this problem frequently enough that I'd like to see a wording change here. it's with respect to this passage (at Wikipedia:USER#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages):

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

It seems to me that user talk pages are necessary locations for discussing issues that are tangential to actual content discussions. This might include off-topic clarification of related issues, comments on behavioral problems, procedural notices, ongoing debates about overarching or underlying material, or etc. I don't debate the right of a user to prevent other users from editing their user page, but users should not be led to believe they can ban other users from posting on their user talk page, because doing so has a serious impact on the rest of the project (e.g. discussions either have to take place in article talk space, which is inappropriate, or they have to go to some administrative page where they are likely to turn into extended kerfluffles). It would be better if the passage read something like what follows:

  • If a user asks you not to edit their user page, such requests should generally be respected (excepting administrative or project-related notifications). However, users may not restrict each other from their user talk pages, since user talk is essential for dealing with issues that are not directly related to articles. Users may request that interaction be minimized to bare essentials, and administrators can ban editors from user talk pages in cases of harassment or vandalism, but otherwise user talk pages should be freely open to editing.

The wording could be better, but you get my drift I think. comments? --Ludwigs2 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

the language is actually pretty tame--probably sensible to respect their requests. What about just adding ..."but no one can 'ban' another user from their talk page for civil comments geared towards resolving conflicts or improving the encyclopedia." Ocaasi (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
collapsing off-topic comment. take this up on my talk page, or wikiquette, not here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would language on the order of "but if you continue searching through my edit history looking for people who don't like me to try to draw them into this conflict, I may have grounds for administrative sanctions against you - don't stir up old unrelated conflicts just to try to score points in this discussion. fair notice given" or " will make such posts as and when I deem fit. If you don't like it, don't put me in a position where I need to." qualify as "civil" under your standards? Collect (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Occasi - that would be fine with me. If no one else comments on this thread I'll leave it up to you whether you want to be BOLD about it. --Ludwigs2 15:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I just saw this - good issue raised. The policy (Which would override this guideline) implies something a bit different. Namely that your user page is not yours. The concept is that user pages are part of Wikipedia, they can be edited if need be and, more importantly, the idea is that they are part of the process that allows for collaboration. Obviously things such as Vandalism are not allowed anywhere, but in the wider sense the proposed wording above is too wordy. I would suggest something much more simple::
If a user asks you not to edit their main user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to). User pages provide a foundation for effective collaboration.
The idea is that, outside of the users main (name) page other user pages are, per policy, "providing a foundation for effective collaboration" and as such language that implies a user can, in essence, bar people from touching any of their users pages is against policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: ArbComm and other noticeboards have, indeed, specifically dealt with people being barred from posts not directly concerned with notices on user talk pages. Requests that a user not post to a user talk page should be honoured. Collect (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Asking for guideline changes when in the midst of a dispute involving the guideline is generally a bad idea. I think the existing wording is suitably vague but conveys the appropriate message, i.e. it asks the poster to think twice but doesn't give the postee any absolute rights. The original proposed wording goes too far toward forming a hammer to beat an editor with, a la "you can't stop me". Soundvision's proposal does a little better job of describing the spirit, but maybe a different wording to explain that sometimes a user talk page is the only appropriate place to communicate would be better. However the main thrust should remain that if someone asks you not to post on their page, you really should try very hard not to do so. Franamax (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm really trying to back off this (for the reason you and I both gave), but I do think there should be some clarity on this issue. I've had this problem from three or four different editors in the past, and each time they banned me from their talk page it was because they were doing something crappy on an article talk page and didn't want to discuss the matter in a place where it wouldn't cause a commotion: e.g. they wanted to force me to discuss their actions in article talk (to promote fights) or to take them to wikiquette or ANI (in the vain hope they can boomerang it on me). Don't get me wrong, I will always (myself) ignore any request not to post to a user talk page if I feel what I have to say is best done in user talk, and that's not going to change no matter what this guideline says. It would just be nice to delegitimize that incredibly juvenile "You can't talk to me, nyahnyahnyahnyah" moment. There's really no place for that on a collaborative encyclopedia. --Ludwigs2 17:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Changes made during a dispute are obviously never retro-active. Also, if the dispute is about a policy, then that dispute is the impetus for further discussion and clarification. I don't see a problem with trying to sort this out, aside from 'the appearance of impropriety', which, well, is just an appearance. Ocaasi (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it ok to remove other users' discussion about an unblock request from one's own talk page?

Please see this. The specifics of the content dispute are immaterial here; the issue is, I blocked a user, the user posted an unblock request, and I posted a response to it. The user removed my response, which does not appear to be explicitly forbidden in this guideline; it seems to me, though, that if removing declined unblock requests is not allowed, then removing active discussion of open unblock requests (especially if it's meant for another admin to see before making a decision about the unblock request) should also not be allowed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule prohibits the blocked user from removing the blocking administrator's comments that are provided for the benefit of the administrator(s) who are patrolling the unblock request queue. This could be made clear by changing it from "Declined unblock requests" to "Declined unblock requests and administrator comments related to open and declined unblock requests", but that is getting a little wordy. –xenotalk 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It didn't fool me anyway.[1] Most admins know edit warring when they see it. (I hadn't seen this at the time.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't expect you to be fooled by it; mainly I was just curious if there was a consensus on what to do in these situations (or if such a consensus could be reached here), in case it happens again. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Xeno's answer matches well with my experience (Hmm, I was misreading him. Well my comments can stand alone). The actual comments left by the blocking admin or an admin refusing an unblock request are what matter. The rest is basically chaff. There is almost no conceivable reason why a comment left by a third party and removed by the blocked editor should be reinserted. Protonk (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • How about "Any admin responding to this will want to look at the SPI investigation opened after the user was blocked"? Does that count as a conceivable reason? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • It still seems to me that, like I said above, any discussion pertaining to whether or not the user should be unblocked should be left open (subject to normal talk page constraints--e.g., if something goes off-topic somebody can roll it up just like they can roll up a tangent on, say, ANI) as long as there is an unblock request pending. A blocked user should not be able to present a one-sided view of his block and remove others' comments about it when he's asking to be unblocked; of course, in theory admins should probably check the history like Beeblebrox did, but in practice I don't know if they always do. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I agree with Protonk here. Any admin accepting an unblock request (or denying it for that matter) should be investigating all aspects of the user's block including looking for an SPI case. It would be poor judgment on the unblocking admin not to. Any third party comments are helpful, but not necessarily required or protected from removal. Even then, part of the reviewing admin's homework should/would be to review the history of the talk page.--v/r - TP 17:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If xeno's proposal uses too many words, we may replace "Declined unblock requests" with "Declined or ongoing unblock requests" MBelgrano (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
(To WhatamIdoing): Maybe? I just dont think that third party comments need to be "protected" from removal. Partially because the policy becomes confusing if we expand it too much and because we have a strong social norm regarding talk page freedom. Anything apart from comments made directly regarding the block or unblock request shouldn't be cemented on a user's talk page with the force of policy. Protonk (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user -> unregistered user

As per

I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.

Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.

In light of this, please change "whether registered or anonymous users" -> "whether registered or unregistered users". Thanks. 113.197.147.212 (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting "staledraft" policy

Currently this page says:

"Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content."

I think this is too restrictive. I don't like the standard of "not a free web host" because we *are* a free webhost for educational knowledge and anything related to that goal. And while we limit ourselves to a single consolidated article namespace, with Notability standards and an equilibrium of edit wars, this should not keep us from supporting the efforts of people gathering other educational knowledge which may one day make it into that single central namespace.

Userspace seems like a fine place to me to host works in progress, draft notes that may one day become an article, or revisions of an article that was deemed as needing cleanup. Currently we are eager to delete incomplete articles, rather than blanking pages, which (combined with our historical anti-feature that prevents readers from seeing deleted revisions) means keeping a revision in userspace is the only way to continue working on something, or to point others to it for future reference. The same is true for any page of historical or research interest.

I think that any page with a reasonable rationale for being of historical interest, or a revision that was deleted for reasons that can change over time (lack of good sources, insufficient demonstration of notability), should be welcome in userspace as long as it is not causing community disruption. WP is increasingly not paper. –SJ+ 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If WP:STALEDRAFT were weakened, arguments could be raised to indefinitely keep just about anything. Along with screeds of original research showing various scientific breakthroughs, there would be promotions of plumbers and garage bands. Worse, in my opinion, would be those who keep the "good" version of some article—the one which shows the POV they favor. While NOTPAPER says the disk space does not matter, what does matter is the change in atmosphere such a proliferation of non-encyclopedic stuff would cause. If people can spend their time tweaking userspace stuff with little contribution to the encyclopedia, we will build up a strong group of editors who believe that such activity is good, and guidelines restricting unhelpful activities will be further weakened by their consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, and well-stated. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
A rewording of that section to discourage a specific set of inappropriate uses, from pet theories to commercial promotion, would serve the first purpose you suggest. I do mean to suggest that "people tweaking... with little contributions to the encyclopedia" is valuable, since currently we delete a lot of perfectly good contribution on that grounds that they haven't been worked on enough to justify their existence. We currently both encourage people to work on drafts in their userspace and then say that any such drafts can be deleted -- either we need a better place to use as a collaborative quarantine for work-in-progress, or we need to revise the tenor of this policy. The standard of "can be kept for some time but not forever" isn't very good. (On the other hand, userspace really isn't a very good place for such work in the first place, since it should be open to collaboration) –SJ+ 16:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: The wording, if anything, is not "too restrictive" and needs to be more specific. The idea with a "stale draft" is that something has been sitting without being worked on for a period of time. That part is fine. The part that is always questioned is the actual "time" - one month? One year? 5 years? Never? And this all comes back to how the user pages - subpage - were created. was it userfied? Was it placed there unasked for? Was it placed there by an editor who simply wants to retain their preferred version of the article? Common sense should kick in, but I find, and found (and feel), that more specific guidance would be better. It is why there are separate pages for userfication and the Article Incubator. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    The trouble is that the amount of time "all depends": Is the editor known for good article contributions? Is the draft essentially junk or promotional puffery, or does it appear to have good potential as encyclopedic content? While we are all equal, it would be absurd wonkery to target userspace drafts of someone who has created a couple of featured articles, for example. On the other hand, someone who does not have a history of adding good content should not keep a draft of some promotional puffery (if it's extreme puffery, no one should have it as a stale draft). Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Some may say "it all depneds" but the wider issue is not that it "depends" but that there needs to be a very clear "line in the sand" that applies to everyone. Policy does not say "this policy only applies to a certain class of editors" and that is why I feel links need to be up to date and cross referenced and *all* need to be in line with the guiding policy. If an editor signs up, created a vanity user page and never comes back a lot of "common sense" things should kick in - but they don't always. All an editor has to do is move that userpage to a subpage and claim "Someday this might be ok for mainspace" to prevent deletion. Likewise if an article is to be deleted and someone requests a copy be userfied it is generally done in good faith - the "good faith" being that the person who wants it is going to try very hard to make it usable. The issue really needs to become "For how long?", and that is usually never discussed in deletion discussions and certainly it is not defined clearly in policy and guidelines. Of course there are those who feel anything in userspace is "owned" by that editor - thus it is off limits to ever be deleted. (I recently came across an user sandbox that carried a disclaimer that nothing was to be touched or deleted by anyone other than the owner" of that userspace) Common sense should say that if it is untouched for longer than one year it really should go, no mater who "owns" it - yet there are "articles" that have been deleted from mainspace and have sat untouched in a users subpage for 5 years (or more) - untouched - because the editor is an active editor. If an "article" is purely a spam/self promotional/SPA/COI article where the creator made no other contributions and is absent it should go - no matter if it has been three months or three years. If it is a "self" article where only the "self" works on it at what point is it clear it is purely a self promotional piece? I can understand the need for "it all depends", but repeated discussions that all center around "doing no harm" type of arguments would indicate the wording of these polices is not as clear and/or specific as they should be. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not so wild about the "line in the sand" idea. Policies here are generally designed to be used in combination with judgement, not simply followed by rote. If a user has a draft in their userspace that is not vandalism, a blp violation, or a copyvio, how is the encyclopedia improved by forcing the deletion of that page? I'm speaking as someone who used to go looking for this type of stuff to nominate it for MFD. I realized after a while that it was pointless in addition to being needlessly acrimonious. I wasn't helping anything except in the rare cases when there was a more serious problem such the ones I've already mentioned. A technical point that is often lost in such discussions is that deleting an page does not "free up server space." All that really happens is that the visibility level of the page is restricted to admins. It's still there and deleting it actually takes up more server space than just letting a sleeping dog lie. If the draft is something that has sat for many months and can never be reasonably worked into a proper article then fine, delete it. If it's even hypothetically possible it could evolve into an article one day we are doing a disservice to the project by deleting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox speaks wisely. There's really nothing to be gained from deleting harmless user drafts. One thing that would push me to delete one would be if it were being linked to externally, i.e. used as an "official Wikipedia homepage" for a non-notable article subject. But if there are no incoming links like that, it seems sensible to let it be if doesn't otherwise violate policy (copyvio, attack page, etc.) 28bytes (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Allowing userspace junk to pile up does have negative consequences in that it encourages a belief among new editors that Wikipedia is a free website where you can host info on your local sports group, your business, your uncle, or whatever. If such misuse is unchecked a subculture would develop which, in time, could distract from our core purpose of developing the encyclopedia. On the other hand, drawing a "line in the sand" will not help because there are productive editors who have created major content and who have stale userspace pages—yet there is a reasonable expectation that even after a couple of years, the editor may rekindle their interest in a particular area and use that old material. At any rate, deleting such a page (which is not about their relatives or other inappropriate topic) would be of no assistance to the encyclopedia. By contrast, users who have done very little article development would need a good reason to keep userspace pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Userfied_versions_of_deleted_articles.Smallman12q (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user... ...Declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect)"

Does the phrase "(while any sanctions are still in effect)" apply only to the last item in the list, or all four items? If it applies only to the last item, is there a time limit after which a user can clear her/his talk page? If it applies to all the items, I suggest reversing word order: "Sanctions that are currently still in effect, including declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices"

74.225.173.15 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The latter sounds right to me, and the change read like an improvement. –SJ+ 16:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Add a Shortcut?

Is there anyone here that can help out adding a Template:Shortcut on the, Wikipedia content not suited to userspace. Its in the TOC 6.1, Table: "Excessive unrelated content," that would be very helpful, thanks. --120.127.93.243 (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not terribly short, but I added WP:UP#NOTSUITED and tweaked a few things for consistency and what I think is a slightly better result when the shortcuts are used. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Image consensus statement

Brought to my attention in reading Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp, WP:UP#Images states:

"There is also broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review."

I am wondering, since we have to source references for claims on Wikipedia articles, shouldn't the same apply to Wikipedia pages? For example, where was this 'broad consensus'? Whenever it happened, I believe it should be cited. If it is not, would it not be appropriate to use the Fact Template tag to point it out? It seems like something that should be deleted if it is not sourced. I have added the fact tag in hopes people will support the statement.

If not for that, couldn't people add any policy they like to Wikipedia policy pages? Accountability seems very important here. It seems one like this is especially situational. For example how do we objectively judge "would bring the project into disrepute"? This is what we call fortune-telling, where we assume something would create disrepute where it may not. Similarly: "clearly intended" involves mind-reading. Who is to say a page full of women's shoes isn't designed to be sexually provocative to a given person? Fortune-telling and mind-reading are cognitive distortion #5, conclusion-jumping. It's not rational thinking, and not just reasoning for this censorship.

Similarly, to assume that someone creates something with the intent to distress or shock others is also presumptuous. We do not know and can only guess (with a high margin for error) what the intentions of editors are when they create user page content. Similarly, how do we judge "little or not project benefit"? Is this not a slippery slope where soon, because someone dislikes something about another editor or the type of interest they have, they can declare of 'of little benefit' in an effort to wipe out their page?

To say that using it as a 'personal page' is reason to delete a user page is beyond me: that's exactly what user pages are, personal pages about Wikipedia editors. Please do point me out to an impersonal user page, because the only kind I can imagine would have a red link.

So, someone please source where this broad consensus came from so we can reference it on the policy page, and furthermore, if this indeed happened, what is the justification for keeping such a vague weapon-like policy in effect for aforementioned criticisms? DB (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The fact tag I added was reverted by RL0919. I was in the middle of thinking of replacing it with templates /whom/when/Refimprove/Citation needed|date=May 2011|reason=Please give a reliable source for this assertion. Needed for "broad" and its implications./. For the moment I'll leave them out, though if we can't use these in Wikispace then I really think we should be able to, that's another discussion for another talk page though. DB (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
References are not typically needed in policy and guideline pages because they are not representation of knowledge from outside sources the way articles are. Rather, they are expressions of the beliefs of the community that edits them. Changes and additions that lack support are usually undone relatively quickly (as with what just happened to your tag). The points that you are questioning have been in the guideline for quite a while (in some cases years), which suggests they do indeed have community support. Of course you're welcome to try to change people's minds, but fact-tagging isn't the way to go about it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Need is kinda subjective here. It doesn't seem to be an orderly way to go about establishing/maintaining policy. 'Outside source' is also relative here: consensus is certainly from an outside source. This doesn't mean outside of Wikipedia, but rather, from a place outside the page itself. As in, these consensi were probably reached on various talk page discussions, so if we could link to them, it would back up and illustrate to people how policy decisions were reached. Relying on changes to be undone quickly doesn't seem good, because many pages go neglected for long periods, and sometimes changes get missed. This puts less monitored pages at risk of having policy spuriously added and becoming aged without ever having been legitimate. I don't assert this for the policy I've brought into question, this is simply an observation which I think justifies the importance of sourcing statements such as consensus. My disapproval and your approval are, in and of themselves, not a notable segment of Wikipedians, so that it's been tagged or reverted is circumstantial and not evidence at all that we're necessarily representing any widespread views. DB (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Dictabeard, you're missing a couple key parts to this:
  • The userpage in question had literally hundreds of images specifically of erotica involving females, all from Commons.
  • The justification at the top of the page at the time of the MfD for having so many pictures essentially amounted to "These pictures make me horny."
The userpage was deleted at MfD because it was being used, more or less, as a pornography stash. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 17:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply but this section is about the policy itself, not that example. I merely was stating how it came to my attention. We could open a separate (or sub-) section to discuss that case in particular further if you'd like. The dispute here is: by what means do we determine what is a so-called "pornography" stash? That term in particular is wraught with misunderstanding. It no longer means depictions of prostitutes but rather, erotica in general. It's a word defined by intention which is ridiculous as we do not read minds here. DB (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The replies to Dictabeard are of course correct. I would add that the text about removing images is precisely what should be expected given the purpose of Wikipedia (it's an encyclopedia, not a place to exercise free speech or to indulge in userspace decoration). Several of the items at WP:NOT convey the correct attitude that should apply to all pages. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree about this, people use their user pages to exhibit various forms of speech and decoration. Using yourself as an example, "Strange that, while we are each unique, it's often easy to predict what kind of editor you are dealing with from observing just a couple of edits." and this template barnstar decoration User pages do have guidelines and you're a great example of someone who keeps theirs concise and modest, yet even that has elements of speech and decoration to it. The question is how we should be judging how much is too much, and is it a matter of the quantity or the nature of content? DB (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid the only useful answer is common sense. That is hard to define, but fortunately no precise definition is needed because consensus can recognize common sense when it is seen, and using userspace for a porn collection is a particularly easy example of a bad idea (some user page stuff potentially helps the encyclopedia, and some appears to have no such potential). Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of comments, notices, and warnings

Currently this states:

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user – they are part of the wider community's processes:
  • Sanctions that are currently in effect, including declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices"

In a current ANI a bot archived a topic ban notice, then the user forgot about the topic ban (the notice was not there to remind him), and nobody noticed that he had a topic ban and was breaching it (they could not see the notice because it had been archived).

The opinion of at one of the editors in the ANI is that WP:REMOVE states "that removing a ban notice is not allowed, but it says nothing about archiving a ban notice. In fact, the first paragraph of that section states that editors may remove comments but archiving is preferable. This implies that archiving and removal aren't considered the same thing. My concern is that ban notices aren't just there for admins but for us regular editors, who might not even look for an archive let alone check it. I know this sounds like epic wikilawyering, but I wish WP:REMOVE was a bit clearer on the matter."

Proposed change to WP:REMOVE: (the changes are in italics)

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

--Toddy1 (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Obviously it does not make sense to tell a user they can't remove a certain notice, when that user has previously set up a bot that will remove and archive all content, perhaps a few hours after the original notification. However, the proposed wording needs work because it also does not make sense to direct a bot that it should not remove some kinds of content. The wording would have to tell the user that any automatic archiving must be arranged so that the notice will not be removed until it is permitted to do so. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. It is a necessary change, at the very least to close that possible loophole. As for the wording, perhaps

"A number of important matters may not be removed or archived except by other, uninvolved, users – they are part of the wider community's processes:

Stuff about removing the capability of bots to archive notifications might be better at the WP:BOTS talk page if this change is enacted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. If this really requires action (and there is so far exactly one case where this has been identified as a problem), this proposal just sets a trap for the sanctioned user. Either require the administrator who imposes the ban to determine if the talk page's archiving should be disabled, and disable it if necessary (not a terribly good idea) or create standard notices, to be placed on the user talk page, identifying the nature and duration of the editing limit. If the notice were to be fixed to the bottom of the talk page (I have no idea whether this is technically feasible), it would come to the attention of any editor coming to the page to add a comment -- a much better solution than expecting editors to read through days, weeks, or months of comments looking for editing restrictions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The WP:UP#CMT policy states:

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

  • Sanctions that are currently in effect, including declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices

In a current ANI discussion, I was wondering what the rule on sockpuppetry notices would be. My understanding wouldd be that sockpuppetry notices never expire, since a sock of one account will always remain a sock. Or would the notice only have to remain while the ban is in effect? Inks.LWC (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that sockpuppet notices on IP user pages should be allowed to expire after some period of account inactivity, as IP addresses are not unique identifiers of individual contributors. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Given that you've twice been blocked and then twice had your talk page priv's removed, your argument here does not exactly overflow with "good faith". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Neither does your personal attack. Please AGF and stop wikistalking me. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
If anything, the only person who has made a personal attack during this discussion is you. You have not produced evidence to substantiate your claim of wikistalking; it may surprise you to find that a lot of these pages are on the watchlists of several established editors, administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, and arbitrators too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep it up, please. This is going to be a grand old wikiquette alert. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep it up, please. You're very quickly painting yourself into a corner. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep it up, please. I think that "keep it up, please" is a great way to start comments implying that someone should stop doing something! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep it up. Please. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Requesting articulation of the policy assertion from this edit summary in WP:BLANKING. I suggest a bullet point that reads as follows:

  • For blocked users, relevant comments made by other editors in response to an {{unblock}} request

24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and there is not a rule to cover every situation. It would be better to focus on constructive building of the encyclopedia rather than aspects relating to recent blocks and responses on your talk page. There is no need to precisely spell out all possible actions that may take place on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Policy is intended to be binding. In this case, an administrator asserted that policy existed beyond what was documented herein. I am looking for an edit to this article, or an assertion that the editor's claim regarding this policy was not supported by existing consensus. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Policy is prescriptive and must be used with common sense; it is not an exhaustive set of "laws" and should not be used for the purposes of wikilawyering of bureaucracy. You will not find a consensus from the Community to make any of these policy pages into something that it is not, and this is not the place to bring your individual disputes. If you feel that you should have been permitted to remove the relevant comments and rationale which provided for why the block was valid, I suggest you send your appeal to ArbCom (if you have not done so already). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you stopped WP:STALKing me. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
And I'd appreciate it if you ceased with your disruptive forumshopping and frivolous accusations (vandalism, personal attacks, stalking, etc), like those you've made here and/or in multiple other venues on Wikipedia to multiple users. It was your poor use of dispute resolution which led to you edit-warring and being blocked, and now forum-shopping when you know ArbCom will not accept such a foolish appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This is getting tedious. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not going to allow the {{editsemiprotected}} template to be answered by anyone who was involved, or anyone who's stalking me. Please let an uninvolved editor decide whether the policy actually does extend to comments in response to unblock requests, or whether the administrator's assertion was incorrect. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Please read the first comment which I (an uninvolved editor) left above. Even if you are correct about the issue, you are wrong about how policies are written here: we just do not try to cover every possible situation, and we particularly do not do that as the result of a suggestion from someone who did not like what they were told on their talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(OD) I'm closing this since we've had an uninvolved editor comment. Furthermore, the IP has been blocked for a month for disruptive editing, so there's no point in continuing the discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Suggestion

After I alerted RandySteer that what he thought was a user subpage was actually in mainspace (and thus had been deleted), he left the following comment on my talk page. I thought I would forward it to you guys here. --E♴(talk) 23:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve the help page for user sub-page creation: replace the word "Example" in the examples with "UserName". When I looked at the page, I thought that "User" was my user-name" and "Example" was the title of a page. If the example read: "User:UserName/TestPage", it might be a little clearer. RandySteer (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Change to WP:BLANKING

This short section led to a change in wording that I feel does not reflect any current consensus. Do we need yet another discussion about whether block notices should be included as one of the items that are forced to remain on talk pages? --Onorem♠Dil 14:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I believe it was this discussion which lead to the change. However, we should ask the original changer to make sure. In that discussion there was about 40 editors involved with close to 2/3rds of them supporting the change. -DJSasso (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It was the section OD refers to above. But that discussion is also useful. Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
Disallowing removal of old blocking notices is not helpful. The block is still evident in the block log, and the page history. Otherwise we suggest that block notices stay on user pages, effectively forever, or we have to invent a bureaucratic system to request removal. The current wording requires it to remain on the page while the user is blocked, this is useful even if they are not appealing the block, as it makes the position clear to those they are working with. Wikipedia is a funny place, and blocks should be water under the bridge. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
I'm not going to edit war over the issue, despite thinking it's an absurd thing to enforce. I do hope that one of you who think this is a good idea will word it to specifically say block notices are included. The wording is still a bit ambiguous. Please make it definite so that we can point to the page as justification for the scarlet letter. --Onorem♠Dil 21:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The question isn't whether old block notices should be removed (of course they should be!) but current ones. As it is written, the current wording doesn't require a block notice to remain on a user talk page for the duration of the block, it only disallows removal of an declined unblock request. An editor can be blocked and can remove that block notice without violating anything. I'd propose you include block notices in the wording of WP:BLANKING. -- Atama頭 23:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
And I am referring to this current discussion on the admins' noticeboard about whether or not currently active block notices are allowed to be removed. -- Atama頭 23:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
My reading of the existing wording, and my reading of consensus at your linked discussion, support a clearer statement that removing an active block notice is not permitted. I have made a change to that effect. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose the new changes. Why must we force a user to keep a scarlet letter on their talk page when this notice in regards to a user's block automatically appears at the top of the talk page to inform other editors when it is being edited? Declined unblock requests are necessary while a user is blocked, but a notice for the user letting them know they have been blocked should not be forced onto the talk page when a user has read it (hence the blanking). These notices are only posted for the blocked user's notification, not other editors who happen upon the talk page. The last time I checked, block notices don't say "Hey all editors who come to this user's talk page: he or she has been blocked! FYI." It tells how long an editor has been blocked and why so that they can appropriately appeal by posting an unblock request. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • A block notice will sometimes have additional information about the block apart from what was in the block log, and that assists administrators when determining whether or not to change, extend, or remove a block. I have to oppose the suggestion that they are only there for the blocked user's notification, they help a lot when I'm reviewing unblock appeals. They serve exactly the same purpose as a ban notice (which I might mention was already mentioned as something that shouldn't be removed). I also don't get the "scarlet letter" reference, is it more of a "mark of shame" than the same automatic block notice that you already pointed out will appear when someone edits the user talk page? -- Atama頭 07:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • To add a possible example which is along the lines of what Atama has said, perhaps Eagles247, you could review further up on this page in the section titled "Edit request". Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If you need more information about the block, you ask the blocking administrator or check the history of the article. Sufficient information should be found in the block log anyway. If a user has no intent on appealing one's own block, they should be able to remove the block notice, correct? I've rarely (if ever) seen a case in which a user has removed the block notice and subsequently requested unblock. The main concern for removal of block notices only applies for the few cases in which a reviewing admin needs to see more reasoning from a block notice (which should already be in the block log). Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In that example, the user was appealing the block but deliberately set out to blank the reasons for which the block was imposed. The fact that an editor (in that case me) had beat the blocking admin to posting a sufficient rationale is really just buro for the sake of buro; any relevant comments should stay there, given it can be appealed at any time. Beyond a general scope of the problem, a block log contains very limited information about an issue, so the notice (with the rationale) needs to stay there so others have the ability to review whether the block was warranted/justified/necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • These are by no means "new" changes. This is just codification of a clear-cut consensus which determined that block notices that are in effect are "current sanctions". A sanction is a formal restriction on something; a warning is a caution that a sanction may occur. It is silly to call a block a "warning", when it is clearly a sanction. What is more of a "formal restriction" than a suspension of editing privileges? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
While that discussion is being used to justify keeping the changes now, it wasn't the basis for the change made 6 months later. The change made in April didn't just clarify wording, it altered what that section had previously said. I agree that blocks are sanctions, but current sanctions weren't on the list until one IP user asked for clarification, one user responded, and one user made the change. If the consensus was so clear-cut in October, why didn't anyone bother to change the wording after the discussion was over? --Onorem♠Dil 19:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably because there is a tendency in human nature to wait for someone else to do it. No one officially closed the discussion so everyone waited for everyone else and then it got archived and forgotten. To be fair it is a pretty clear cut consensus in that discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
/shrug. I accept that consensus can change. I don't recall if they were on policy pages or RFCs, but the previous discussions had a hell of a lot more than 40-some people involved and this is a change to years old practice. I'm pretty sure the last major discussion was on one of the village pump pages, but I'm having a hard time finding it. Maybe it's time for a new RFC. --Onorem♠Dil 19:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Decided on VPP instead of RFC. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices --Onorem♠Dil 20:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:STALEDRAFT - intent and interpretation

Per the suggestion from RL0919 in the close at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/The Comic Books and the related case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/Duck-family tree, I'm opening up a discussion of what exactly WP:STALEDRAFT means.

  • As for my own observations, WP:STALEDRAFT appears to be oft misinterpreted at least in part because of the shortcut, it doesn't actually have to do with old drafts of article that were not created or of changes that were never made. The section it links to is Wikipedia:STALEDRAFT#Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages:

    Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.

  • This same section is linked to the shortcut WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:UP#COPIES, these are much more appropriate shortcuts.
  • I submit that this is intended to prohibit 1) Long term storage of clearly non-notable material, such as User:Example's article about her unknown garage band, or his dog Fido, or his grandpa Jack, 2) articles that are completely fictitious and written only to show User:Example's creativity ("fake articles"), 3) articles that are copies of how The Beatles looked at edit now minus 400 ("old revisions"), 4) articles that were deleted (subject to an allowance for actually actively working to make one acceptable), and 5) User:Examples draft of changes to The Beatles that represents changes that she tried to add but kept getting reverted - or which were discussed and rejected on talk ("your preferred version of disputed content"). The reference to "long term archival purposes" is simply a confirmation (though not a very clear one) that the above categories of pages may be deleted.
  • True drafts in userspace of either a) articles that don't exist in mainspace and never have, or b) major revisions of all or part of works that either currently exist or did but were deleted, do nothing to hurt the encyclopedia; nor do notes, diagrams, random thoughts, etc. They are precisely what userspace is for. Sure, if the user is inactive there is no work being done and most likely no use being made of these, but exactly what harm are they doing?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP has an excessive number of explicit shortcuts. Some are less than helpful, as they function less as an index to a relevant section than as a poor paraphrase of the text. WP:STALEDRAFT would be the worst of these. In its case, the section doesn’t even speak to stale drafts, and I don’t think many can agree on a definition of “stale” or of “draft”. I think the shortcut WP:STALEDRAFT should be removed from the page. It, or anything looking like prohibition of stale drafts, was not present in the page before FT2’s mostly excellent revamp, and it has not been useful guidance since. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Linking talk/user pages from editor's blogs

I've found an editor with article type content (although it could never be an article as it's OR) on both their talk and user pages, who is putting links to these pages on their blogs. Do we have any guidelines or precedent on this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

...no? I don't think we do, anyway. Do we really need to say anything about this? I'm not exactly sure what page(s) or what user you are referring to, but normally (in my experience, at least) this sort of issue is addressed at MFD, isn't it?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I may do that for the userpage, but I don't think MfD should be used for user talk pages, should it? Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk pages are for communicating with other editors, not hosting article-type content (Wikipedia:User pages#Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages). Have you pointed this out to them? Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content) –xenotalk 20:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I will, I wanted to see if there was anything about linking your pages to your blogs before I did. I will tomorrow. Thanks both of you. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of main user pages on request

The section "Deleting your user page or user talk page" (shortcut WP:DELTALK) currently says:

Unless they meet the criteria for speedy deletion (copyright violations, attack pages, unambiguous promotion, no other significant contributor, etc.) or you are permanently leaving Wikipedia, it is unlikely that your main user page or user talk page will actually be deleted.

(my emphasis). This is at variance with WP:CSD#U1 which says that main user pages may be deleted on request: U1 is for "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page."

This question has been raised at WT:CSD#WP:CSD v WP:UP where there seems to be agreement that the policy at WP:CSD#U1 is correct and is the one normally followed. I therefore propose that the words in bold should be removed from this policy, so as to bring it into line with WP:CSD. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. It's not good to have two things contradicting each other like that, and I see no reason for why a user page shouldn't be deleted. --Slon02 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the two needs to be changed and I see no reason that the default on userpages shouldn't be delete. If the editor doesn't want the content then delete it. GB fan please review my editing 15:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. What is said at WP:CSD#U1 reflects current practice as I am aware of it. I've unbolded the word "your" above as the resulting sentence would be ungrammatical without it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – I agree that this change would bring the wording here into line with current practice. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I have been treating deleting userpages on request as allowed anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I guess that the above quote reflects an editing error to the guideline. A user's main userpage has always been deleteable on request by the user. I even think that U1 applies without question even if others have edited the user page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • OK but wouldn't removing those words leave a false impression, namely that if someone says they are permanently leaving, that their talk page probably would be deleted on request? While sometimes done, I thought that was not the general rule (WP:RTV says "normally does not extend to the deletion of user talk pages"). Also, the new text needs to retain the implication that certain stuff (copyvio, promo, etc.) will lead to the user page being deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I would snip the whole passage, and replace it with the phrasing from WP:CSD that says user talk pages are almost never deleted, and leave it at that. This policy has become strangely draconian in its instruction creep on what editors can or can't do within their own userspace since the last time I looked at it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    I agree, on both points.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts and WP:STALEDRAFT

I recently created Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts for adoption of userspace article drafts that are either sitting in the userspace of retired users or donations of drafts from users who can't finish them for whatever reason. I feel that, since WP:STALEDRAFT directly applies to this project's mission, that it should be mentioned somewhere in the section as an alternative for old drafts of articles that are notable, but incomplete and the user had retired or not edited for some time. Deletion helps no one in such a case, while this Wikiproject can actually end up with such articles entering into the mainspace in the future. So, my question is, how exactly should it be submitted into the section and how should it be worded? SilverserenC 09:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As above, I think the STALEDRAFT shortcut should be removed from the section on copies (old or fake) of articles and project pages. I think it would do well to replace it with a new brief section, not anywhere under section 6 “What may I not have in my user pages?” aka WP:UP#NOT , but under “Ownership and editing of user pages as a new subsection 7.5” perhaps titled “Use of material in others’ userspace”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:User_pages#Use_of_material_in_others.E2.80.99_userspace--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately reverted due solely to "no consensus". The least he should do is give one reason why the change was not a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Salvio didn't say it was a bad idea, he said it didn't have consensus. If guidelines aren't backed by consensus, it undermines confidence in them, and enforcement of them can prove controversial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
By reverting, he implied that he didn't think it was a good idea. At least I hope so. Did Gigs have consensus in creating and adding the adding the shortcut? It was many months ago, but this is a bit of a backwater, and there were very big changes at the time. Mistakes happen, odd things slip through. Since then, three people have spoken against the shortcut, and none for. Is there a quorum for consensus change to the page? Since the additon of the shortcut, I have never seen it used properly or effectively for any purpose, and have seen it misused. When it has been used, it undermines the guidline by implying that the guideline says something it doesn't. Having explained this, at least far better than the original addition was explained, in the absence of disagreement, why should I not remove the misleading shortcut? Is not reverting without opposition of substance just "soft protection", which is supposedly forbidden? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Can't speak for Salvio, but at the very least I think we should be cautious about what we do with a shortcut that has been used in numerous MFDs. It also isn't clear to me that many people who cite the guideline at MFD don't think it means exactly what SmokeyJoe says it doesn't, so the substance deserves some discussion also. I don't object to there being a link to the new WikiProject, by the way, which was what Silver seren asked for initially. Does anyone else object to that? If not, we could take care of that while the question of the shortcut is being discussed. --RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, basically, both RL0919 and HJ Mitchell hit the nail right on the head, as far as I'm concerned. I close a good number of MfDs and WP:STALEDRAFT is often cited and, in my opinion, it's currently being interpreted by many people in a rather different way. I considered this as amounting to changing the substance of the guideline and not merely changing its wording, to update it so that it will be consistent with the way it's now being applied. That's why I reverted Doug's edits. Quite frankly, I believe there should be an RFC, before making such a controversial change. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we should be cautious. The link is in many MfDs, including current MfDs. I think there is no doubt that people who cite the shortcut (Note: "WP:STALEDRAFT" is not a guideline) do indeed think that it (as something under the section "What may I not have in my user pages?") means that stale drafts are not allowed on userpages, and I point out that the guideline says no such thing. I also point out that "STALEDRAFT" has never been a sufficient reason for deletion. Often, it has been a mistaken rationale where another applied, or the page has been kept. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how others use it, but when I link to the shortcut, I mean to reference the content of the guideline that it links to. I certainly don't think the mere words "stale draft" constitute a justification for anything. But it is a convenient link because you can easily work it into the flow of a sentence in a comment or nomination rationale (e.g., "This is an old WP:STALEDRAFT with BLP issues ..."). WP:FAKEARTICLE is good for that also, but "fake" can seem a bit harsh for some material. I think the substantive questions are more important than the shortcut name. --RL0919 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages#Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages, to which WP:STALEDRAFT links, states:

Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.

The part of the sentence I italicized prohibits the indefinite hosting of stale user page drafts. Editors at MfD have consistently held the view that stale user page drafts should be deleted when no one is willing to salvage the content. If the guideline's wording leads to a different interpretation than that widely held by the community, it should be revised in accordance with community consensus.

I support the inclusion of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts in the guideline, with a clear statement that if the abandoned drafts are not brought up to Wikipedia's content standards and moved to mainspace within a reasonable time frame (six months, a year, or two years), the pages can be subject to deletion via MfD. This is necessary to prevent users from circumventing Wikipedia:User pages#Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages by moving pages to Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts with no work being done on them. It should look like Wikipedia:Article Incubator#Time limit, which states:

All incubated pages are noindexed so that they will not be listed by Google or other search engines; however, Wikipedia is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host deleted content. Content intended for mainspace should not be kept for ever on subpages, per Wikipedia policy regarding the third disallowed use of subpages. Pages in the incubator may be nominated for deletion through Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion after a reasonable time has been allowed for development. What is "reasonable" will vary depending on circumstances

Cunard (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What STALEDRAFT links to is quite reasonable, but SALEDRAFT is a misnomer. I am pleased to see that RL0919 doesn't think the mere words "stale draft" constitute a justification for anything. Unfortunately, many MfD nominations and !votes are little more than "Delete per STALEDRAFT". This is a dumbing down of the MfD review process. It is slipping into jargon, and is detrimental to the accessibility of MfD, For a newcomer to MfD, and even to me, it reads as if "stale draft" is a sufficient reason to delete. I'd like to see a better shortcut, or for the linked text to address the concept of a "stale draft". This is not clear cut, and there is subtlety here. "Stale drafts" often should be deleted. But what does "stale" mean? To me, it means an old draft that is sigificantly behind developments in the subject. Stale is similar to, but not the same as "old". Not all old drafts should be deleted.
The "STALEDRAFT" that are frequently nominated and deleted tend to be one or more of the following: (1) an abandoned (years) incomplete draft not nearly suitable or mainspace; (2) an inactive (months) unsourced BLP.
As per Salvio, "STALEDRAFT" is frequently cited, and this alone is a reason to not simply re-point the link, live in MfD archives, to something not originally intended. I am more in favour or removing "STALEDRAFT" as an explicit shortcut, replacing it with something else (COPIES & FAKEARTICLE aren't appropriate for everything). I think the text should point to WP:Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts, but not via a shortcut. --SmokeyJoe (talk)
I added the mention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. I didn't put in any details about time limits, partly because there's no consensus worked out on what they would be, and also because I think that sort of detail would be better documented on the WikiProject instead of here, just as the retention guidelines for the incubator are documented there rather than here. --RL0919 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, at least I finally got some people to discuss this. That was the point of the edits, though I did think them reasonable. :-) However, I do believe that people are definitely using the name of the shortcut as the reason for deletion. And I don't think that is supportable. I also am very curious why some people, such as User:Cunard above, insist that there be a timeline on drafts in userspace. Moving them to a place where others can see them seems like a very good idea; but deleting them simply because of their age is a very bad idea. I have a number of drafts in my userspace that I haven't touched for at least 3 years. Some may say that's too long. OK, fine, nominate them for deletion; but I'm confident the community will not support deletion. But if it's not too long simply because I'm an active editor then that is wrong. A userspace draft is a userspace draft. If the draft is a fake (there is no such subject), is advertising, or is facebookish (it's an draft about a non-notable person, especially the user who's space it's in) then we have provisions for dealing with that. If it's an archive of an article in a particular form, then it's an issue. If it's an archive of a deleted article then it depends on a lot of facts. Nominate them if you think they are of no use. But one particular editor tends to use this clause all the time to nominate notes and legitimate drafts in the user space of inactive users. That makes no sense. If the page violates another policy then let's get rid of it. If the page is useful, let's use it. If we aren't sure then let's leave it alone or put it somewhere where users might see it and get an idea. To clarify, I have no problem with the revert, I expected it, I have no problem with an RfC; however, I think that we should not go from the idea that this policy exists in the form being used as a reference at MfD. It is a shortcut to a paragraph in a guideline that says something entirely different. I also think the shortcut needs to be removed; I agree with SmokeyJoe, there was no consensus to create it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • To further clarify, I don't think an RfC is necessary, I just don't object to one. I really think some discussion here would be sufficient to find consensus. And Cunard, I'm not attacking your position, I just want to understand it. The "one particular editor" is a reference to User:TenPoundHammer, many of their noms are valid, just the reference to STALEDRAFT is misplaced. I used to close a lot of MfD's myself and this was rarely an issue back then; I think that's in part because we didn't have a shortcut that implied that a draft article was deletion material simply because it had been on the back burner a long time. And, of course, there is always more weight given to experienced editors and to active editors, because 1) we expect experienced editors have a plan and 2) we expect to be able to ask active editors why things are sitting around. However, that's not the same thing. Under the guideline as written there is nothing about old drafts, under the shortcut as applied, my drafts are equally deletable.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Cunard, I would agree with that in substance and I appreciate the background. The problem is that when a user creates a draft in userspace and then goes on long term wikibreak, retires, or simply never comes back because they lost interest and were never really active, the likelihood is that the work is abandoned rather than archived. In many cases the work may have come from a deleted article or a crufty draft, but that alone doesn't mean that it is being used solely for long-term archival purposes; in fact, I'd suggest that most of the time it has simply been forgotten. Too often, I see "WP:STALEDRAFT" being cited as the reason to delete. The deletion should occur if there is no apparent usefulness to the article whatsoever. But if the new WikiProject is interested, or a single user is interested, then it has de facto usefulness and should not be deleted. The occasions where the user whose page it is on, or a relatively unknown or reputably crufty user shows up and says it's useful and he or she will take it, appear to me to me less common these days. A couple years ago, when I was closing a lot of MfDs, that was common, maybe it still is, but those aren't the issues I'm talking about.
  • As for my own userspace drafts, two are extremely stubby BLPs with references, the other is an article I salvaged from MfD in 2008 because it was entirely based on arcane references and I had it in mind to look for them. I've never had the time. I don't see what value would be gained by deleting such a work. I'm not raising these to defend them, I'm raising them to use as examples. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If the work has been rejected through a deletion discussion and has not been modified since the deletion, it should be deleted after a suitable period of time has passed. To retain unimproved, poorly sourced, non-notable content would be a circumvention of the community consensus at the deletion discussion. I agree that if a work is useful for the encyclopedia and has the potential to be policy compliant, it should be preserved. Because you intend to use your userspace drafts to improve the encyclopedia, and because they have the potential to do so, they would not qualify for deletion under WP:STALEDRAFT. In each MfD, the participants determine whether a page should be deleted based on their opinion of whether the page is helpful in improving the encyclopedia. If the prevailing opinion is that the page is unhelpful, the page is deleted even if the creator objects. Cunard (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Split "Staledrafts" from "Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages"

I'm thinking the section "Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages" should be split into two. Retained should be stuff that reflects the section heading. Pages that look like articles, such as fake articles, especially when promotional and written by SPAs. Pages that are copies of of other pages, and unused after a short time. Content forking to userspace should be frowned upon due to the confusion, copyright and other, that it can cause. Copies of important project space pages. Pages that look like they purport to be a consensus-support project page are also not OK and promptly deleted when borught to MfD.

In a new section, we could deal with "staledrafts". An old, abandoned, unsourced, article on a subject of dubious notability is not a fake article and is not a copy of something. Some consideration of the options available can be given (options that don't apply to faked and forked pages). Some can be moved to mainspace. Some should be deleted. Some can be incubated or sent to the Abandoned Drafts WikiProject. Users might be encouraged to claim useful but forgotten drafts. Not every case requires an action. Pages on notable topics that lack articles should never be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with a split of WP:STALEDRAFT to its own section. Stale drafts should be given special consideration. I recommend that the guideline encourage MfD nominators to review stale drafts for whether they are about notable topics. Stale drafts such as User:ThaddeusB/Celebriducks at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ThaddeusB/Celebriducks should have a guideline similar to WP:BEFORE for AfD. If a topic is notable and the draft is policy compliant, it should be moved to mainspace. If a topic is notable but the draft needs work with sourcing or passing WP:NPOV, it should be moved to a subpage of Wikipedia:Article Incubator or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts. I further recommend that the section make a brief mention to the third disallowed use of subpages, which prohibits "[u]sing subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia" to ensure that users are made aware of the fact that the Article Incubator and Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts are not meant "solely for long-term archival purposes". Cunard (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Cunard has it right. The idea is to strike a balance between the opportunity to salvage content and the need to remove what never will be salvageable content. In my opinion, most of the relevant recent MfD's are in that second group, but those that have potential that might encourage an editor to work on them, should be kept as long as makes sense; I don't think there should be a fixed time limit--it depends on the liklihood of an article emerging eventually. (And, whatever we do or do not do, we should change the word FAKE . We have enough problems encouraging new users without insulting people, there are enough alternatives available.) DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP#POLEMIC needs an additional statement

My impression is that the WP:ATTACK and WP:UP#POLEMIC policies are primarily about Editorial actions, and not about Administrative actions (or at least they should not be). A recent discussion elsewhere has called into question whether admins believe that the policies prevent editors from commenting negatively about administrative actions.

If this is the case, then we clearly have a Lèse majesté style policy in place, and it needs to be reviewed and amended. Most admins understand the difference between an Editoral action that puts them in a Conflict of Interest in a debate, versus a purely administrative action which does not, and it is the latter which should be open to critical (or negative) speech.

I did attempt to craft such a statement earlier, but another editor described it as 'instruction creep'. I've posted it here for others to review and possibly amend. My attempt is to find a balance between reasonable freedom and a balance between those who have power and those who don't, while maintaining a proper respect for the intent of WP:ATTACK and WP:UP#POLEMIC.

Generally, information on actions taken by Administrators acting in an Administrator capacity do not fall under the Polemic standard, however, the interpretations of what is acceptable may vary from one editor to another. While accountability is a core standard for administrators on Wikipedia, care should be taken in how criticisms are retained in one's user space, and should reflect solely on Administrative actions, not on Editorial decisions made by that administrator.

Thanks for your attention to this. -- Avanu (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I disagree with the premise of the discussion. I have seen nowhere that any person at all, even once, said anything to the effect of "admins believe that the policies prevent editors from commenting negatively about administrative actions". I have seen Avanu repeatedly characterize that as the core issue, but I don't see where that is anything except a mischaracterization of the recent discussions on the matter. The core issue is that people should not maintain a "shit list" of the perceived faults of others in their userspace to no greater end. Admins should be placed under high levels of scrutiny for every one of their administrative actions, but allowing an exception to WP:UP#POLEMIC doesn't do anything to that end. This is a completely misguided (though I still believe the ends are noble) attempt to bring scrutiny on administrators. Simply put, there are better ways to do this than to allow users who believe they have been "aggreived" to simply create a list of what they believe to be "bad actions" by admins in their user space. If an admin has done something wrong, the issue should be resolved publicly via community discussion channels. A privately maintained "shitlist" isn't a public discussion, and serves no purpose towards correcting problems created by "bad" administrators. Public discussion and public sanction does that. Of course, there is the long-held exemption of someone using their userspace to draft a case for, say, a discussion at WP:RFC, WP:ANI, or WP:ARBCOM, but that exemption still applies to admins. What should not apply is the ability for users to maintain lists like this of administrators. Yes, admins should be under non-stop scrutiny and should always be willing to justify their use of administrator tools. This proposal accomplishes neither of those goals, which is why I oppose it. --Jayron32 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
How is something a 'shitlist', if it is primarily focused on Administrative actions? While I agree with taking things to 'appropriate channels', a person who is simply trying to order their thoughts and keep them together shouldn't get blacklisted just for trying to keep those in power accountable, especially when they aren't making a fuss. A user page is essentially a private space, yes, technically everything in WP is public, but the idea that people are required to keep all their comments to themselves or immediately start complaining doesn't sound reasonable or realistic. If I had to go research and dig up each time I thought someone did something wrong, it just makes it that much harder to form a reasonable argument in the event I had some sort of complaint. A minor change in wording would allow people unequivocally to keep such issues posted where the information is readily available, and if it is simply restricted to a discussion of Administrative actions, who is hurt? The pushback we've seen from some admin/editors is suprising in some ways. But when we have the earlier incident of a person keeping just a few diffs, why should admins be so stiff-necked on this? A little compromise goes a long way. -- Avanu (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yeah, you're confounding several issues, which I need to address in order:
  • "Keeping thoughts in order" implies that the person is going to do something with the list in question, like start a discussion at WP:RFC or a new policy discussion, or perhaps start a discussion at WP:ANI asking for a review of some set of actions. This is already explicitly allowed and does not require any additional exceptions to the standing rules as they are currently written. The idea that you would need to keep your thoughts in order to, as you put it, "form a reasonable argument in the event I had some sort of complaint." is already allowed.
  • No one, not one person, has been "blacklisted" recently because of this. People create something inappropriate, the inappropriate content gets deleted. It ends there. I see no evidence that any blacklisting has gone on in relation to this, no one has had any actual sanctions enacted, no blocks or bans or anything else, nor has anyone yet proposed such. A page in a userspace has been deleted, no more and no less.
  • What is it specifically about admin actions that makes you want to carve out this restriction? More to the point, what is it about one single person's opinion of an administrator action that makes it worthwhile to preserve in this manner? That is, if there is someone I have pissed off, and lets say hypothetically I have done nothing wrong (that actually never happens, I do a lot of things wrong, but let's play a little game with this), why should this pissed off person get to stalk me and catalogue every valid adminstrator action (lets just assume they are all valid) just because they don't like me? That seems rather arbitrary and not in the spirit of Wikipedia in any way. What about the opposite approach: Lets say I am a terrible admin (much more closer to the truth) and I am wildly abusive of my admin tools. So a user creates a list of all of the times I have misused my admin tools, and then does nothing with it. What good does that do?
You aren't getting blowback from me because I am trying to protect administrators unjustly or anything like that. I wholeheartedly support holding admins accountable for their actions, and making it easier to remove the tools from admins who abuse them repeatedly. Admins need to be under scrutiny, and we need a better, more fair, de-adminship process when they fall short of community expectations. This silly little exception, however, is not it. I'd rather see efforts placed on creating some community-based process to strip out-of-control admins from their tools in a just and equitable and fair manner, and not on little silly changes to this policy. --Jayron32 01:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I posted the following in response to Avanu at WT:Attack page#WP:ATTACK needs an additional statement before realizing that the same issue is here.
I have replaced the above with a link to here.
Why? Complexity like this is not likely to help. In cases where editor X rants about admin Y, the community will have to decide whether the particular circumstances warrant warnings or sanctions regarding X, and no legalistic text can provide a formula that would help. There should be no wording that suggests that it is ok to attack anyone—not even an admin. If X cannot explain what was wrong with Y's actions without expletives or other items prohibited at WP:ATTACK, they should just keep quiet. Further, if X does calmly explain the problem and Y reacts claiming that it was an attack, the matter would have to be resolved by the community and if X had acted appropriately, Y would receive at least a trout.
From reading the above, it appears that the intention of the proposal may be to allow editors to maintain userspace lists regarding enemy admins: that's a very bad idea; an editor should either make their case on a noticeboard and get consensus that some admin is a dick, or accept that they do not have consensus and drop the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
For clarification, when I said 'blacklist', I really meant the effect of telling people 'you can't post a reasonable objection here'. In other words, certain thoughts aren't allowed to be expressed in written form. To address what Johnuniq is saying above, this isn't about making it ok to violate WP:NPA. The phrasing 'enemy admins' kind of shows this is straying from the point I'm trying to make. Commenting on admininistrative actions is different than personal grudges or editorial disputes. I'm not even prone to benefit from these changes, because I don't feel like making lists, but as an example, if I say on my page "I requested help from Admin Helps-a-lot with a dispute and instead of helping, he took me to AN/I and requested I be blocked." Is this a personal attack? Your recommendations above say I need to just go file a counter-report on Helps-a-lot and we argue it out. But if I start to see a pattern, then like any reasonable person, I would document it. Its a very reasonable thing to do before you actually bring some kind of action, to have a documented proof of something. However, in the world you propose, we wouldn't allow that. So it makes me ask how is this reasonable, because we're not talking about personal grudges, we're talking about accountability. -- Avanu (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
How would you feel if I kept a list of every idea that I think is silly and which has been floated on Wikipedia, along with the name of the editor concerned? Would that help the collaborative nature of the project? In answer to your question: yes, it is a personal attack if an editor records "I requested help from Admin Helps-a-lot with a dispute and instead of helping, he took me to AN/I and requested I be blocked". There are hundreds of misguided editors who could record an incident in the terms mentioned, but experience shows that they are all totally wrong, and the block (with rare exceptions) was warranted. Admins are people too, and this project should not be used to record what is highly likely to be misguided commentary regarding any other editor, including an admin. Editors are free to record information on their own computer so they can see whether they want to raise a matter at a noticeboard, however, maintaining a list of one-eyed observations on Wikipedia would not be helpful. Even if User:Surturz/AdminWatch (which I just noticed) is restored and turns out to be a calm and fair appraisal of various problems, the list should still be deleted because we cannot conduct a long MfD for every misguided spammer and POV pusher who would duplicate this effort if unchecked. If an admin is a problem, the problem needs to be fixed, but failing to get consensus that there is a problem, and then recording one's interpretation anyway is not useful for anything other than venting. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'm just not seeing how people keeping a list is verifiably going to lead to them being more or less hostile as an editor. I completely agree that people ought to use what processes are available to them, but not everyone has the same comfort level, and I know from personal experience that there are moments when AN/I gets an almost bloodthirsty quality to it. Generally, I think I get along fine with most people, and I'm not in the mood to keep a count of stuff, but who would I really be hurting if I said "Admin Helps-a-lot is really just a jerk, and I don't think he/she is a good admin"? I guess I had this impression that speaking to power should be something we protect, rather than discourage, and if someone is posting inaccurate or crazy rants, well, we discuss it, but limited, on-target legitimate criticisms don't seem to hurt anyone. Why should we have such thin skins with this? -- Avanu (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
How would this proposal help the encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech or particpatory democracy, and it is not our role to protect "speaking to power" or any other activity that might be fine elsewhere. How would it help to spend time discussing whether editor A's commentary on admins is ok, but editor B's similar commentary might be a little too inaccurate or crazy? Also, if an editor were to claim that some admin is a jerk, it is likely that they are referring to a specific incident where other editors participated. The person claiming that an admin is a jerk is, by implication, claiming that those in the consensus supporting the admin are also jerks (or are stupid because they support a jerk). It's just not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
How is a free expression of ideas, especially reasonable ones, antithetical to the consensus process and general improvement? 'Silence all critics' sounds like we are a police state. I realize we have these various venues to take things, but I'm still incredibly puzzled by what seems to be a fear of the free exchange of ideas. Wikipedia is all about people coming together to exchange ideas and working together to improve them. If we say you can't criticize the enforcers in a non-public venue, how are we really modeling what the 5 pillars are about? I'm still seeing a complete lack of proof that this hurts anyone. It is conjecture and grasping at straws, saying the house will come down if we let someone say "Helps-a-lot is a poopie head". Editor Surturz "Admin Watch" page was about as mild as you can possibly get, and it got deleted as supposed attack page. Please explain in some concrete terms how this is a threat to Wikipedia as we know it. -- Avanu (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
ARGH! This is getting frustrating. You keep saying stuff like this, as though through sheer repetition you can make it true. No one is talking about "Silencing critics". We have given you outlets for criticism, indeed we have done you one better: We have given you an outlet to ask for a redress of your greivance. Not just a place to complain impotently, but an honest to goodness place where people can respond to your problems and help see them fixed. Its even better than being able to criticise people: You get to actually see other people agree with you and get to see the bad actors sanctioned! But please stop acting like this is somehow a concerted effort to silence criticism at Wikipedia. It isn't, no matter how often you keep trying to convince yourself and others that it is. No one is saying you cannot call administrators to task for misusing their admin privileges. No one is saying you cannot demand that injustices be righted. No one has ONCE said anything that should lead a reasonable person to believe any of that, and yet you persist in ignoring this and claiming that this issue is somehow part of some nefarious plan by admins to prevent anyone from talking about them. The rule at WP:UP#POLEMIC is about one specific and unproductive type of bitching which the community long ago decided wasn't working with regards to building a working community. If you have something about an admin to complain about, WP:ANI is thataway. --Jayron32 05:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps allow encrypted lists of grievances to be expanded in user-space pages, where the text is not easily readable, but allows each user a chance to further develop ideas (over a period of days/weeks), such as at a public library with no private storage space for a user. The encryption could be a substitution cypher, such as vowels for "xx" or digits, as in the above text about "Generally, information on actions" excrypted as follows:
Encrypted: "Gznzrxxlly, 9nf4rmxxt94n 4n xxct94ns txxkzn by xxdm9n9strxxt4rs xxct9ng 9n xxn xxdm9n9strxxt4r cxxpxxc9ty d4 n4t fxxll undzr thz P4lzm9c stxxndxxrd, h4wzvzr, thz 9ntzrprztxxt94ns 4f whxxt 9s xxcczptxxblz mxxy vxxry fr4m 4nz zd9t4r t4 xxn4thzr. Wh9lz xxcc4untxxb9l9ty 9s xx c4rz stxxndxxrd f4r xxdm9n9strxxt4rs 4n W9k9pzd9xx, cxxrz sh4uld bz txxkzn 9n h4w cr9t9c9sms xxrz rztxx9nzd 9n 4nz's uszr spxxcz, xxnd sh4uld rzflzct s4lzly 4n xxdm9n9strxxt9vz xxct94ns, n4t 4n zd9t4r9xxl dzc9s94ns mxxdz by thxxt xxdm9n9strxxt4r." (z=e, xx=a, 9=i, etc.).
As shown in the encryption, after substituting just a few letters, the text becomes confusing, or boring, and not likely to be an obvious negative rant. Then, when ready, the user decrypts the text to be copied into the particular dispute-resolution forum, as planned earlier. Using that tactic, each user can develop a list of grievances to present, without the text being seen as a WP:Attack_page or WP:SOAPBOX about selected issues. Encrypted text kept for months could be subject to deletion debates. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty much cool as a cucumber on this issue. I just don't see what the big deal is. If we have so many outlets to redress grievances, why is it such a big deal for some obscure page on a user's personal space? Wouldn't you rather know they harbor such feelings and potentially address them semi-privately, than 'shut up or put up'? I've still not seen one concrete example here or at the DRV where someone has shown how this is a threat to the Wiki way of life. (and I love the encrypted grievance suggestion!) -- Avanu (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
There we have the crux of the matter. Avanu at first presented this as being about the policy on no personal attacks interfering with the right to make reasonable criticisms of administrators, which was, and still is, nonsense. Avanu has now moved to saying that it is an issue about "some obscure page on a user's personal space". I have seen, but not contributed to, the case that has got Avanu worked up. There seem to be genuine differences of opinion as to whether the page in question was or was not a n attack page, but that is disagreement about the particular page, not about the general policy. In addition, whether it was in user space or not is totally irrelevant: if it was an attack then it was unacceptable no matter where it was posted, and if it wasn't an attack then it was not subject to the no personal attacks policy no matter where it was posted. The characterisation of the policy on personal attack pages as restricting reasonable criticism is wrong: it does nothing of the sort. People who contribute their time and efforts to Wikipedia in administrative work deserve no more and no less protection from attacks than people who contribute in other areas. The idea that "the WP:ATTACK and WP:UP#POLEMIC policies are primarily about Editorial actions, and not about Administrative actions" is nonsense: reasoned and civil criticism of editing and of administrative actions are both equally acceptable, while attacks on editors are unacceptable no matter what the nature of their actions that have led to the attacks, editorial or administrative. There is a body of Wikipedians who for some reason seem to think that administrators are some separate breed of people who should for some reason be subject to a harsher regime than others, and that attacking them is somehow more acceptable than attacking other editors. Nonsense. Administrators are ordinary volunteers the same as anyone else, and they are and should be subject to exactly the same protection against attacks and other abuse as all other contributors. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you have a problem with an admin, take it to AN, or ANI, or ArbCom, or an RfC. There's no need to keep lists of admins or actions you don't like if you've no intention of discussing the matter at one of those fora—the only reason anybody would is because they know nothing would result if they took it to such a forum. Adding this to the policy would invite every editor who feels aggrieved by some perceived slight to get their own back by naming and shaming in their userspace. Such pages fall squarely within CSD G10, and if I stumble across any, I'll delete them without a second thought. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of current block notices

Earlier today User:Bwilkins and User:Cunard edited the policy based on their view of the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices?. I've reverted that change just now due to the fact that I believe it to be a misreading of what was said on the Village pump, the fact that I personally disagree with it, and the fact that a couple of other editors have spoken out on BWilkins talk page as well: (See: User talk:Bwilkins#Wikipedia:Village pump .28policy.29.23Should users be allowed to remove current block notices.3F).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't studied this in detail, beyond the fact that this has popped up on my watchlist a few times over the course of the day. The RfC result should be considered the default position, unless there is consensus that the close was clearly wrong. —WFC— TFL notices 22:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices? and Require all new articles to contain at least one source.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if it was at no-consensus it would default to leaving that in because that was the version there before the discussion and the one that had the most recent consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to be proven wrong here, but I thought that this was an addition to the policy (that users are not allowed to remove block notices). Can you point to diffs (or anything else) showing that this is long-standing practice rather than a new rule?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. The most recent discussion before this one was Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_8#Block_notices_and_BLANKING which ended with 2/3rds of people supporting the not allowing the removal. I realize its not all about numbers but that is a pretty big difference. -DJSasso (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
After I scrolled down on the history page, I now see that this has been going back and forth for quite some time. A brief skim over the archive link that you just gave and my own views on the (extensive) Village Pump discussion, it seems clear to me that we're not ready to declare consensus for any one particular set of wording. Referring to the Village Pump discussion in the policy is certainly not helpful, regardless. Personally, I think that what we say here needs to be much more subtle than either "yes, you're allowed" or "no, you're not allowed". I agree that some block notices shouldn't be removed, for example. However, a blanket rule saying that "you cannot remove block notices" strikes me as unnecessary and... overly authoritarian, I guess. Xeno and MuZemike have a good point in the archived discussion, saying that (to paraphrase) "it depends on the motivation and what is being blanked" (that's probably way to simplistic of a paraphrase, but...).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I can agree on that. I personally don't care enough about it one way or the other which is why I didn't comment in the discussion. I will leave that to others to battle out. I would opt for making it clear that there are times they need to be left personally as you say as opposed to always allowed to remove or always not allowed. -DJSasso (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no preference about removal or non-removal of active block notices, but I do believe the close of the RfC was defective and should be updated to "no consensus", and I've encouraged BWilkins to do that. This version of the page was in place when the most recent dispute began and does not mention block notices one way or the other. I think it should be restored to that, leaving things open for discussion (and hopefully eventual consensus) on how to clarify the wording. --RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that version does actually mention block notices by saying "sanctions currently in effect" which are clearly blocks. -DJSasso (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You might infer that, but it doesn't say 'block notices', which was the reasoning behind this edit that helped trigger the RfC. --RL0919 (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Just so you know where I'm coming from, I believe there was a fairly clear consensus at the VPP for allowing removal in (nearly all) cases. But if the general belief is that there was actually no consensus, then rather than revert to an old version, why not be descriptive of the current reality? Maybe say something (possibly in a footnote, to reduce clutter) along the lines of "There is no consensus on how current block notices should be handled; see [permalink to VPP discussion] and [previous discussion]. Because of this lack of consensus, (a) consider what is in the best interests of the encyclopedia for each particular circumstance, (b) do not edit war to remove or replace the template, and (c) defer to the blocking admin in case of disagreement." Except copyedited so it sounds like English instead of Floquenspeak. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I just now changed the discussion location in the [Under Discussion] tag to point to this section. I was planning on offering a proposal to tweak the wording, but after really reading it I can't think of anything that needs to be changed. What's already there seems perfectly reasonable, to me. So, if someone has a proposal for a change, could you please offer it here?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    As I mentioned at Bwilkins' talk, I can get behind a prohibition on removal if/when an unblock is being requested, but in other cases see no compelling reason to prohibit removal. So I agree the current wording strikes a fair compromise. –xenotalk 12:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This is frustrating. Not only the fact that we are re-discussing a discussion in three places, but also that I no have no idea what the policy/guideline is supposed to be. Also annoying is the fact that we even bothered to have a discussion on this petty issue in the first place. Now, could someone please tell me whether this edit by a currently-blocked user should be reverted and the user warned, or just left there? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    This is a tad bit silly, isn't it? That's a good example to work from, though. That message which you wrote to Cculber007, in your view was it intended entirely for him or was it addressed to the community as a whole (or, at least, those who may have questions with respect to block review)? I mean, is there a good reason to keep after the guy, even after you (or someone else) have blocked him? I'm actually fairly open-minded about this, meaning that I'm perfectly willing and open to being convinced that we should force blocked users to retain everything having to do with their block on their talk page (at least while they are blocked), but... I think that someone ought to at least try to justify that position. So far, in reading two other archived discussions here, the VP discussion, the AN discussion, and this discussion, I have yet to see any rational other than something similar to "[talk page messages] shouldn't be removed because I said so." So, let's actually talk about this, OK?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ohms law that the closure does not reflect the content or consensus of the RFC which tended to allow removal of block notices. And could be no consensus if no one can change their minds. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The current language suffers from an ambiguity caused by the general word "sanctions" followed by "including," then "where an unblock is being requested" which would seem to restrict the generality of those words. Without (almost) any intent to change the meaning of the section, could I suggest: Warnings, notices, and relevant information about a currently active block or block-enforced ban where an unblock request is being requested or where an unblock has been requested and declined, current edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices. The one meaning change is to remove the Arb-imposed qualifier for edit restrictions to also allow community restrictions to be included (and I'd be willing to give that one up if we can agree on doing the rest). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is clearer. I support the change. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

uw-userpage

As far as I can tell, instructions/templates for handling possible violations were not available here - the most obvious place to look, so I've added them. Rklawton (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Scripts link goes to wrong page

[[WP:SCRIPT|scripts]] should be [[WP:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts|scripts]]. --DeanBrettle (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: this seems obvious and imho you could do it yourself. — AlexSm 16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have done it myself but don't have sufficient privs. The page is semi-protected. --DeanBrettle (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure of admin status

I think we should have a section that disallows non-admins to pretend they are admins, and also requires admins, bureaucrats etc to declare their status as such. Even the most casual editors should have simple way of checking whether a particular user is an admin or not, and the user page is the best place (special pages can be hard to find and or use). As such I think the noannounce/we don't need no stinking badges property of the admin category tag should be disallowed. We don't have any separation of powers here - a user can be policymaker, policeman, judge, jury, and executioner. As such it is important that their admin status is clearly visible, as a safeguard against conflicts of interest. --Surturz (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You can check via this link Special:ListUsers
Just type a specific username in to check their permissions. However, I get the impression you are saying that Admins need to have a userbox or something indicating they are an admin? -- Avanu (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Past Guinness World Records

The other editor is edit warring on these, with his argument that records must be listed on the Guiness website. But past records are not archived on guiness world record website.

If my request is correct, I request your kindself to undo the POV edits by other users.

(Onlydookudu (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)).

Wording of removal-of-block-notices (again)

WP:BLANKING currently says editors may not remove from their talkpage "Sanctions that are currently in effect, including relevant information about a currently active block or ban where an unblock is being requested". I thought the result of the most recent discussion on that issue was that editors may not remove active block-notices period (not just ones for which the editor has requested unblock)? I'm not asking to reopen the discussion on the topic, just to make sure the wording is in sync with current standards. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That is what that sentence says. "Sanctions that are currently in effect" everything after the comma is just an explanation that it includes those things. In other words anything necessary to the a unblock request should also not be removed such as discussion about the unblock. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It's written as an ambiguous list. The full sentence is "Sanctions that are currently in effect, including relevant information about a currently active block or ban where an unblock is being requested, declined unblock requests, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices". Historically, active but uncontested block-notices were not included, but they now are, but the current wording makes it seem like contested ones are the ones worth mentioning specifically (even though these are probably the more obvious ones to keep). Uncontested-block is definitely a milder level of notice (silent acceptance of it) than arguing about it or things elevated to arbcom and cu/spi. If it doesn't matter whether an unblock is requested, why bother commenting on it at all? Removing "where an unblock is being requested" would make it clearer than not only contested sanctions are included. Or saying "whether or not an unblock has been requested" would make it clear that this is the current standard (again reminding other editors who may be remembering how it had been for a while). DMacks (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
(after (edit conflict)). You seem to be addressing (still) items related to unblock request, and I am wanting to clarify about blocks that do not have an unblock request. DMacks (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you missed my point. [All] Sanctions that are in effect cannot be removed. In addition to that (which is why it says including) you cannot remove any discussion relevant to unblock requests. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the intent, but cannot understand why it is emphasizing a more obvious case but not mentioning a more contentious and subtle one whose current practice has recently changed. DMacks (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
My recollection is that the conversation swung back and forth over, but in the end consensus was that a blocked user was able to remove the notice of an active block. I think discussion took place in a couple of places, and consensus seemed to favor keeping the notice in one location, but the wider discussion was against. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.indianexpress.com/Storyold/138108/
  2. ^ http://imaginingourselves.imow.org/pb/Story.aspx?id=1430&lang=1&g=0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_9&oldid=1139988727"