Wikipedia talk:User page/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 →

Inappropriate content: Extremely offensive material

Is anything that is allowed on Wikipedia mainspace, such as Image:Doublepen.png, allowed to be on userpages? Also is a picture of a American flag burning is somehow extremely offensive? I didn't know because offensive is very subjective and I would consider the American flag not burning extremely offensive, so I didn't know how Wikipedia considers what is offensive and what is not. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot would depend on context. Personal attacks are definitely not allowed, and making a user page deliberately offensive would be strongly frowned upon. That said, one man's deliberate offense is another man's freedom of speech. As I recall a userpage with a burning flag on it was recently nominated for deletion, but consensus opposed said deletion. The rule of thumb is: when in doubt, (1) kindly ask the user in question, and when that doesn't help, (2) ask a third party to comment. >Radiant< 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A colored userpage notice

Silly question...how do I make my userpage noticed colored? Thanks. Bardofcornish (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate to update defunct user pages?

Is it allowed to update a user page of someone no longer editing Wikipedia, so that it does not contain inaccurate statements (due to elapsed time)? -- Zanimum (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you mean? --MCB (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That they hold a position at an organization, when in fact they have not held it for multiple months. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Friday removed a substantial part of the right to vanish [1]. Is there any consensus for this removal? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with this deletion. The reason given ("removing bit about "right to vanish". it's not relevant to deleting user talk pages") contradicts the meta right to vanish article linked in the original text, so I've restored it. Avb 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's useful and relevant and should be restored. Tyrenius (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't go around deleting user talk just because a user asks for it, do we? Right to vanish has precious little to do with deleting user talk pages on request. Anyone can hit "log out" and vanish any time they want- this "you must delete my talk page because I say so" nonsense is not helpful in any way I've ever heard of. I don't care what meta says, and I don't care what meatball says- I care about what is mostly useful to this wiki. How is it helpful to help users cover their tracks? Keep in mind of course, that people who claim to be vanishing very rarely actually vanish. Friday (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Also, for those who do care what meta says, it does not appear to be saying that user talk pages should generally be deleted. Friday (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is discretionary, but generally a courtesy extended to editors who wish to leave that their talk page is deleted if they request it. If they then return, their talk page can be restored, whether they want that or not, as its deletion was based on their leaving the project. Tyrenius (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that people do it sometimes- a practice which I don't find useful. How does it help to delete the talk pages of editors who claim to be leaving? Friday (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think this bit should go. Anyone see a reason to keep it, other than status quo? Friday (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Giving the option might help vanishers draw a mental boundary between themselves and their user identity. It might decrease whatever drama sometimes accompanies a user's choice to leave. Just speculation of course, I have no direct experience of vanishing. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. and re-reading it, I guess it doesn't really encourage deletion of user talk pages. It just says there might occasionally be a good reason for it. I still don't agree that claiming to leave the project is a good reason to delete someone's user talk page, but I guess that's a small point. Friday (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I make a page of info?

How do i make a page of info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeganHealey (talk • contribs)

Er, what do you mean? Put the info on a page, and voila, there it is. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk page font

Are users required (or expected) to use certain types of fonts, or can a user use any type of font on their talk page? --Son (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is not hard to read (very small, or mixing colors that may not be contrasting in foreground and background, like white and yellow, or blue and purple, etc) or just disrupting (like simulating hyperlinks with blue underlined fonts, or just too big), it should be safe. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Using more realistic example names

This has been a bug bear of mine for a long time. I get fed up with explanations which employ self-referential examples. This seems to be a consistent oversight on behalf of techies who know the material so well that they cannot see just how confusing such practices are. Suppose a writer decides to give the user an example of how he/she can start up a user page for themselves. Now, is it good policy to name this example “Example”, as the writer does in the article? No, it is not. To use ‘example’ as an example for an example is not a good idea. In fact it is, from about a hundred billion possible words, probably the LAST word you would want to use. It is quite likely that the reader will become confused as to whether the word Example, so used, POINTS to an example to come, or is in fact the example itself. There are any number of wacky, zany user names in WP, and a writer on such topics would be well-advised to choose, as a hypothetical example, the wackiest name possible, so that there can be no mistake as to whether such a name is an example of a user name, as such, or the official name for a field, or a generic name for all such similar fields.

Ironically, it is the text concerning in-house WP procedures, written by WP insiders, which consistently provides readers with material that is stylistically and grammatically amongst the most inferior in WP, and typically transforms what should be straightforward procedural matters into damn hard work.

Here’s an idea for WP big brass. Why not have a fictional WP user called, say, kimdoe? Readers can follow this guy/girl’s adventures as they set up pages, edit articles and all the rest. Now wouldn’t that be a lot clearer than trying to deal with someone called ‘example’? This is a people’s encyclopedia, so let’s try writing clear, concise English, not the semi-literate geek boy jargon often found here. I’d have a go fixing it up myself, but it’s kind of Catch-22. To do that, I’d have to understand it a lot better, and frankly, a lot of this stuff just doesn’t make good sense.

On a final note, why does the writer of the piece start with informing the reader that ‘Example’ will be used as the example name, but then provides no such explanatory note for the companion example name ‘Mypage’ And if we accept Example and Mypage as names of pages of a hypothetical individual, then what the hell is ‘lipsum’? My brain hurts. Notthere (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Question (that I have to ask)

Stupid Question:

Why can't people put whatever they want on a User Page? It's a User Page, not a resource for information, and even for explicit materials there's no risk of linking to the pages by mistake (unless they set-up a link on a normal page which would just be vandalism). At most, I think that User's found to have "explicit" material should have some sort of warning attached to their user name, sort of like a spoiler warning. Other than that that the only other rule which makes sense to me is a ban on large file sizes, which is just for practical reasons.

Now...why am I wrong?

McBeardo (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. Everything that is given by the foundation is to advance their goals (in this case, to build an encyclopedia). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No personal info, interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IFeito http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SOPHIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evercat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_c http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.Logan all from the first page of the editing history of a single page...

However, this does raise a new question: If I put a snazzy disclaimer like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Strothra on my User Page does that change things?

McBeardo (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the {{userpage}} template? That template only says that the page is not an article but a user page and that the original is found at a determined page (useful when mirrors also pick user pages even though they don't need). As for the personal information, it is not necessary to give it, and if you give it, it is under your own responsibility and is usually to help people reaching there to learn about your interest or experience. For example, my personal page details my tastes, and from there you can infer which articles I like editing, which languages I understand, and which ones I could help with. I post the information there to help others note that I can help with manga, anime, metal (gothic and symphonic) and Argentine topics. What people can't do is to use the user page to promote their own works outside Wikipedia without helping it in any way (like this one), or using the page like a blog or webhosting (even keeping a diary of what you do at Wikipedia per day may be considered unnecessary).

If you are a minor, though, all posted personal information will be deleted. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That just raises further questions (which may Segway into speeches):

1)Can't you determine what a person's interests are by looking at their contribution list? The point of finding people with common interests is obviously for collaboration on topic, but there is no search function based on interests (that I know of, again I'm appealing to those more...invested...in "wikipedian law" here) and so collaborations arise semi-spontaneously through various people (often strangers to each other) editing articles which interest them as individuals (I think it's called open content). This means that posting interests is in fact unnecessary based on your justification for it, but that's ok because I think I have a better one: Wikipedia obviously has some degree of a community, and while it's stated purpose is not to be a social networking site, allowing people the freedom to make one page that is about them, or is just funny, would not detract from that, while helping to strengthen the community. It may also help to REDUCE vandalism, as one of the things that attracts people to screwing with Wikipedia is that it provides them with anonymity plus a huge audience (larger than any one forum), for free.

2)Of what encyclopedic value are User Names?This relates to the first question, just recording someone's IP address is enough to allow Wikipedia to stop vandalism (and the prevention measures are usualy an IP ban, not a User Name ban), and while you could easily assign "topics of expertise" to User Names, like I said before, even that isn't necessary if you consider that the open content formula of Wikipedia means that it's not organized, people make their contributions, and consensus determines the value of the contribution. Now, Wikipedia does have formal rules and regulations in place (and there seems to be more all the time), and that's fine, because as we all know, consensus on is no indication of truth (Argumentum ad populum). However, these rules all dictate how input is to be handled, the input itself is still left up to thousands of anonymous users submitting whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like submitting it, with no interaction between them required so long as the rules of Wikipedia are enforced by the more dutiful users. My point in all this, is that in choosing User Names, posting interests, and using the phrase "engaged community" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#The_.22hive_mind.22), you've already acknowledged that in order to support this group of dutiful user's which Wikipedia relies on to enforce the rules, you have to allow them some latitude to..."socially network"...which will include content neither factual, nor worthy of an encyclopedia, but nonetheless important to THIS form of data accumulation.

3)Basically, can I please make my User Page a joke without it being taken down?

McBeardo (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For 1), we have Category:Wikipedians and subcategories to find users by what they use/like, and Wikipedia:WikiProjects to find users who are editing articles you may like. For 2), I don't usually reply to questions with implicit answers, or questions that use Latin, but didn't you notice that usernames allow users with dynamic ips (in my case, my ip changes every 22 hours; in AOL case, it changes every time you navigate to a different page) to be universally identified in this Wiki. And for 3), it depends. If you write a list of jokes that serve nothing at all, just to remind you of good jokes you have heard in the last week, no. If you are using a joke to define yourself, it may be acceptable. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1+2)Those more invested in Wikipedian law have spoken, thank you 3)I'll take it. McBeardo (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy from user page

I understand that one editor cannot go to another editor's talk page and restore a warning once it has been deleted by the owner. That makes sense because deletion by the owner amounts to acknowledging the warning.

However, what if the warning is to an IP address? I know some IPs are single user machines, but many IPs are for multi user machines. A user wanting to create mischief might not already realize that the IP has been warned multiple times, and that a single incident leads to a block.

I'm just thinking that on these IP accounts, often times there really is no "owner" of the Talk Page. Is there a strong reason as to why warnings should be able to still be taken down by any user who happens along? LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason to keep them? If the messages were not intended for the user of the IP, why can't they be removed the same as if they have been read? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think many IPs don't have a single user. One user may come along and delete them, while another user shows up later and sees nothing. Something like: user #1 causes some mischief and gets warned .... user #2 comes along and takes down the warning. User #1 comes back and never sees the warning that was intended for them. I wanted to ask and see if I was missing something about the intent of the policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But if user #2 reads the message intended for user #1, then user #1 will never see the orange message bar so is unlikely to ever see the message. This is unavoidable with shared IPs. It's one reason why AIV insists on recent warnings. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I had not thought of that. This makes a lot of sense. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fake bios

I know a lot of editors use their userpage to have bios of themselves. But what about people who make bios with false info, like saying they won a championship or worked for a certain company. User:Animal91 is claiming he's worked for TNA and WWE and won titles in both organizations, all of which is BS. The editor is presenting this information as if it's real. Should I contact the user, or take this straight to WP:MFD? TJ Spyke 07:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No credential policy

I clarified this over at WP:No credential policy and there's currently a dispute over the article. If you could check it out, that'd be great. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting just a subpage deletion

I have two subpages right now (one is a sandbox). I want to have this one deleted to make way for a larger project (I don't want to hog space and I don't view the page in question as significant). How do I go about requesting that? -- §Hurricane E RICarchive 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just blank the page and put {{db-author}} in place of what's there. It will be deleted routinely by an admin. But don't worry about space; if it's part of something you're working on, you can leave it until the project/article is done. --MCB (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ennh...it's an encyclopedic project (as in not just goofing off) but it'll never make the article namespace because of POV issues. Plenty of the research included in the pages could definately be used in the articles though. I know who my sources are. It's sort of like a list of the Greatest Tropical Cyclones of All Time, with a summary for each storm. I believe it complies with all the User Page guidelines and I'm trying to keep the size down. I broke it into two pages so it won't be just this one big file. I hope that's okay, I've put a lot of time into this. -- §Hurricane E RICarchive 19:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --MCB (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

UP#NOT - "Reasonable" time frame

Beyond the sturm und drang of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments, an important issue has emerged. Wikipedia:UP#NOT says that impermissible content of a user-space page includes:

"Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process."

The issue raised at this MfD concerns the definition of "reasonable time frame". So what constitutes "reasonable"? Presumably this is more than one hour and less than one year. Riana closed the MfD with an outside time limit in a quite reasonable assessment of the matter at hand.

Going forward:

What constitutes a reasonable timeframe?
If the page owner pleads special circumstances (I'm busy in real life), does this count?
User sub-pages can be created with no links from other wiki-pages, thus somewhat hidden from notice. Does the reasonable time frame extend from the time the page was first created, or from the time the existence of the page is first brought to light?
Is it acceptable to create a page to make an ongoing record of a subject editor's behaviour?
Is it acceptable to use the page to compile notes on the subject editor's response on learning of the existence of the page itself?
How do we prevent gaming, where I can repeatedly and quietly create sub-pages, invite my friends there, and coordinate a "clean kill"?
And to a particular argument raised at the MfD, when does the argument of "efficiency" (easier to make the page on-wiki) gain precedence over the counter-argument of "discretion" (store it in Notepad and copy/paste to Show Preview)?
Apparently, User_talk pages are searchable by external engines (ie. Google), is this an additional consideration for page lifetime? (added 10:26 09Feb08 UTC)

This is not an attempt to again raise the particular MfD, however it serves as a case study to illuminate the issues at hand. Comments? Franamax (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Case by case judgement, but should be definitely tied to a judgement based on the user's activity level. If you have time to be on WP and do lots and lots of stuff, shorter (if it were me, or BQZip, for example). If someone does 400 edits a month, is not on daily, longer. 2 weeks short, 6-7 weeks long for a ballpark? Lawrence § t/e 06:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable on its face, but a field-day for the sock puppets. Franamax (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note this edit! Franamax (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not there are any external links is not relevant; they may be picked up by search engines or mirrors. FCYTravis (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant "external" as in from inside wiki, but that is an excellent point, attemtping to modify above. Franamax (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, I concur with your change 100%. Just spitballing here, but perhaps we could add something to it to indicate what you should do if someone exceeds this time. Perhaps defining it as an attack page at that point? I'm not interested in instruction creep, but general guidance as to what to do could be instructive here. What do you think? — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To use an example, this page in your own userspace, if not used in Dispute Resolution, would have have been an attack page, given it's ripened age. It would should have been speedy deleted as an attack page, had you not cleared it just recently under scrutiny. And, uh, "STAY THE FUCK OFF OF MY USER PAGE!!!" is a good example of why pages like this are an absolute disruptive waste for all of Wikipedia if not used exclusively for swift and prompt Dispute Resolution. For example, I had a similar page related to the ongoing Waterboarding RFAR in regards to disruptive sockpuppetry and trolling by American nationalists. Once I submitted the evidence, I blanked and cleared the data. Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

LC, you know better. I already retracted/spit & polished/renounced that behavior at my RfA...and you know it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an RFC on BQZip, so lets just take the point that the page mentioned could stand as an example of an attack page if it was allowed to persist. Lawrence, could you edit your post to remove the quoted foul language? Readers will be able to find it by following the link, it doesn't have to show up here. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Franamax...twice in the same page? isn't that the sign of something? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Biography on Userpage

Userpages is not ....., but what if somebody creats a userpage as the only contribution to wikipedia and uses it as personal webpage? What happens than? I ask because I found the Userpage of User:Dark_Horse_King.--Stone (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that this kind of use is not permitted and the user is asked to change their user page and then it gets deleted. Franamax (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Polemical

I've removed the relatively recently added, undiscussed addition of the qualifier "extensive use of" before "polemical". Any use of a user page of polemical purposes is a de facto abuse of Wikipedia, and is not permitted at all. --TS 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Tyrenius (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have adjusted the text to clarify that it is talking about non-Wikipedia-related polemical statements. Polemic means "of or involving dispute or controversy" and it is currently-accepted practice to have a limited amount of controversial statements on userpages, especially if contained in userboxes. Actually, I think that particularly bullet point can be safely removed, as it is adequately covered by "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI I just re-removed it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying someone elses userpage

Is there anything against copying another persons userpage? User:Cimmo basically just copied my userpage and pasted it on his (he even left in the userboxes saying he is 21 and from New York even though he says he is 13 and from Australia). I have left him a friendly request to change it, but what if he refuses? Some of the userboxes are achievements which he hasn't earned (he had nothing to do with getting Wii to FA status while I was one of the biggest contributors, he is not an "Experienced and Established Editor" since he only has 500 edits while that Service Award requires 6000, etc.). TJ Spyke 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I have four or five guys who copied mine :) You could edit it and remove the information that becomes blatant information yourself, though. And if you have stated you are releasing the information under another license (like public domain or creative commons) it may be necessary to remove those statements from his page, at least until he puts them himself (as a good faithed effort to prevent the dude from releasing his edits under licenses he may not know about). If he refuses to change that, edit it yourself. If he restores your copy, try again, leaving him a note that by using your user page he is impersonating you, which may be considered disruption. If he restores the page again, inform that at the admin board to have someone change the page with a final warning. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your user page, along with all your contributions, is released under GFDL. This means that others can use it, as long as they follow GFDL requirements, one of which is acknowledging previous authors. You have copyright on the exact design of your page. Unless your authorship is acknowledged it is not covered by GFDL release and is therefore a breach of copyright. I would be quite happy to delete the copy on this basis, if you wish. Alternatively, you can ask the user to acknowledge your original authorship. Tyrenius (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with him copying the basic style, I just think he shouldn't use the userboxes which don't apply to him (like being 21 years old, or being a Experienced and Established Editor when he needs another 5500 edits for that). The ones that bother me though are the ones about getting Wii to FA status and No Way Out 2004 to GA status, I worked hard on those articles and earned the right to display those, he has never even edited the Wii page. TJ Spyke 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of politeness, you could go ahead and remove those that are clearly wrong (I'm not sure how you know the editor isn't 21, except via a statement from that editor, which could of course itself be wrong). If the editor puts the incorrect information back, I'd ask at WP:EA for suggestions; that might bring another editor into the mix. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal info

With reference to User:Sgt.Boris is the inclusion of personal info (in this case a cell phone) removable by an admin, or is all I ought to do just advise him/her strongly that they are being rather foolish if that is their number... and even if it isn't that number might belong to someone, and it is going to get called. SGGH ^speak! 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this per WP:BOLD, WP:NOT, per any policy you like. It shouldn't be there. And it's not a cell phone, it's a UK dialling code. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dick"

This is a Wikipedia guideline. Can we please avoid references to WP:DICK? It's offensive and unnecessary, and contravenes WP:BEANS to boot. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--George (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nude images

Should pornographic images be disallowed in user pages, perhaps only in certain contexts? In which contexts should they be allowed? This came up recently here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WebHamster&oldid=196464772. This edit has been reverted twice as of the posting of this RfC. This strikes me as an issue that will come up more in the future. Accordingly, there should probably be some mention of it in this guideline. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:38, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

What are we being asked to discuss here- nude images or pornographic images? They are not the same, except to some people. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would cite Wikipedia:Pornography#Vandalism. People shouldn't be clicking Webhamster's userpage link thinking "man, let's see who this guy is" and get a nice view of sexual/nude images. Great pun, but pornographic/nude images really don't belong in userspace, at least not like that. I don't see the need to distinguish nude from pornographic at this point - it's an issue either way, and trying to play this as "but it's not pornography" is a non sequitur. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned "in certain contexts". A context of obvious appreciation of art might be fine. In the context of humor, especially the bathroom kind, or immature titillation, I'm not so sure. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:09, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

A good point, I think we're in agreement more or less. I feel like Liberty Leading the People might be acceptable for a userpage. Whereas the image "Image:Foreskin Penis Descript.jpg" would not be. I think I've come up with a good rule of thumb: consider the image, and consider two hypothetical users, X and Y. If User:X were to (in an isolated incident) replace User:Y's page with Image:Z, it would be inappropriate/vandalism. Now, if User:X deserves a warning or 24 hour block, the image is probably not too bad. If User:X would be indef blocked on sight for use of Image:Z in such vandalism, then I don't think anybody should be using the image in their userpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can put a picture of your dog on your user page then you can put a picture of your penis on your user page. We're not censored, but I wouldn't mind politely asking (not demanding) that people consider toning it down. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Out articles aren't censored -- any photo that appropriately demonstrates the topic is allowed. For user pages, it isn't necessarily a question of censoring, since censoring is the act of blocking something that would otherwise be helpful, in my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:16, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Equazcion. WP:CENSOR is a part of a content policy. Userpages fall outside of such a policy. WP:USERPAGE gives us wide latitude to be creative with our userpages (although I'd hope people tend to add content only relevant - even tangentially - to building Wikipedia). But it is not carte blanche and we don't have freedom of speech on any part of Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that Wikipedia is required to be SFW (safe for work)? I hear where Cheeser is coming from, but ganging up to keep this guy from displaying an anonymized, softcore porn image (and one from Commons, no less) on his userpage is making my teeth itch. Dppowell (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The "safe for work" argument was brought up by just one user at ANI and it's not the reasoning anyone is discussing here. I personally disagree with that argument. Wikipedia was never safe for work, and most users have no interest in making it that way. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:06, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's making that argument. The point is that nudity, profanity, etc. are all allowed - we want our content to be the best, most inclusive, most neutral, so we do not censor the content of our articles, the images we use, etc. We do have codes of conduct, etiquette, etc. We also expect nude/sexual images to be used responsibly and appropriately - a user (say a child) may know to keep away from this content, or may be monitored or restricted by some guardian or some software, but to stumble onto somebody's userpage and, surprise! vagina! is not appropriate. I've pointed to the right place at Wikipedia:Pornography#Vandalism. Use of sexual/nude images outside of articlespace is not a free-for-all. Common sense and a bit of temperance is required. --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So by same reasoning, a user can stumble on fuck, cunt, motherfucker and be very offended as well. No? Igor Berger (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes (following up Cheeser) -- WP:CENSOR is meant to enable Wikipedia to always use whatever images or language are necessary for its articles, not to make sure users can express themselves in their userspace, or have freedom of speech. Free speech is something that doesn't exist on Wikipedia, as we've all been told time and time again. People hear the word "uncensored" and automatically associate that with American free speech, say what you like 'cause no one can bother you about it here, etc, but that's not what it means on Wikipedia at all. It's only a rule to make sure no one can remove article content purely on the basis of it being offensive, so that our articles can be truly complete. It has nothing to do with how our editors can interact or express themselves -- that is something that's most assuredly limited and yes even censored, on Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:44, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Users are allowed to put what they want on their userpages. If someone has an issue with it, they can bring it up to that individual. If it needs to go larger, an RfC should be brought up. I'm not a fan of people being expected to tone down anything for the "sake of the children" or any other such audacious argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"what they want"? A joke about pubic hair seems to fall into the "Other non-encyclopedic related material" part of "What may I not have on my user page". — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You (EVula) might be against censorship on userpages, but regardless, it does exist on Wikipedia. Userspace isn't a free place to put whatever you want. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:18, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, WP:UP isn't a reason to remove stuff that you don't like. If I put a joke about pubic hair on my userpage, you'd probably have to just deal with it. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, I'm just illustrating that, traditionally, stuff is only removed from userspace if it's actually disruptive to the project; off-color content is decidedly not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, decided by who? In the WebHamster instance the content was removed by a user and that act was upheld by an administrator. If you just mean decided by you, then I'd say okay, that's your opinion, now who else agrees? The point is that it's not decided at all yet, hence the need for this discussion. If you're only backing up your opinion with the "fact" that the issue has already been decided, that's a weak argument since it really hasn't yet, as that's what we're here to find out. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:36, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I think someone should be WP:BOLD and put the image back until the consesus has been established for its removal. Igor Berger (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case that's not quite feasible since the image itself was deleted for free content policy reasons (CSD:I4, no license or source data). --MCB (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nude female deleted Let's check all nude and controvercial images for licenses. Igor Berger (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, don't strawman us with that. This image got a huge amount of administrator attention, and somebody noticed it had bad license information. Your suggestion is great if we tweak out the sarcasm: Let's check all ~~nude and controvercial[sic]~~ images for licenses. Way to assume good faith. Back to the issue at hand, I find it quite inappropriate to include objectionable content "until the consensus has been established for its removal." Precedent is clear that images containing sexual or nude imagery are not things to be posted around everywhere (I've cited it how many times?) - such images should be restricted to pages in which they have encyclopedic use, otherwise they are open to misuse (vandalism) and (more relevantly) they wind up visible on pages that people who should not see (and do not want to see) such things will have to see them. If I replaced my userpage with a sexually explicit string of profanity, would you honestly expect it to genuinely meet WP:USERPAGE?? If someone objected, how on earth would I possibly defend such content - totally irrelevant to the encyclopedia - being on my userpage? Honestly? Userpages are for content related to building the encyclopedia, and we give people a great amount of license, but people find themselves staring at genitals (and believe me, I have no objection personally, to the nudity or the political message, I couldn't care less) when they may not want to - or it may be inappropriate to be showing them such material - by coming to a userpage? No, that should not be happening. A userpage is not the place to be making bad puns with graphic images to boot, with all due respect to Webhamster - the pun is funny (if unoriginal) but I just don't think it's an appropriate use of his userspace if he throws in an objectionable adult/sexual/nude image. We, as a community, tend to let that stuff slide because it doesn't really matter or harm anybody ... until the pun comes with adult content, content that users don't expect or necessarily want to see when the land on somebody's userpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think the best way to approach nude images on user pages is the same way we approach spoilers--they're allowed in the proper context, and people should expect to read spoilers in the article on Citizen Kane, but they shouldn't open up user pages only to find "ZOMG ROSEBUD IS HIS SLED LOLZ" in big bold print (yes, I skipped over the more obvious candidate for a reason). The idea with nude pictures is roughly the same--we allow it and will fight tooth and nail to keep it where appropriate, but we're not here to trick our users into seeing something they didn't expect.

Incidentally, a number of galleries of nude images in user space have been deleted at MfD. I'll see if I can't go dig up the discussion links. --jonny-m t 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems that not everything got deleted--the most recent discussion on labeled userpages designed to hold nude images is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Esskater11/Dirty images. --jonny-m t 02:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

People find spoilers where they don't expect them all the time, and sometimes in the intro of an article. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just because our policy currently is to give complete info in an article regardless of whether its a spoiler or "expected". That has nothing to do with userspace. We don't say people can post whatever they want in usrspace lest the public not get... what... a complete idea of what's going on in the user's head? That's just not a priority, nor would it be in the same vain as the reason we allow spoilers. CENSOR and SPOILER are both to ensure complete coverage of topics in articles, not coverage of users in userspace. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:24, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Here is the image that was deleted from User:WebHamster user space. It is from commons, here is the link Image:Vulva.jpg The image is of a legal age adult woman as stated by the license, taken by Dutch artist Peter Klashorst This file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Igor Berger (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the image that was deleted. The image that was deleted is still deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:27, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I will vouch for that as well. It was a completely different image. I looked, and as I recall, it did not have adequate source or license information, although I did not check that thoroughly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you undelete it we do not know! It looks the same, or it could be just as similar. Igor Berger (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's similar in that they're both images of shaved vaginas, but they're not remotely identical. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:33, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- I also added the link to the image on User:WebHamster user page We should leave that link there. And come to a consensus as to how to treat nude images on user pages. Igor Berger (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  - What on earth for?? He already added a new vagina image and the one you're adding was not the one in question - stop insisting that it was. The one that was originally used was deleted, Igor. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  - The one that he had and has now because of your revert of me here is different than the original image, allthough it may be similar, but the one I got from commons is what he wanted to display originally on his page. this is what he has now, it is just a link to it from his page I will let him decide which link he wants to keep. Igor Berger (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Again, why on earth did you think it was necessary to replace the 2nd image with something that is not the first image, to assert some factually incorrect point about the licensing of the first image. Especially when you're the one arguing against modifying people's userpages?? He put the 2nd image there - why change it on his behalf, to an unrelated image, to make a factually incorrect point about the licensing of the original image??? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor, the image you posted in not the one he wanted to display. It's just an image you found and think is the same. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:03, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- The immage is similar in dipiction as the original image that was removed from his user page. Yes the original image had no license attached to it, but I am sure being that it came from commons as he stated to us, it has a license. Netherless the new image, that is if it is new, but it is similar in atribute and depiction has a license. Igor Berger (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

break 1

What we need here is one of those armpit pictures that looks like a woman when zoomed in. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Best solution I've heard so far. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:24, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well this is about respecting user space, that does alow us some latitude as per guidelines. But in this case even that the image is legal we are told we cannot have it on our user space, because it is polimic. It is the same thing as saying the editor is violating WP:CIVIL - disrupt! Igor Berger (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of wikt:polemical. Further, no one has mentioned WP:CIVIL as far as I know. Please stop misrepresenting our perfectly valid points in this discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Equazcion some people may feel that the picture of Israel that you have on your user page is polimic and offensive to certain people. Igor Berger (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No one said anything about polemic. You're confusing this with recent edits to this guideline, which have nothing to do with our discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:31, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

So if your political opinion picture on your user page is not polimic, than why is a nude picture polimic? Igor Berger (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not. Nobody said polemic but you. It's inappropriate because userpages are still only for content related to building Wikipedia. While we give users great latitude in putting content into their userpage, when it is objectionable, adult-only, graphically sexual, etc. we can step in and ask that they user their userpage for Wikipedia-related things only, or at least things that will not upset and possibly harm people coming to their userpage expecting things that are Wikipeda-related, not pictures of genitals. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture is not pornagraphic, but it is art. If it was pornagraphic, it would not be on commons. You are confusing pornography with nude art. Should we censor all nude art because you object to nudity? Igor Berger (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My post does not contain the word pornography. Once again, and I will ask you for the last time, stop misrepresenting other people's statements. It is tantamount to tendentious editing. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place to publish or display art, especially userpages. If I want to create an art website, I should do it on my own time. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not WP:TEND me. We having a discussion not enforcing a discussion. Whatever the outcome that is the outcome determined by consensus. Not by your POV or my POV. Others can contribute and have contributed to this discussion. Igor Berger (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that you just said made any sense. Please stick to the issue at hand, and please (as I've asked) stop misrepresenting what people say. I would also consider elaborate and repetitive use of tautology to be just as unconstructive. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel for the sake of WP:CIVIL we are censoring user pages. I said what I had to say. It is my POV, others have theirs. Hopefully we can come up with NPOV, but at times it seems very illusive. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor, you're arguing against us. You don't get to decide that our rationale is WP:CIVIL - it's not. If you have nothing more to add, as you've said, than I suggest you stop (non)contributing to this (non)discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

← Cheeser, I beg you, don't waste your time. Sorry Igor, but really, this is ridiculous. You aren't saying anything coherent. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:30, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

My two cents? This is shameful behavior. It's completely, and totally unbecoming of an encyclopedia. Displays such as this make me frightened for the future, and of the kind of behavior we're encouraging in children everywhere. This is sick, and must stop. Now. Think of all the harm you are causing with this disgusting display of prudish censorship. — Coren ^(talk) 07:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC) For the rhetoric-impaired, this was hyperbole.

Sarcastic hyperbole or regular hyperbole? Would you care, perhaps, to express your actual opinion? It would be alot easier to establish consensus if you provided a rationale for your opinion (whatever it might be, for or against) based on policy, precedent, and community-accepted practices. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite regular, I would have expected this to be obvious given my original intervention at the AN/I thread, but I suppose that could have been lost in the noise. Basically, I think we've gone collectively nuts if we go bonkers over the image of a human being simply because it isn't covered by cloth (or hair in that case); as far as I'm concerned, this is no worse than a picture of a naked flower, or a naked kitty (hu-hu, pun). It's a high quality free picture, and the editor chose it to embellish his user page— this is something a great many user do and nobody blinks.

As for the subject matter? Well, we don't usually make allowances for the putative psychological hangups of onlookers, and this particular image is not even close to being borderline— we're not talking prurient sexual depictions here, but a simple picture of a human female. There can be no rational case made for requiring the editor to remove it. — Coren ^(talk) 15:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Equating a naked flower with a naked person is perfectly valid from a philosophical standpoint, but in practical terms, about 90% of the world doesn't see it this way. Yes we do usually make allowances for the hangups of onlookers, hence the mention of "disrepute" in this guideline. There can and was a rational case made for the removal -- it's inappropriate. Again, from a philosophical standpoint, you're fine, and I can even somewhat agree with you. But there's a time and a place to practice your philosophies. Showing naked pictures in conjunction with a joke about pubic hair, on a page that's supposed to describe the author of an encyclopedia, just isn't one of them. Most of the world would feel that way, and regardless of the reasons they feel that way and whether or not you agree with them, we do conform to current social climates. Except where our article content is concerned. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:44, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. The argument is rational iff the premise that the image is inappropriate is, which I don't concede. I do understand that you feel that the strong stance against censorship in articles does not extend outside that namespace— but I think that is what's misguided and irrational. My argument is philosophical only insofar as it is an argument about ethics— that allowing ornamentation of user pages in general but selecting "proper" content matter is not a self-consistent position to hold at all. The argument has been made and accepted that unusually divisive material can be removed; but not simply disliked material. The leeway given on political and social argumentation needs to be applied across the board.

I'm sure if I spent some time trawling userspace I would find a great number of images of violence, which I beleive to be more objectionable. I'm sure that for any image you find on a user page you can find a significant fraction of the world population that would object (I'm not even talking about the marginal nutjob here).

So? Try to be consistent. You could argue against any ornamentation of user pages. I wouldn't agree (for entirely different reasons) but the argument would be cogent and supportable. You could argue for fairly strict limits to "offensiveness", and that would also be reasonable, but then you need to apply that consistently and fairly and take into account multitude of social criterion across the world, and barring pictures of flowers, puppies and kittens you'd almost end up with the same net result is the former case. — Coren ^(talk) 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I never argued that a "significant fraction" of the world's population would feel this way, but 90%. It doesn't really have to do with offensiveness either, it's just appropriateness -- which are often used interchangeably, yet there is a difference. A naked picture in this context, ie. within a joke about pubic hair, is just not appropriate for a page meant to describe the author of an encyclopedia. Varying societal norms notwithstanding, this is something most societies that have use for encyclopedias would agree on. Even those who wouldn't find nude photos and jokes about pubic hair offensive would still say it's not something that belongs on a page meant to describe the author of an encyclopedia. Even "significant fractions" of people wouldn't agree to that. People who walk around naked for most of their day, if they read encyclopedias, would even agree there (even people who read encyclopedias while naked :) ). Yes it's a subjective issue, but Wikipedia's application of rules is usually subjective. "Ignore all rules" -- when? There's no cut-and-dry criteria, you just use your judgment. What's allowed on userpages? What counts as a personal attack? It's all very subjective, and meant to be, because the alternative is taking a vote on everything, democracy and bureaucracy, which we seek to avoid. We do seek to be consistent, as much as subjectivity will allow, and we work on the assumption that it is possible. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:26, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, 90% is significant. But that is neither here nor there; you think 90% of people would find that image inappropriate. (I don't even think 90% of Americans, who are notoriously prudish, would, by the way). What is "significant enough" to forbid in userspace? 90? 80? How do you establish that? For that matter, how can you even evaluate how big a fraction you are talking about?

That is my point. You cannot hope to establish whether an image is appropriate or not, save by your own subjective evaluation on how many other people may or may not find it so— that's not a fault of yours, that's an unavoidable property of the problem set. There are only three cogent positions: allow anything, forbid everything, or set some arbitrary cutoff point. The problem with that latter point is that it is arbitrary. There can be no objective criterion to set the cutoff point, or to decide on which side of that point a specific image falls (except the obvious extremes, which aren't a problem either way). Are you proposing that a tiny self-selected subset (those who take the time to comment) of a minuscule and unrepresentative fraction of Wikipedia readers (the editors) decide what is "appropriate" for the world at large? (Incidentally, this is veering way off the immediate concern of that specific image for which my position is fairly clear by now— perhaps we should take this to your or my user talk, or another more suitable venue?) — Coren ^(talk) 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Equazcion that you are taking a real-life problem and waxing philosophical instead of addressing this issue pragmatically. I respect that this is how you choose to address the issue, but I feel like it's creating two incomparable issues - one of philosophy, the other of practicality. I would say, however, that you are quite wrong. If I am to choose a number between 0% and 100% (inclusive) what makes 0 or 100 any less arbitrary than 59? Furthermore, you refer to "the obvious extremes," which is in direct contradiction to your "allow everything" approach, which again contradicts WP:USERPAGE and seems to be an appeal to WP:CENSOR or perhaps the right to free speech, neither of which apply here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me; 0 and 100 are indeed just as arbitrary, but at least they can be applied objectively. The quip about "obvious extremes" referred to other percentages, where an image falls clearly so far on one side or the other that there can be no dispute. For instance, if you set your criterion at "over half the people would find the image acceptable", then a cute kitten image is an obvious case. — Coren ^(talk) 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And you've not only misunderstood but totally missed my point: Wikipedia is not an objective place. Our rules are totally subjective in every way. Nothing here is objective. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:38, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've correctly pointed out the flaw. The solution at this point is not to wallow in it, but to do our best to correct it. — Coren ^(talk) 00:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's subjectivity isn't a flaw; it's intentional. The alternative is democracy, bureaucracy, and lawyering, which Wikipedia intends to avoid. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:59, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I've just got two things to say. 1)A recent edit to my userpage by someone did not cause the iamge to disappear. I'd already tried posting that image somewhere else with the same result. To me that says that someone with admin privileges and above has invoked a filter on the name of the image in question. Most probably inserting a colon so that the image link becomes just a clickable link. To me this shows sneakiness and cowardice in that they haven't admitted what they've done. I have replaced the image temporarily with the one Igor suggested, though it isn't the one I wanted due to it being much less subtle than the 'waxing' image. 2) Wikipedia is either not censored or it is. You can't have it both ways, you can't 'advertise' it being non censored if half of it is censored. User space is still part of the project. It's the project that is uncensored. You either censor all of it or none of it. Simple as that. --WebHamster 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's really not (that simple). Wikipedia could very well be censored in article space and not userspace. You insisting that it be either all one way or all the other is valid as an opinion, but doesn't "make it so". Equazcion •✗/C • 17:20, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It is very simple regardless of what you assert. The user space is part of the project, yes? If the user space is censored then so is the project regardless of whether the article space has no censorship. Non-censored is a different animal to partly censored. "Non" meaning "none", yes?. So again you can't have something that is simultaneously non-censored and partly censored and censored. Wikimedia is either censored or it isn't. If you censor one single page anywhere in the project then the project becomes censored. It's a very easy concept, I don't know why you are having such difficulty with it. "Non/none" is an absolute. Even you must understand that? You'll be telling me next that even a vacuum has a little something in it.--WebHamster 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's really not true. WP:CENSOR is a content policy that governs the content of articles. By your argument, everything at WP:NOT applies to the entire project and we have to delete FAQs and how-to-use-Wikipedia content from project space. Your argument is based on an invalid premise, and while I appreciate that you do not want to be censored, keep in mind that there is no free speech on Wikipedia - userpages are only here to help build the project, and despite the latitude often given, userspace pages that serve only to display nude images are deleted -there is precedent and due cause for this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, the vacuum of space is constantly filled with small amounts of particles and anti-particles that pop into existence and immediately annihilate each other. See vacuum. Although I don't particularly know why I'm addressing an analogy when it isn't really adept. Nothing on Wikipedia is "absolute" and even if WP:CENSOR were totally absolute, it still only applies to article content, and taking it to absolutes on userspace contradicts our policies on userspace. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR quite categorically states that "Wikipedia is not censored", it does not say "Wikipedia articles are not censored", in fact it does not separate out article space and/or user space such as you assert above. It mentions articles, but it does not specifically say articles only. It also quite clearly says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." It also states quite clearly "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." (my emphasis). Where you got the assumption that WP:CENSOR only relates to articles I have no idea, as nowhere does it state on that policy document that its contents refer only to articles. In fact many times it also refers to images. Additionally there is nothing on there to say that it doesn't cover user pages. --WebHamster 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CENSOR, which is a subsection of the section Content of the policy WP:NOT. It is a content policy. You are completely incorrect here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not incorrect. If user space is part of the project then user pages ARE content. I'm sorry but you'd make a lousy lawyer. --WebHamster 22:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we're all taking about WP:CENSOR, let's quote it for everyone to see:

While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

Here's the problem - emphasis mine to highlight the two issues. 1) These images are not here for fun. They are here to illustrate relevant content. They are not supposed to be places where they are not relevant to the content. 2) Use of this image on a userpage is not relevant to building the encyclopedia and has nothing to do with Wikipedia (in this case, it's here to make a funny pun about the president of the US). That violates WP:USERPAGE. So on both counts, this image is not allowed, per WP:CENSOR. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Images aren't for fun? Sorry mate, but the images are under a GFDL license and can therefore be used for any purpose. 2) No user page is relevant to building the encyclopaedia, so why pick mine out of many? For example how can Image:Altbier.jpg be construed as "building an encyclopaedia"? There is no embargo upon making puns (political or otherwise), there is no embargo on nude pictures. There is no embargo on humour on user pages. Personally I think you are making this up as you go along. You see my comments are based on what is or isn't in the documents, whereas you are merely interpreting the documents to suit your own agenda. Perhaps you should go ask someone who actually does have a power of veto instead of grasping at tenuous assertions. --WebHamster 22:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped that you were interested in having this discussion in good faith, but that is apparently not the case. I am sorry for that. Good day. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By that I assume you had at some point expected me to agree with you rather than disagreeing with evidence? So now you get the hump? Way to go. On the bright side at least you didn't have the audacity to accuse me of incivility for having the gaul to disagree with you, for that I thank you. I've had far too much of that lately. --WebHamster 22:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have expected a discussion of WP:CENSOR and the policy laid out there (which I even quoted for your convenience) instead of an insistence that we are out to censor you, which is not allowed, so there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no problem, I'll do it: WebHamster, you're being uncivil. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:36, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting close the argument

I suggest we close the argument, there is no consensus or clear policy shown to force User:WebHamster to remove the image. The only only disruption to Wikipedia I see is the conversation about it. Jeepday (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've pointed to the policy that has repeatedly been used to (with consensus support) delete userpages that are collections of nude images:

The fact that Igor disagrees (or something, I can barely make heads or tails of his Alice-in-Wonderland rhetoric) and WebHamster doesn't want to remove it (obviously) hardly constitutes an unsurmountable opposition and consensus-stalemater. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What BLP policy is it violating? What policy does it violate (definitions not interpretations please)? What law does it break? Get some perspective will you, this is hardly hard-core porn we're talking about, nor is it tasteless, graphic or offensive to anyone in their right frame of mind. If you have a problem with a modicum of skin being on display then frankly I feel very sorry for you. Go to your local (nearest) beach in summer, you will see far worse. FFS people, get a life. --WebHamster 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that personal attack. The obvious decline in your good-faith participation in this conversation is quite troubling. I explained myself above as to how it violates the two clauses I emphasized. Use of an objectionable or adult-content image outside of where it is relevant to article content is not appropriate. Use of a userpage to take bad-pun pot-shots at politicians is inappropriate, and use of such adult-content images should not support such inappropriate use of a userpage - people may afford you the latitude to make political puns on your userpage, but using objectionable nude content to do so is just as inappropriate. I'm glad you're liberal about human sexuality and human nudity. So am I. But that's a personal opinion I will not assume supersedes the existing policy, nor the existing precedent. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting something in your affronted-laden rhetoric. "Inappropriate" is a subjective term. Your argument that the page and the use of the image on the page is "inappropriate" is based soley on what you deem to be inappropriate. Again, and I have no idea why you can't see this, it's your definition that you are using, not one laid down in any policy document. Each of us have our own ideas on what is inappropriate, yours is this and you are using the policies to bolster your definition. You couldn't do this in article space as you'd be accused of POV. It's your POV that it's inappropriate, it's my POV that it isn't. Every single one of us can have a different viewpoint. Like I said earlier, you are arguing based on YOUR interpretation, not on what the policy docs actually say. By the way, I specifically chose the word "people" so that it wouldn't be aimed at you personally. But there you go again with interpretation. That's why it's better to follow the word of a policy, not your interpretation of what you think it means. Next time try reading what it says, try noticing what it doesn't say then take out your mental embellishments and see what's left. I work part time in a solicitor's office, in that office I see lawyers reading law books and following them to the letter because as any lawyer will tell you it's the wording that makes all the difference. You accused me of philosophising earlier, I beg to differ. I'm coming at this logically and literally. You're the one who is trying to use viewpoints and interpretations to win the discussion. In a nutshell, there is no policy document in Wikipedia that says that I cannot have a tasteful nude on my user page. There is no document that specifically says that I can't make satirical jokes at the expense of a politician. Just because you wish they did does not make it so. There is no document that says humour is banned. The fact that it is quite obviously humour should negate any polemic accusations. --WebHamster 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, inappropriate is subjective. Just like most of our rules. Wikipedia is not a place where objectiveness rules. We do remove things and block people based on reasons like "inappropriate", "offensive", "attacks", and sometimes we "ignore all rules". Based on what? Pretty much our own judgment. What's a personal attack? Well, that could differ from culture to culture, person to person, so it's far from objective criteria. Do we specify certain "key words" that must be present in order for a statement to be a personal attack? No. You just use your judgment, just like with any rule on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is subjective. It's how we apply all our rules, and it's how we avoid becoming a democracy and a bureaucracy with voting on all decisions and lawyers to argue detailed rules. Heck, we even have places where we say that certain things need to be "encyclopedic". How much more subjective can we possibly get? Equazcion •✗/C • 00:46, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well I've checked the broadsheets and there's not one report of a maiden aunt catching the vapours due to a millisecond's viewing of my page. Now, why don't you take the advise you gave to a certain editor with less than perfect English and go edit some articles instead of spending all your time attempting to change policy. Perhaps you should have checked out your own contrib list before throwing that one in the mix. Now you should know by now that yes I do bite, but only when bitten first. This whole business should never have gotten this far. That trolling ****wit started this, so I hope you've had a good time giving him a reason for a swift one off the wrist. perhaps your ire should be at pillocks like him, rather than someone like me. I never start it, but I'll do my damn best to finish it. --WebHamster 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, good for you. To address the only sentence of that that had something to do with this discussion, again, offensive or shocking isn't the issue, as I stated above. It's appropriateness. A nude photo in conjunction with a joke about pubic hair is not appropriate for a page that's supposed to describe an author of an encyclopedia -- meaning that it just doesn't belong in this particular place, nothing else. Even people who aren't offended by nudity would attest to that. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:29, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Since when you do get off deciding what I think describes me? It describes my sense of humour and it describes my outlook. Don't get above yourself.--WebHamster 01:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What you think about the content on your own userpage is hardly relevant when it's being scrutinized. What everyone else thinks is the question. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:49, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Make your mind up, one minute it's about whether or not it describes me, now it's about what other's think. No it fucking isn't. It's my page and I'll choose whatever method I like to describe myself. What others think is neither important to me nor under my control.--WebHamster 01:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "it's mine and I'll do what I want" is much of an argument here. Your userspace is most assuredly not yours to do with what you like. Hence the rules governing what's allowed there. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:59, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It's my page for the purpose of describing myself. How I choose to do it is up to me, not some yank drummer.--WebHamster 02:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not entirely up to you, in that there are rules governing it. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:26, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Webhamster, almost every one of your comments recently has contained a personal attack or other sort of hostile, inappropriate language. Please refrain from turning this into one giant display of hostility and incivility. If you cannot contribute to this discussion without posting attack after attack, please stop. This is a policy discussion, and that's how everyone is going about it. No one has made this a personal issue but you, and stooping to personal attacks is going to make things much worse. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

break 2

Since I have twice been accused, by two different editors, of not being a good enough lawyer to participate in this discussion, I quit. I have pointed to the policies in question, and despite the fact that this is not a court of law, I am being told that the consensus-backed policies and the precedents we have mean nothing because I cannot cite them in proper litigious fashion (and let's not forget the personal attacks). Webhamster, feel free to continue to stir up trouble in order to assert your freedom of expression. Because that's really important and a great way to build community while using your userpage to help build Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but if WebHamster is one of them, just know that he accuses lots of people of lots of things. It's just his way, and he does it often, especially to people to disagree with him, and even more especially in heated arguments (which, if he's involved, they will always be). So rest assured, "it's not you". Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

At least I don't follow them around incessantly trying to wind them up, now do I? I keep my thoughts and feelings to the discussion and nowhere else, unlike some skin bangers eh? --WebHamster 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I came here before you. You followed me, if anything. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:21, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about here? Given that I was roped into this then I had no choice in ending up her. I'm fucked if I'm gonna let a pissant star chamber decide what I can or can't have on my userpage without me having a say. --WebHamster 01:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WebHamster, please, try to keep a cool head here. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:30, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be fucking kidding me? --WebHamster 01:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:55, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well give the rhetoric a fucking rest and go do something else that is no doubt far more important than this storm in a tea cup. Go edit an article and give me a fucking chance to. --WebHamster 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When I'm ready to, I will. But do go ahead, no one's keeping you here. If you are going to stay here though, you should stop with all the violent outbursts. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:00, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Violent? Don't talk rot. I'll use the language I wish to use, as per usual I don't need advice from you. It seems that it's not just images you wish to censor. Take the advice that was touted earlier. Give it up as a bad job. You know damn well that you piss me off royally, and you know damn well that you do it deliberately. My talk page and its archives are full of it. I realise it will be far easier for you if I blow a blood vessel and tell you exactly what I think of your and your fucking opinions. Give it a fucking rest. the image is staying. Simple as that. If you want to get Jimbo over to have a look see then do so, I'll tell him the same thing. --WebHamster 02:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the image stays. This discussion isn't about your page. Your page was just an example of the issue at hand. Do what you like, I haven't tried to stop you. If you feel pissed off by me, I'm sorry, I don't know what I did to piss you off. I'm just requesting that you remain civil. And I won't leave here just because you want me to... but again, no one is stopping you from discontinuing here. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:30, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of thoughts for all involved Wikipedia:The Most Important Thing Possible and WP:DFTT Jeepday (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If the troll link was aimed at me, then your aim is well off. This was indeed all started by a (who has been particularly successful in this instance) and it ain't me. You want this all to die down? Simple, leave me and my page the fuck alone and go edit an article. --WebHamster 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect more people would leave you alone if your user page didn't appear to be a juvenile pubic hair joke. That isn't what we're here for, and WP:USER is clear enough that such things are inappropriate for user pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Webhamster, please try to remain civil. Cussing at people is not going to help anything. Since this is Wikipedia talk:User page, would you care to explain how your userpage meets the definition of what a userpage is: Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. How does your userpage facilitate communication that helps the project of building an encyclopedia? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: If nude images are blocked from user pages, will images of the prophet Muhammad (very offensive to many people) follow suit?Bless sins (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no. But I'm not arguing in favor of blocking nude images entirely. The thing that makes WebHamster's page inappropriate isn't the nude image, but the entire content of the page considered holistically. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography were to choose a nude image for a userbox, that would be fine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In the same way that a participant in a Islam-related Wikiproject could easily display such a picture and say "I am a member of Wikiproject:Islam" but somebody could not have a userpage consisting of that image and some remark or joke like "omg muslims are dumb." --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am going to be bold and remove the photo while you folks try to figure this out. Good luck --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I object to pornographic images in userspace, though I didn't examine the particular instance under discussion. I tolerate WP:NOT#CENSOR only for articles where it is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, profanity and pornography are absolutely unacceptable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not pornographic. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, but out of many possible nude images, am I the only one who thought it was at least tasteful (as far as nude images go)? And it's highly subjective if nudity is a bad or good thing. There are many cultures that walk around nude or mostly nude, and have done so for hundreds of years. If this was an image of some guy ejaculating on something (which we do have an image of, as well as a video file), or someone taking a dump, then I think that would be more "universally offensive". The image on Hamster's userpage right now doesn't really bother me, at all. I wouldn't even call it pornographic. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The image is quite tasteful. The context is not. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:38, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a political joke? Wha...? -- Ned Scott 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree (again) with Equazcion. It's not a matter of whether nudity is bad, or whether the image is not tasteful (universally or relatively). It's a matter of WP:USER, which is what this is the talkpage for. The question is, given that WP:USER makes it very clear that userpages are only for the purposes of building Wikipedia - it's not a page for you to make whatever you want show up on the internet, should we allow users the latitude to use such pictures on pages when they are clearly, without a doubt, not being used to build the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Clearly, the answer is "no" if we follow the letter of the law strictly, but we don't - users are given great latitude in what they put on their userpages, however there are problems when the content becomes something that some users shouldn't be seeing at all due to the age-appropriateness of the content. And no, this is not the place to argue things like children should be allowed to see non-pornographic nudity or nudity shouldn't be shameful or the human body is not offensive. These are not issues relevant to WP:USER and go faaaaaar outside what we can determine or address on Wikipedia policy pages. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"however there are problems when the content becomes something that some users shouldn't be seeing at all due to the age-appropriateness of the content" That has to be the most absurd thing I've read tonight. I mean no offense, but do you honestly think that some random child is going to be any more likely to stumble across Hamster's page vs a userpage with the word fuck, or with a detailed explanation of what double penetration is, or on any given web page on the internet? We do have WP:FUCK after all, why not try to AfD that? What are the chances of them even link jumping to Hamster's userpage? We are not here to babysit little kids or take the place of their parents, especially when we have no evidence, whatsoever, that there is anything to be seriously concerned about. If this is a discussion about someone having an image where two chicks are having a pissing contest, or where someone decided to really whore it up with some raunchy stuff, then I can understand, but this is a modest joke using a modest nude photograph. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think the nudity isn't the main issue (I realize other people are concerned about it, but I'm not). I don't see why "modesty" is a concern, either; it still seems to focus on the actual image rather than the spirit of the page. Regardless of the image, this sort of user page betrays misunderstandings of the point of Wikipedia and the point of user pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's what I would call a reasonable argument. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard of the principle of charity? Or how about read my past comments. I've made it clear that my opinion in this matter is based on the fact that people who don't want to see nude images avoid penis and double penetration, and indeed, the more important point is that Wikipedia is not censored: it allows for all sorts of content to be used in building an encyclopedia. Furthermore, it forbids the use of userspace (in specific) for unencyclopedic ends, and goes as far (in some instances) as to prohibit the use of nude and other types of images outside of particular articles. This was my argument, and I believe I made it unambiguously, the least you could do is afford me some courtesy and charity. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Exception to WP:BLANKING

The one case where policy prohibits a user from removing a comment on their own talk page is for a declined unblock request. The request cannot be removed while the block is active. As I understand it, this is in order to prevent abuse of the unblock template. I have added this info to the guideline, as I believe it is merely a clarification of existing policy, rather than a change in policy or guideline. Correct me if I am wrong. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't sockpuppetry notices also not supposed to be removed? I've seen them restored on several occasions as "you aren't allowed to remove these from your own page." --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Good edit, agree with Cheeser that there are other items that should not be removed. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are more than just the one, then probably my add should be changed to be non-specific as opposed to listing them all, although I'm not sure of how to say it succinctly... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the type of tricky wording one needs when we allow people to blank their userpages when they don't like what is there, yet we still need to enforce some types of markers. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to the "suspected" part. That's open to too many abusive applications, not to mention that more than a few trolls will throw around groundless allegations of sockpuppetry when people oppose them. If there is to be an exception I suggest it be for confirmed sockpuppet notices only, please. Dragons flight (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Frivolous, bad faith, and blatantly wrong sockpuppetry allegations are closed in a timely fashion, and if they are truly so obvious and incorrect, that will be transparent. No established, good-faith editor should be afraid to have a sockpuppetry template on their user/user-talk page if it is blatantly false and will be closed within a day - no one would take such a template seriously anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Frivolous, bad faith, and blatantly wrong sockpuppetry allegations have driven away more than a few newbie editors who were mistaken for someone they were not. We have a reasonable checkuser process, that is an appropriate manner of resolving suspicions; fighting over sockpuppet tags is not. Dragons flight (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We've also had five trillion unblocks, but that doesn't mean that block templates should be removed at will, does it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if a template it truly frivolous then ask someone uninvolved to remove it. If you cannot convince someone uninvolved to remove it, then it is best to just let the investigation carry on. In fact if it really was a frivolous template then I would ignore the rule and let someone remove it. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Per WP:IAR and many other policies, if a certain thing on your talk page is clearly in bad faith and/or it is clear the community won't stand for it, there would never be a problem in removing it. I look at it similarly to the exceptions to WP:3RR -- if the change you are reverting is obvious vandalism or is otherwise something that the Wikipedia community is not going to tolerate, then you can revert the whole livelong day.

Anyway, this discussion brings up a very important point, and why I initially added the exception: Wikipedia policy is not clear on this. I was not attempting to modify any policy or guideline, I was just trying to make sure that WP:BLANKING did not contradict other policies -- and we can't even figure out how to do that. heh... In fact, I have so far been unable to locate any policy or guideline that says unblock templates shouldn't be removed -- the template says not to remove it, but hell, I can make any template I want and put "do not remove" in the text of the template. heh...

If I Were King(TM), WP:BLANKING would be severely modified so that warnings could only be removed under certain circumstances, but the community has rejected this many times in the past, unfortunately... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a revised version, since there have been several changes recently I figure I might make them here instead of making more changes to the page:

Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests (while blocks are still in effect) or sockpuppetry notices. In this case it may be legitimate to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to display important information about blocks and confirmed or suspected sockpuppetry. Notices of this type that are patently and unquestionably made in bad-faith, or that do not have a corresponding block or sockpuppetry/checkuser page, may be removed by appropriately ignoring this rule, although it is recommended that an uninvolved third party remove such notices. But it is not required that they be removed, and it may be easier to leave them in place, avoiding arguments about whether such a notice was left in good faith.

I don't know if that's too verbose, but I'm trying to hash out here what people are saying in this discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No way. A) IAR is a fail-safe for when policies are broken, but policies themselves should never be written to depend on it. B) Again, you'll get no support from me over any "suspected" language. C) I disagree with recommending that bad faith notices be left in place, after all if they are bad faith they shouldn't be there, right? Which leads to D) any policy that depends on interpreting the perception of bad faith will lead to conflict, which is exactly what the language allowing removal is intended to avoid.

Unblock notices while blocked and confirmed sockpuppetry form a bright line that is tangible and not weighted in personal perception. These I am prepared to accept. Grey areas that depend on personal perception of the legitimacy of a tag are historically sources for major conflict and should not be reintroduced into this policy in any form. Dragons flight (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound out of line or anything, but you sound pretty angry about all of this, and seem to be making demands and ultimatums, not working with us to craft a policy that we all can support. Several other people believe that this version or something like it is appropriate. Do you have any suggestions and constructive comments? PS. This is not a policy page... are you confused on that matter? --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am angry that we go through a variant of "shouldn't we keep tags" every three months. Which as you may or may not be aware was tried. It was abandoned because people at ANI grew tired of seeing ridiculous tagging-related edit wars every week. Can we agree that we don't want to encourage people to edit war over tags? If so, then I've already made a suggestion of where a bright line on the subject is: i.e. ongoing blocks and confirmed sockpuppets. Given the failings of the past, I am opposed to introducing any subjectivity into this issue. (PS. I used "policy" in common English sense of a "rule", "guideline", etc., not in the Wikipedia-centric sense. And you can be assured that whatever the template at the top, people will treat such language as a "rule".) Dragons flight (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We apply common sense to all our policies, it does not require the application of IAR, more it is based on the same spirit as IAR. The idea that we can use our brains. Consensus can change, so I see no point n being upset at this new discussion. We already have a rule against edit warring and this proposal does not change that. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't that consensus can't change it's that more often than not a few people (often with little appreciation of the history of the issue), decide that we obviously need to change away from what dozens and hundreds of people have discussed previously. If you really want to address this I suggest you invite wider community participation rather than assume the four of us alone have any right to change things that have been a source of broad discussion for a very long time.

Actually, you raise exactly the point, but in a tangential form, we already have rules for people that actually game the system and hence this proposal is largely unnecessary. We don't need special rules to deal with people who merely remove tags. If they remove unblock requests in order to "try again", then we can deal with that. If they remove it merely to get rid of it and then sit out their block, then there is no harm. By creating rules about these tags, we create situations where people feel entitled to edit war in order to put them back. We don't need any extra rules for dealing with these messages, since the real issue is whether we can deal effectively with people that game the system, and from my point of view we can already handle that situation directly. Dragons flight (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well policy is supposed to describe our best practices, not prescribe our practices, and I have seen in practice that we don't let people remove certain types of tags. The details of course are up to debate.

I really think that those who wish to participate in policy formation need to keep an eye on the policy's talk page. I agree that a wider audience is a good thing, and you are welcome to seek it by posting a neutral message in one of the common places. But there is nothing wrong with a group of people seeking policy change on the policy talk page, that is where it is supposed to be done. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

DF, I'm concerned about how upset this issue seems to have made you. You cite dozens/hundreds of prior users who support you, but Wikipedia is not static and nobody but you seems to be so voraciously opposed to these changes. I suggest you take a break, let others weigh in on the issue if necessary, and if you remain the singular opinion against this change, I'd hope that after a break you could provide a more constructive/consensus-building dialogue regarding this matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I said dozens/hundreds who discussed these issues. I'm not going to assume that they all do or do not agree with my particular position. I may be a singular opinion among the four here, but unless I'm mistaken I'm also the only one here who repeatedly dealt with the fallout of the previous policy on removing warnings. I understand how you can think these things sound like a good idea, but in my experience they simply aren't.

Anyway, I'm going to post a few notices and go away for a while. Dragons flight (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think I need to reiterate here that this discussion is not about changing policy -- it's about writing down a policy that seems to already exist. The unblock template says "Do not remove this template," but I can find no policy, guideline, or essay anywhere (until I edited WP:BLANKING and WP:DRC) that says you cannot remove an unblock template. Even the instructions on unblocking don't seem to say anything about it, as near as I can tell.

So either the unblock template has incorrect text, or there is a gap in what is spelled out by policy, or else I just can't find the relevant policy.

So -- are people currently allowed to remove suspected sockpuppet messages? Confirmed sockpuppet messages? I'm just looking for clarification here.... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, this little debate between DF and Cheeser is exactly the reason why I am only seeking clarification of policy. rather than a change in policy. Cheeser, DF is right, in a way: Any change you suggest to Wikipedia policy, I guarantee you that if dozens of people will come out of the woodwork and raise objections to the change -- but not until you actually modify the policy page. Wikipedia is too large to ever achieve consensus on a policy change anymore. You can not get enough people's attention at once in order to get a positive consensus on a change, and believe you me, if you actually try to make a change, you will immediately attract enough people who are opposed that a negative consensus is inevitable. Sorry if that's too jaded, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy changes every day, by consensus. I have personally seen it happen numerous times. It is true that there is often objection, but if the community truly embraces the change then such objection is drowned out, or even better a better version is thought of that lets all agree. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused ... did we not already modify this page, and no one (or rather, only one) has come out of any woodwork? Furthermore (and 1==2 makes this point better than I), this guideline is shaped by standard, consensus-built community practices, not the other way around (as DF seems to suggest). Sockpuppetry notices of all sorts are left because they are important not just in notifying the user, but in notifying others who come to the user's talkpage. That's how they work, that's why people commonly insist that they remain until the case is resolved, and our guidelines should reflect that. The same with unblock templates - even if a blocked user has no intention of gaming the system, the templates should stay. IAR allows us to ignore "do not remove this unblock template" if such a rule hinders our building an encyclopedia. IAR isn't carte blanche to do what you want unless it hurts Wikipedia, it's carte blanche to ignore rules if those rules are explicitly and undeniably in the way. There's a difference there that I think needs to be understood. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, while we changed the policy page, I don't think we have changed the actual policy. I am pretty sure Wikipedia community consensus has for years been that you cannot remove unblock notices. It's just that the policy page didn't spell this out, and in fact in the section we modified, appeared to contradict the established de facto policy. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I assumed you meant "all you have to do is edit WP:UP and people will start objecting" - what you meant was to change it to say something other than standard practice. Understood now (I think). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1 touched on a point that I wanted to make too. In what sense does WP:IAR apply to User and Talk pages? Putting the question another way, in what way does the removal or otherwise of messages assist or prevent anyone from "improving or maintaining wikipedia"? This is a useful question to consider because, in a way, IAR is the zeroth law of wikipedia. Clearly there are cases (such as unblock requests) where consensus is clear that message removal would be harmful to admin efforts to maintain wikipedia, and there is also consensus that most other messages (including warning templates) may be removed without being harmful in that respect. The question, then, is where and how we draw the line. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently IPs don't count as users

I keep running into addled people who seem to think IP editors don't count as "users" and that therefore the admonition to stop being contrarian paper-pushers about warning removal doesn't "count" because it's on the "User page" guideline. This is both incorrect -- IP users are of course users and entitled to basic courtesy and fair treatment -- and even harmful -- revert warring with users on their own talk page about worthless template messages does nothing but breed animosity and contempt (if anything encouraging vandalism), put off potential editors and donors, waste time, and clog the servers. The community has repeatedly determined that warnings are not worth edit warring over. much less blocking over, at venues such as Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, Wikipedia:Removing warnings, and even Wikipedia:User page. Oh-so productive template messages warning users for removing warnings were deleted some time ago, for these very reasons. Still, I have a feeling that so long as the relevant text remains on this particular page, it will continue to be willfully misread by those with nothing better to do than play cops and robbers by taunting caged tigers.

In short, this needs to be rectified. It's past time to get this over and done with. Either IP users should be explicitly mentioned in the text, or the particular text segment on warning removal should be moved to another page. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As there's been no objection within a perfectly reasonable time-frame, I've gone ahead and made this edit. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As all of the discussion has been at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:User page and IP's, lets wait to see how that turns out before we change the guideline. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You say "all" as if this hasn't been discussed and decided several times over the past year. =\ – Luna Santin (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If the issues were all well and settled, this guideline would have already been updated to either explicitly include or exclude IP addresses / unregistered editors. As recently as October there have been AN/I reports [2] for admins that did not know it was ok for users to remove messages, let alone IPs. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Users... let alone IPs." That sort of statement is appalling. The language about removal of warnings was added here for lack of a better place, not because IP editors are bastard children we can do with as we please. I challenge you to find a single discussion that either supports to notion that IPs aren't included when describing "users," or more importantly that IPs are counted as "non-users" when it comes to the numerous prior discussions where it was determined there is no good reason to edit war over utterly unimportant template messages. Read the discussions I linked above, point out to me where the phrase "except IPs" came up in any of their conclusions. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you appear to have totally misunderstood what I was trying to say. Please forgive my lack of clarity and let me try to be more clear. When I first started editing here, there was an entire series of escalating {{wr}} template warnings that got slapped on editor's talk pages when they deleted messages or warnings from their own talk pages. Even though these templates were deleted in 2006 and even after WP:USER was updated [3] in early 2007 to clearly state that users may remove messages at will from their own talk page, many people continue to be confused by this change. While most Wikipedia editors understood that registered editors had been explicitly given the right to delete messages, mistakes continued to happen for months afterward (as evidenced by the above report of an admin to AN/I). When I said "users ... let alone IPs" my intention was not to treat IPs as "bastard children" but to show how even admins were getting it wrong for registered editors nine months after WP:USER was updated ... and while there may be some disagreement or confusion as to if WP:USER applies to anonymous editors, there is no doubt that it definitely applies to registered editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do remember the {{wr}} templates (thanks for reminding me of the name), but I also remember when and why they were deleted -- specifically because there was no policy or guideline backing them up, and they caused far more disruption, animosity, and bad blocks than they were ever worth. While I appreciate that you have the best of intentions in attempting to exclude anons from this section of the guideline, the fact remains that doing so would systematically harass and deprive them of basic fairness and dignity. Since the question begs itself, again I'll ask you to point out any consensus that specifically determined IPs should be excluded from the ability to manage their associated talk pages; I'm asking again to emphasize my feeling that this is a novel interpretation not supported by prior or current discussions. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Archiving?

On User talk:Kei-clone, Kei-clone has stored a copy of MyAnimeList, an article fairly deleted through AfD for failing WP:WEB (by his own statement, it has now been deleted three times though only once through AfD). He first put this article on his talk page back in January, then removed it on March 17th when he recreated the page. The page was nominated for AfD on March 25th, at which point he archived the page to his user talk page again[4]. The page was deleted, along with a related page. I left Kei a note suggesting he now remove the article, per WP:USER or move to a subpage if he intends to work on the article to try to meet notability (which was never able to be established during the entire AfD). He said he can leave it on his main talk page if he wants to because it doesn't violate WP:USER. So my question is, does his archiving of a deleted article to his user talk page the way he has violate WP:USER? Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's working on it or whatever, then it shouldn't matter if it's on the talk page or a subpage. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he isn't and doesn't claim to be. He's just holding it with the stated intention of just recreating it later. Since archiving the page, he has only made one minor edit to it to add : to the categories. A second editor, an associate of Kei's, also has it archived and never edited her archive at all, just let's it sit there. I also have asked about this at ANI. Collectonian (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what's going on here. He basically made a revision of his talk page contain the contents of the page. I wouldn't worry about it, but to be honest, it's something I've done myself when I've been worried that we might be losing something useful, and would like a quick and easy option to recall it. (This was before I knew how to export articles and then import then on external wikis, and then work on them there) That part of his talk page has been removed and only remains in the history, where it will have very little life, and won't be indexed on search engines and such. The deletion wasn't really controversial or anything, nor was there a strong push for deletion (at least that wasn't the impression I got).

So it might violate something.. but eh.. seems pretty minor to me. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How many?

How many user subpages is one allowed to have? T.Neo (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no theoretical limit, although if you are asking the question I would wonder what the reason is. It would be inappropriate to try and build an entire website using UT space on Wikipedia, for example. On the other hand, if you had a lot of in-progress pages that were eventually destined for article space, for example, that would be fine. So the question is not so much "how many" as it is "what for?" --Jaysweet (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to get rid of a whole lot of fancrufty original research on the Prehistoric Park article. Basically it's a show where a a guy called Nigel Marvin goes back in time and captures dinosaurs to put into a zoo. Of course, like so many wikipedia articles on television shows, It attracted OR and fancruft like a magnet. And so I am trying to get rid of that, that is why I have made these subpages, here: User:T.Neo/Prehistoric park and User:T.Neo/List of animals in Prehistoric Park for test edits. By the way, I know a user called Dora Nichov. He claims to be a fennec fox in the sahara desert, but that is besides the point. He has a subpage User:Dora Nichov/Stories. Is this allowed? Just asking. T.Neo (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As you're using the subpages to work on the article, they're fine. Basically, if the subpage in question is helping you to edit Wikipedia, then it's allowed. (assuming it's not inappropriate in some other way). The guideline states that you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. The community tends to be somewhat lenient with editors who are making a genuine contribution to the encyclopaedia. If an editor has userpages filled with unrelated content, and makes no contributions to Wikipedia, then they are likely to be deleted. --Beloved Freak 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The User:Dora Nichov/Stories subpage is not really allowed, though. I would recommend the user store their stuff somewhere else. Nobody's likely to make a big deal out of it, but I would recommend against it. I mean, you don't want to come back one day and find that somebody filed an MfD while you were gone and all the stories are deleted, right?

Try Google docs. [5] Free, probably better for this sort of thing, and it keeps revision histories just like Wikipedioa. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Content?

The not criteria says that one may not have "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc" and "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia." Would the politic sections on this user page be considered polemical and extensive personal opinions? Collectonian (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that is exactly what qualifies as extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc _(1 == 2)^Until 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal details of people not involved in WIkipedia

I see that "personal information of other editors without their consent" is to be avoided on userpages. What about people who are not Wikipedia editors? Are there any policies or guidelines that address the issue of personal information about other people not on Wikipedia? I have seen a userpage that has information on the editor's family members including full names, birth dates & birth places and details of their personal lives. I have not contacted the editor in question about this yet because I wanted to see if there were any guidelines.--Beloved Freak 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty clear corollary to me. I suggest changing the page appropriately. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:51:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:37:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I have removed the material from that editor's user page. --Beloved Freak 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives