Wikipedia talk:User pages: Difference between revisions

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the User pages page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 60 days

If you are new to editing Wikipedia, you might be on the wrong page. This page is not meant for general questions or discussions about articles. This page is specifically for discussions about the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:User pages. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page instead. For help with using and editing Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Teahouse.

This is not a place to post autobiographical information or user profiles. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. For guidance about creating your own user page, see Wikipedia:User pages.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

UI Spoofing archive (2007)

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Is (repeated) removal of block notices e.g.,

In general, yes. They know they're blocked, we know they're blocked, no harm is being done. Of course doing it in the way that 37.147.79.38 did it is going to get reverted and is not going to end up going well for them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across CooperGoodman's ^{(no ping)} userpage from a Village Pump discussion. That second section definitely isn't on-topic for WP, but I'm on the fence on for whether it qualifies as causing "widespread offense" or constituting "extremely offensive material". My inclination is to leave it alone, but I could definitely use with a second opinion. Cheers,

Clarification: I mean, I understand (or at least assume) that the intent is humourous, but...

talk] 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Doesn’t offend me. It appears to be a quote. Flat humor, but humor. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's meaningless copypasta. --Onorem (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute

This should be removed. It's a hopelessly subjective standard, "disrepute" being entirely in the eye of the beholder, and entirely dependent on audience. What is "likely to bring the project in disrepute" amongst some people is likely to bolster the project among others. (And how likely is "likely"?) This language creates more problems than it solves, as it can be wielded by literally any side in any userpage conflict, but offers no meaningful, actionable, or usable guidance. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In context, that statement is a summary of what has been found removable in the past by MfD, much like

WP:OUTCOMES for AfD. I agree that it itself would be problematic to enforce as policy, but as a summary of consensus, it should probably be refined rather than removed entirely. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Levivich, can you suggest alternate wording? Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the existing wording. It falls under the heading of commonsense. It strikes me as similar to the old saying about pornography. "I can't define it, but I know when I see it." Has this ever been abused? Is there anything that would prevent a user from appealing to AN/I if they felt someone was being unreasonable in their interpretation of this? To be honest, I can't even remember it being invoked. But I think it's good thing to have on the books. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The language at

WP:UPNOT is fine. It gives examples of unsuitable material ("disrepute") such as racist ideology and disruptive content, whether serious or trolling. As normal, rules focus on concepts rather than attempting to list every bad thing. As Ad Orientem noted, participants in a deletion discussion might recognize disrepute when seeing an example but would not be able to define it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:UPNOT

already has better alternate wording, likely to give widespread offense. (To save a click, the full sentence is: In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology).)

Similarly,

WP:UP#Images that would bring the project into disrepute has a pretty good description of what kind of images should not be on a userpage, and I'd keep it all, except changing "likely to bring the project into disrepute" to "likely to give widespread offense" (and same everywhere else in WP:UP). Levivich (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Levivich, I think that there is an important distinction between the concepts of "offense" and "disrepute". The first is a personal reaction, and as we all know, some people are more prone to being offended than others, and even among people who are easily offended, they can be offended by very different things. Disrepute refers not to individual emotional reactions but rather to the reputational damage to Wikipedia as a whole. Twitter/X is a good example, I think. I am not easily offended by something like an individual tweet. I may be surprised, bemused, and unhappy that trolling and doxxing and racism and sexism and veiled (or not so veiled) threats are welcomed there, but I am not offended. I do think that Twitter/X has fallen deeper into disrepute in the Musk era, and I do not want lax monitoring to allow the same thing to happen to Wikipedia. Perhaps "disrepute" is almost an archaic term in 2024, but the new wording should not lose the reputational connotations. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think doxing, racism, sexism, and threats are things that are likely to give widespread offense (even if not to you), and I can't really think of an example of something that is likely to give widespread offense but not likely to bring the project into disrepute, which why I say "disrepute" is doing no work in the sentence, and why I don't think there needs to be a second category of prohibition in addition to "widespread offense". Levivich (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering what, if anything, can be done about an editor's user page which makes false claims of having made 100K edits and being a member of the Twenty Year society, despite the fact that the user in question has only been on Wikipedia since 2017 and has only made 3,500 edits. They have indirectly denied having previous accounts... Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user[1] is challenging someone telling them they should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them, saying that they cannot find anything preventing them from doing so. I think this needs to be made explicit. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're wrong, because

WP:PROXYING (linked to by Novem in the first place) states it fairly clearly. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Primefac Thanks. I knew that was somewhere, but I think it needs to be added here as well. Probably under "Ownership and editing of user pages". Doug Weller talk 14:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be useful; further interaction with them has shown even that fairly clear language can be reworded to suit very specific circumstances. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROXYING does not [state] it fairly clearly. It doesn't state it at all. It does not say that blocked editors should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them. It says that editors [...] are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. It says nothing about what the blocked editor can or cannot do.  Tewdar  18:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Users are not allowed to be directed by blocked users to make edits. Therefore, a blocked user should not be directing editors to make edits. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this interpretation, and there's plenty of precedent to cite on revoking TPA for posting proxying requests. I still would support explicit mentions here and in the block and ban policies that it is inappropriate to post edit requests in violation of a block/ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not follow at all. Why not just add 'site-wide blocked users may only use their talk pages to request unblocks', to

WP:BLOCK, if that's what you want?  Tewdar  18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

That's what this discussion is, well, discussing. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went and corrected the typo that "the user" indicated [2]. Clearly, it was a net positive for the encyclopedia. Do you want to ban me for it? Go ahead. XMcan (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t believe so much time gets wasted on arguing when something is so simple, and you can just go ahead and make it better. XMcan (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XMcan, the discussion on that user's talk page is about their edits. This is about the next time this happens, and making sure our policies match up with what actually happens. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I believe this was a one-time occurrence. I don't have any reason to think this user will spend the rest of her life finding typos and directing us from her talk page solely to correct them. Do we need to fix problems that don't exist just because they may potentially exist? XMcan (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XMcan I see on your talk page you were very unhappy about the user’s block. I presume that’s part at least of why you are here. But it’s a real issue that does exist, I’ve seen it quite a few times. There’s no reason to believe it won’t happen again. Doug Weller talk 21:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I was not referring to the "next time" for this particular user, I was referring to the next time that an admin says "you can't use your talk page except for unblocks" and is questioned on it. Primefac (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROXYING doesn't state that at all. WP:PROXYING says, my emphasis,

Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) UNLESS they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.

That "unless" means that proxying is only prohibited if editors are not able to show the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. If they are able to do so (e.g., "fix obvious typo"), then editors are permitted to edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. I'm not sure that's what the community wants it to mean, but that's what it says.

It has an inherent logical contradiction in its phrasing, which is that it is by definition impossible to have an independent reason to do something at the direction of somebody else. Either it's "at the direction" or it's "independent" but it can't be both at the same time. Teh community should probably vote on whether they do or do not want blocked/banned editors to point out obvious typos, BLPvios, etc., and then update the docs to say so clearly. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]