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.
The "Removal of comments, notices, and warnings" section on this page (WP:BLANKING) currently says that "Policy does not prohibit users ... from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." I'd like to propose that this be reworded to make it clear that the normal and customary practice is to keep comments up on one's user talk page for at least a few days before deleting them — and that although policy doesn't demand this and does allow prompt removal of material, an editor who consistently deletes comments immediately from their talk page runs a risk of being misperceived as not wanting to communicate.
As the guideline currently stands, some new editors could easily get the idea that it's perfectly OK to blank one's talk page immediately after reading any comment left there by someone else, and that anyone who suggests this isn't really a good idea is out of line (because, after all, WP:BLANKING says it's OK to do it). I'm thinking of at least one relative newcomer who blanks his talk page all the time, and this habit definitely has not helped his case when others have found reason to question what they see as a confrontational, warring style in the way he edits articles. I really think it would be a good idea to rephrase the existing guideline to make it clearer that although immediate blanking of material from one's talk page, without any other acknowledgment, is permitted, it is not encouraged as the default communication style. Comments? — Richwales 17:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that some indication should be given that repeatedly blanking your talk page is a good sign of a bad editor: someone who does not understand the basics of collaboration and who is probably not a good fit for Wikipedia. Not sure how to word it, but a guideline should give helpful guidance. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I reticent to endorse fuzzy guidelines because, in my experience, editors frequently use them to hammer other editors rather than to accept them as guidance on how to conduct their own affairs. Please also see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/HentzerNobody Ent 02:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to respectfully disagree with most of the commenters on the above RFC. An editor who does controversial work, without ever using edit summaries, and who persistently refuses to acknowledge or respond to legitimate inquiries on his talk page or on article talk pages, can normally be seen as acting antisocially, and sanctions may certainly be appropriate. There is a difference between this sort of "refusing to communicate at all" behaviour and the occasional deletion of an item from one's own talk page. (I do note that Hentzer was indef-blocked, BTW, though it was for repeated copyvios, not refusal to communicate.) — Richwales 18:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what RfC you are referring to Rich, but I'm going to agree with you again about failure to communicate. Wikipedia is a cooperative work, and discussion among editors is vital and not optional. An editor who never responds to other editors can be blocked after warnings and lack of response, although it needs to be made clear that they will be unblocked if they enter into discussion. And I agree with Johnuniq that some sort of helpful guidance needs to be given to make it clear that repeated blanking without response (even if they are entering into discussion at times on their talk page or elsewhere) is not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hentzer, cited by Nobody Ent. I would also draw people's attention to GeorgianJorjadze, who (as you can see on his talk page) was recently blocked for three months for repeated edit warring, refusal to discuss changes or disputes with other editors, and an ongoing pattern of blanking his talk page rather than engage in discussions with others. — Richwales 14:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Request for comment - Advertising on user pages
There has been an outstanding request to close this discussion for quite some time. The long period for which this discussion has been ongoing reflects the strongly held and well reasoned opinions on both sides. There is considerable merit to the arguments put forward by both those who !voted support and oppose, and opinions are roughly equally divided. Those in favor of the proposal point out that there is no current specific user page prohibition for advertising commercial services related to Wikipedia. Those in opposition point out that advertising Wikipedia related non-commercial services (such as wikiprojects) is a benefit to Wikipedia as a whole and that commercial advertising is prohibited by more general policies.
Although there are many editors in both support and opposition to this proposal, it is a proposal for a change in policy. A policy must reflect "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." The mix of well reasoned opinions indicates that this change is not "widely accepted" and thus should not be an enacted change to policy at this time. The proposed change therefore should be declined.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This proposal is for a minor rewording of a part of this guideline, to clarify that advertisements for products or services should not be allowed on user pages, regardless of whether or not they are related to Wikipedia. WP:NOTADVERTISING (a policy) clearly states, "Wikipedia is not... a vehicle for... advertising... This applies to... user pages." Wiktionary defines advertising as "communication whose purpose is to influence potential customers about products and services". Therefore, we can logically combine these two sentences and come to the conclusion that "Wikipedia user pages should not be used to communicate information about products and services to potential customers." In other words, if something is being sold for monetary gain, it should not be advertised on a user page.
The part of the guideline which this proposal deals with is under the "What may I not have in my user pages?" section, in the table under "Excessive unrelated content" (quick link). The row labeled "Promotional and advocacy material and links" currently reads as follow:
Promotional and advocacy material and links
Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links).
Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia.
The wording of the first bullet point is ambiguous. It can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with WP:NOTADVERTISING, implying that it's ok to advertise products and services, as long as they are related to Wikipedia. This proposal aims to clarify the wording by adding an additional bullet point. The proposed wording is as follows:
Promotional and advocacy material and links
Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links).
Advertising or promotion of a product, service, or any other for-profit, money-making venture; regardless of its relationship to Wikipedia.
Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia.
Please note: It is not the intent of this proposal to decide whether paid editing (or otherwise making money from Wikipedia-related activities) is acceptable, nor is it the intent of this proposal to limit an editor's ability to disclose that they are a paid editor. The intent is only to clarify this guideline so that it is in line with the policy on what Wikipedia is not, to make it crystal clear that user pages are not to be used for advertising purposes.
Please indicate whether you support or oppose this change below.
Support as an apparently necessary restatement of the rules. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I disagree with making the guideline turn on the exchange of money. In my opinion, editors should be given broad discretion as to what content they want on their user page so long as the content is related to the editing of Wikipedia. We would allow an editor to place a notice on their userpage inviting others to solicit their assistance in editing generally, or in editing topics they are interested in due to the editor's profession, ethnicity, religion, place of residence, or any of a variety of other motivations, what is so fundamentally different about a notice inviting readers to solicit their editing assistance based instead on financial remuneration? I just don't see the fundamental difference, to the extent that editors are permitted to be paid for their editing, they should be allowed to post related information, up to and including what they expect to be paid, on their userpages. Monty845 20:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The fundamental difference is that there is a policy (WP:NOTADVERTISING) which forbids using user pages as advertising space. The definition of advertising is given above. Advertising does not include soliciting help with editing, or displaying notices which communicate a user's interests, profession, ethnicity, religion, or place of residence. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
To the extent WP:NOTADVERTISING does apply in the situation we are discussing, I think we should carve out an exception for advertising in userspace, that is directly related to the purpose of editing Wikipedia. To what extent NOTADVERTISING should apply is I think fairly within the scope of this RFC. Monty845 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTADVERTISING is pretty darn clear. It says (among other things) that user pages should not be used for advertisement. Period. There isn't much to discuss about that. If you think there should be an exception for user space when the advertisement is directly related to Wikipedia, then I think you need to start another RfC at WT:NOT to get the policy changed. I highly doubt you'd find consensus for that change. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Question - Pete Forsyth is a current admin and former WMF employee who now runs Wiki Strategies, a consulting firm which advises clients "advise on opportunities to engage with the Wikipedia community", as you can read on his user page. I don't mean to pick on Pete, but I see very little difference between his user page and the user page which started this discussion. If the proposed change were adopted, would Pete need to remove the link and reference to his company? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It depends on whether there is a consensus on whether the text on his user page constitutes advertising. It's a grey area. On one hand, it's a statement of his profession, equivalent to "I'm a programmer at IBM." On the other hand, it's an external link to a business that he presumably owns, which some might construe as an advertisement. Personally, I would be ok with that user page if the external link was removed, but I think it would merit more discussion. The one thing we can agree on is that it's not as clear cut as "I'll write a Wikipedia article for your company for $1000. Here's my email address." ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see Pete's page as advertising. In a multi-paragraph bit of prose that gives a bit of history about himself, he mentions where he works. On the other, bold font tops the page offering a specific service for a specific price asking that people contact him in specifics ways if they'd like to hire him. --Onorem♠Dil 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
So would it be fine if a userpage said I currently work as a paid editor improving articles at Wikipedia followed on the next line by a {{Mail}} template? Just so long as there is no direct discussion of money, and its left to the reader to decide on a way to contact the editor? Monty845 21:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
As long as it isn't an advertisement for a product or a service, then it's ok. Having the {{Mail}} template right next to the statement about how you're a paid editor would be a bit suspicious though. I'm not sure how useful it is to nitpick about individual, extremely specific examples. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 21:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.
I'm not going to begin to attempt to clearly define with no grey areas what is or isn't advertising. I do think there is a difference between blatant advertising and mentioning where you work. --Onorem♠Dil 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Support -though there will likely be grey areas such as those already being discussed above that would have to be dealt with case by case. --Onorem♠Dil 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Advertising break1
Oppose – The advertisement on User:Cla68 goes towards improving articles. That advertisement is going towards Wikipedia's benefit. The policy should exclude advertising that goes towards improving Wikipedia. Instead of trying to disenfranchise paid editors, you guys should work with paid editors in order to construct a "Wikipedia Paid Editor Code of Conduct" or something. Pecunia non olet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
By "the policy", do you mean WP:NOTADVERTISING or WP:UP#PROMO (which is a guideline). If you were referring to WP:NOTADVERTISING, then it currently does not exclude advertising that goes toward improving Wikipedia. Whether or not it should exclude it is another topic for another debate (preferably on WT:NOT). If you were referring to WP:UP#PROMO having a specific exclusion for advertising that goes toward improving Wikipedia, how would you justify such an exclusion when you consider the language of WP:NOTADVERTISING, particularly keeping in mind that policies trump guidelines?
Also, I don't think there is unanimous agreement that Cla68's advertisement is benefiting Wikipedia. I certainly don't agree. I don't believe that Wikipedia would benefit from paid editors, but that's just my opinion. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 22:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say "guideline." WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't mention userpages, and the word "article" is used several times. Given its language, I believe that WP:NOTADVERTISING only applies to the mainspace. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Try reading it one more time. It clearly says at the top: "This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." (my emphasis) ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, I didn't read the content outside of the ordered list. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Policies aren't ends in themselves; they're means. Policies are meant to help Wikipedia, and if a policy gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, then one is free to ignore that policy. WP:IAR. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Care to explain how allowing advertisements on user pages improves the encyclopedia to the extent that we have to invoke IAR to ignore a long-standing policy? ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 19:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, from the sentence: "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links).", I find the unrelated to Wikipedia bit informative, and compelling. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 19:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That is not an answer to the question, "How does allowing advertisements on user pages improve the encyclopedia?" An answer to that question would explain how it improves the encyclopedia, rather than things that you find informative and compelling. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 21:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hypothetical situation: Someone seeks to improve an article, but is unable to do it on his or her own. That persons sees an advisement on a freelancer's userpage offering aid in exchange for money. That person hires the freelancer, and that freelancers improves the article without violating Wikipedia's policies. If an ad on an usepage results in an article's improvement, then let that ad exist. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If a hypothetical user wants to pay a hypothetical editor to make hypothetical NPOV edits to an article, that sounds like a hypothetically awesome situation. Realistically, people aren't going to pay for NPOV edits for NPOV reasons. And making hypothetical adverts acceptable brings up hypothetical complaints when the product isn't delivered. --Onorem♠Dil 22:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not hypothetical. It has occurred. A person has decided to consider paying "for NPOV edits for NPOV reasons" which makes sense because editing WP is a specialized skill and not everyone has the time for it. This is in fact an "awesome situation." Factseducado (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
That's why there must be negotiation between client and contractor. A contractor isn't the client's slave; a contractor is a sovereign and an equal. A contractor may push terms and refuse any POV requests from a client. It's wrong to believe that all businesspersons are unscrupulous. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I never said they were. My point is simply that you can make up a hypothetical for anything. Should we allow advertising services for pay on userpages? --Onorem♠Dil 22:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Opposed - The current wording is fine, and pulling out parts of the text from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not out of context to support the position is misleading. There's just no need to change anything regarding this, right now (there may be in the future, but there haven't been any demonstrable problems yet). — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 22:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly how is the material quoted from WP:NOTADVERTISING taken out of context and/or misleading in any way? What makes you think that WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply to the subject of advertising products and services on user pages? ‑Scottywong| babble _ 22:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so if it applies, then how did I mislead people by taking it out of context? ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 13:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Pulling out bits and pieces of a text in order to create the interpretation that you desire is misleading. The sentence WP:NOTADVERTISING (a policy) clearly states, "Wikipedia is not... a vehicle for... advertising... This applies to... user pages." is a problem, especially since the section there doesn't say specifically that anywhere. If you want to say that you think NOTADVERTISING already applies to user pages, or that it should, then that's fine. What you've done here is clearly misleading, though. This is a ham-handed propaganda technique, straight out of a political operative's playbook! — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 16:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Removing the extraneous bits is not misleading. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. The statement isn't changed by leaving out the parts that aren't directly related to the discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 16:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It changes the context though (even if only slightly), and it does so in a way specifically designed to bolster the position being argued. SW just now mentioned himself that he thought that "misleading" was a poor word choice on my part, and I'm willing to admit that I did quite a bit of hunting for that word. I don't think that SW was trying to deceive, or lie, but this is a good example of... polemical is probably a good word here, sort of. Propaganda, certainly. After all, why not quote the whole sentence as you did just now? — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 17:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm at a loss. How exactly is the context changed? It's concise, not misleading. Why not quote the whole sentence? I'd guess because this has nothing to do with soapboxing, battlegrounds, propaganda, showcasing, articles, templates, or talk page discussions... --Onorem♠Dil 17:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
By highlighting the specific bits that are directly relevant to this discussion, and completely omitting the other elements, it makes it appear as though the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy and the Wikipedia:User pages policy are contradictory, which isn't true in my opinion. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 19:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:USER was not brought up. How was trimming a simple statement from WP:NOT misleading? --Onorem♠Dil 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, WP:USER is a guideline. WP:NOT is policy. If there is a difference in what they say, the default position should be based on the policy while discussion is ongoing. --Onorem♠Dil 19:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Um... this is a proposal to change this page, so... — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Still not answering the question. Oh well. I'm done. --Onorem♠Dil 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not sure why this is so difficult. Let's say the original sentence was "Wikipedia is not A, B, C, D, or E. This applies to F, G, H, and I." I am simply condensing this down to only talk about the most relevant parts by saying "Wikipedia is not C. This applies to H." There is nothing false, misleading, or out-of-context by doing that. The meaning has not been changed. This is very, very simple to understand. The real question is this: Tell me whether or not you believe the following statement is false: Part of WP:NOT instructs us that user pages are not to be used as a vehicle for advertising. If you believe that statement is false, then I'm done with this conversation, because then we'll be at the level of debating basic rules of the syntax of the English language, and that is not something I'm interested in debating. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 21:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Part of WP:NOT instructs us that user pages are not to be used as a vehicle for advertising unrelated to Wikipedia. The last part is vital. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 22:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOT includes no such qualifications or exceptions for certain types of advertisements, therefore your statement is false. WP:NOT is a policy, WP:UP is a guideline. Again, if you'd like to update WP:NOT to include such an exception, please start a discussion on WT:NOT to get consensus for it. Until that time, advertising for products and services on user pages is a violation of WP:NOT, regardless of how many guidelines exist which can be twisted to say otherwise. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 22:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly true. WP:NOT only takes the hard line that you're expressing here if you're unwilling to give the numbered points any weight. Even before that though, it's understood that policy is not written to be all inclusive. There's always room for interpretation in it, and if needed there's always the "safety valve" of IAR. Besides that, this guideline can be taken as the wide interpretation of this specific aspect of NOT, and the distinction here is crystal clear, and is also built on long and hard fought experience. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 15:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Policies don't exist for their own sake; they exist for Wikipedia's sake. Don't enforce policies for the sake of enforcing policies; enforce policies when something beneficial to Wikipedia results. As I've stated earlier, when a policy is in the way of improving Wikipedia, then one has the right to ignore that policy. This discussion needs less policy-citing and less wikilaywering. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Advertising break3
The founder of Wikipedia did state he was against paid editors in a previous discussion I remember reading years ago. I thought there always was a rule against this. I don't really care one way or the other, as long as they announce what they are doing, who they are working for, and aren't trying to remove negative things and add in fluffery. Of course, a lot of people who freely edit Wikipedia articles look for and then add in positive or negative things depending on whether they like the subject of the article. And we don't want any massive spamming done, where a newspaper hires someone to go through every single Wikipedia article imaginable and add in a reference to an article on their site. DreamFocus 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This discussion isn't about whether or not paid editing should be allowed, it's about whether you should be able to advertise a product or service on your user page. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
What else would they be advertising? Is this a real problem? Any links to show? DreamFocus 01:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Making money or not is irrelevant to our no-advertising policy that many people have linked; why throw this page into discord with others? What's more, blatant advertising anywhere is subject to speedy deletion, regardless of what this discussion concludes. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I really doubt there is money to be made, but if there is, no valid reason has been shown for preventing editors (who often throw a good deal of money into articles) from making it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
No one is trying to prevent anyone from making money. This proposal is about advertising only, not outlawing profiting on Wikipedia. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 13:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Support - This is an appropriate response to the recent "Will Edit For Cash" brouhaha at ANI. I am not opposed to paid editing at WP, but I am opposed to the commercialization of the site. Failing to slam Pandora's box shut now would be a great mistake. Carrite (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Support provisionally: my caveat is that enforcement should err on the side of permitting truly ambiguous material. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That's actually why I "oppose" this proposal, because I think that the current wording does a fine job at doing exactly what you're saying here. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Support. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not to promote private business, no matter on which page or what kind of business, or whose. Sandstein 17:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Support. I have no time for the wikilawyering claims that advertising an editor's services for sale on a user page is ok. It's not, because the moment an organisation or individual can buy an article on Wikipedia, our contract with our readership is broken, as the assumption of impartial editing is no longer sustainable. If we need this change to make it clear that we don't accept user page advertising of any sort, then let's make the change. --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Advertising break4
Support – If people are being paid to edit Wikipedia, fine. The moment they advertise their services on their user page, that indicates that they are not able to edit with a neutral point of view. Acps110(talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You'd rather paid editors be forced to live in hiding? — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and hunted down like dogssock-puppets. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This proposal is not about disclosure of paid editing. Disclosure and advertisement are two very different things. Editors can disclose that they have been paid without advertising their services. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 21:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, so what pushes the limit to make something "advertising", exactly? Is it the mention of a specific amount, the inclusion of a link to the users email, what? — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 22:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You see: that's precisely the reason why we shouldn't be allowing any paid editing. As soon as the toe is in the door, then we get the wikilawyering about "how much of an advert is an advert". The answer is obvious: any form of advertising - be it rates, email, links, or even a humorous limerick announcing that payment is accepted - is totally unacceptable and should not a appear on a user page. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If "wikilawyering" is such a problem, then we need to quit pushing our policies and guidelines in the direction of becoming legislation. Note the "wikilawyering" above over what this proposal is about, and the "wikilawyering" about what constitutes advertisements on just ab out everyone's part. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 15:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Common sense applies. Disclosure looks like this: "FYI - I am occasionally paid to write articles." or "FYI - I have been paid to write this article." Advertisements look like this. Disclosure is a simple statement. Advertisement has clear intent to attract a buyer. Advertisements often include prices, terms, methods of off-wiki contact, external links to company websites, etc. Disclosures include none of these things. An easy solution would be to create an acceptable template or userbox which states that a user is a paid editor (I'm sure one exists already). Then, we won't have to worry about whether a custom statement is too "adverty". ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 22:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Common sense seems a little naive here. In the absence of advertisements, disclosures simply fulfil the same function, but in a less open and transparent way. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose If people are being paid to edit (which likely has been going on a long time) an announcement of that fact on their user page would provide on-wiki, readily-accessible disclosure. Kablammo (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This proposal doesn't limit anyone's ability to disclose that they have been paid to edit. It only limits their ability to advertise products and services. Advertising and disclosure are two different things. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You keep repeating that line, but it's factually inaccurate. In this instance, advertisement and disclosure are inextricably linked, and to try to pretend otherwise will cause more problems than it solves. If there is a notable problem here, the solution is either to ban paid advertisingediting, or to ensure that our policies and guidelines give us every chance to control it. —WFC— 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Error corrected. —WFC— 22:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a huge difference between advertising and disclosure. Disclosure looks like this: "FYI - I am occasionally paid to write articles." or "FYI - I have been paid to write this article." Advertisements look like this. Disclosure is a simple statement. Advertisement has clear intent to attract a buyer. Advertisements often include prices, terms, methods of off-wiki contact, external links to company websites, etc. Disclosures include none of these things. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 22:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, and then somebody puts something like this into an "About me" section on their user page:
* You can buy my services to edit any article.
* My email is enabled (links to Special:MyEmail).
and then you have egg on your face, because they will argue that there's no advert there and that the two statements are unrelated. Whereas all you have to do is ban the first line and the problem is solved. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not necessarily arguing for a ban on paid editing, but I agree with RexxS's logic. —WFC— 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I do too. Let's at least be clear about what we're doing here. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. I do recognise the work that has gone in here, and that the intention is a noble one. But there are multiple issues. Firstly, for as long as paid editing is not explicitly banned, I would rather information on a user's involvement in that activity were contained on wiki than off of it. Then there's the fact that we have been known to enter into arrangements with organisations which take payment in exchange for products or services, Highbeam for example. Partnerships in which the benefit to Wikipedia is free, but however strongly the foundation distances itself from the other partner's financial affairs, the other party's objectives are clear. In short term, the organisation would hope for its profile to be raised, with the longer term hope that the connection will help the business grow (which, for anyone who doesn't understand the euphamism, means "make more money"). That concept might not be to everyone's tastes, but it does happen, and this proposal could call those into question.
Finally, I do concede that there is an ambiguity in the existing policy. However, I don't think it's a good thing to shift the ambiguity from a judgement on whether the questionable material can justifiably claim to be trying to help Wikipedia, to whether the questionable material which definitely intends to help Wikipedia can reasonably be described as promotional in nature. —WFC— 20:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Advertising break5
Support...advertising editing services for a fee anywhere on this website is the wrong way to go.--MONGO 21:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Question for clarification Another editor has suggested that if an editor is paid "he creates a legal liability upon himself that can no longer be avoided by the free-nature of the editing...he has lost all protection". Does this mean that once an editor is paid for writing something in an article he or she is legally responsible and so could be personally sued for libel (or whatever, e.g. leaking some government secrets)? Or is payment irrelevant to legal culpability. And which jurisdiction would be involved here- Florida, USA or wherever that editor lives? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That question is completely irrelevant to this discussion. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 22:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the invite, Scotty. Advertising seems to carry no legal implications, then. Great discussion. Not sure that makes it easier to vote. I would have thought that knowing there was more or less legal responsibility involved might well affect the number of editors who might want to advertise. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The Intent behind this proposal would only harm Wikipedia, because knowledge of editor's intentions are obviously important. It's amusing that people complain about paid editors who are working under the radar, but then put up this proposal. If the "advertisement" is meant to be advertising the improvement of Wikipedia, then there's no issue. SilverserenC 22:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to have a blatant advert to avoid hiding your intentions. Whether there's no issue or not is a topic of discussion for somewhere else. --Onorem♠Dil 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This proposal doesn't simply cover "blatant adverts", it covers "advertising". There is a gaping chasm between the two. A disclosure from someone who has provided any sort of contact information whatsoever could be reasonably interpreted as advertising. —WFC— 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This proposal is obviously provoked by a specific case of blatant advertising. Saying we need adverts (blatant or not) so we have disclosure is not a useful argument. Step one is to decide if we allow adverts. Step two, if step one says we don't, is to interpret what those are. --Onorem♠Dil 23:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to do it that way, the two steps need to be done simultaneously. Step one is actively negative for as long as we have no agreed definition, and it remains to be seen whether the community is capable of reaching one. —WFC— 23:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This seems a bit remarkable to me. If what Cla68 has done is "blatant advertising", then there's no such thing as non-blatant advertising. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 15:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I was tempted to post a like-for-like response. Something which mentioned lead balloons perhaps. But look, while there's no doubt that the way in which Pete Forsyth tackles the subject itself is classy, it would not be pedantic wikilawyering to regard the way he covers it as a high-class advert. He provides an eloquent description of what he does, and straight after provides contact details. —WFC— 23:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Support Advertisments for paid work on Wikipedia should be just like any other sort of commercial advert on here. If someone was to place an advert for their taxi business or legal services, then they would be removed. There is also the danger that allowing adverts may give the impression that Wikipedia is encouraging and supporting activities that may not have the support of consensus. Declarations of any COIs resulting from paid editing should be made in some sort of central register somewhere on en:wikipedia - advertisements should be off wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
A central register of paid editors, and a ban on mentioning it anywhere else on-wiki (even your userspace)? You might be onto something there. —WFC— 23:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that we're getting way ahead of ourselves here. Cla clearly intended to spark exactly this discussion, and it's working. However, I have yet to see any proof that anything is actually happening, let alone any proof that any sort of disruption has occurred that needs to be dealt with. I agree that this train of thought it a good direction, but it seems decidedly premature. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 00:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
support the wording to bring this guideline more clearly into alignment with the policy WP:SOAP -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Strongly support, I frequently G11 userpages because there are ads on them. Granted, those are generally from users who did not edit anything else, but no one should be using any Wikipedia page, including user pages, as a billboard. If editors want to advertise their services, they can go purchase ads from any advertising service of their choice, but they may not place them here. I've always been against Wikipedia selling advertising, but allowing people to place them without even making the money off it is even worse! SeraphimbladeTalk to me 16:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Advertising break6
Oppose - Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Wikipedia isn't a WP:SOAPbox, but we're also not a WP:BUREAUCRACY. If you want to spend all your time deciding whether a user's personal page meets your personal idea of what's right and wrong, you probably shouldn't be here. It reminds of the little old ladies who go to the library to check out books just to mark through the 'dirty' words. I'm not going to agree with everything people might have on their user page, but unless it harms the encyclopedia, and I mean truly harm, I'm probably not going to worry about it. We don't need to police for every loophole. We already have a rule (WP:IAR) that covers such things. What we do need is people to lighten up, and if something is really a problem, address it, if not, then let it be. Aren't there a couple of pages on this encyclopedia in need of proofreading or editing? Maybe Wikipedia is only 5 pages now and we don't have other stuff to do anymore. -- Avanu (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment A distinction needs to be made between disclosing a conflict of interest, which we encourage and actually advertising ones services (or prices no less), which is more controversial. It should never be prohibited to say that your work might impact your impartiality, and that might only be the difference between "I am paid to work on Wikipedia" and "You can hire me to work on Wikipedia". Ocaasit | c 02:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Question: Could I ask, for The Signpost, whether the distinction intended by this proposal is between (i) telling other editors "what you do for a living", and (ii) actively promoting your service/product on your user page? Tony(talk) 03:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The proposer said it is not "the intent of this proposal to limit an editor's ability to disclose that they are a paid editor", but just to prevent user pages being used for advertising purposes. -- Avanu (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, I still don't see what all the fuss is. Cla68 said he could guarantee to bring an article to FA status and since pretty much everything is controlled by consensus ultimately, I don't see how one could do this unless you have a collective of editors working as meatpuppets or sockpuppets (or its actually a great article, which is good for Wikipedia anyway). Since people could already be doing this without saying so, it seems ultimately better to know people are doing this for pay, rather than encouraging it to go underground more. -- Avanu (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up question, then: isn't there going to be a big fat grey area on this one? What if an editor "discloses" that they do paid editing at the top of their user page in lush detail? Would that count as informing the community about their role on WP rather than advertising? Where does the boundary lie? Is it the mention of $$ that pushes Cla68's notice over the line of acceptability? What if it had been, for example:
Part of my activity on Wikipedia is as a paid editor: I use my expertise in written English, in particular my experience in negotiating competitive text with clients in all areas from basic to highly technical, to assist clients to create and/or improve balanced, neutral, and high-quality articles in which they may have a stake. I combine this background with my close knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to navigate through the maze of issues that often bewilder outsiders who have information that should be exposed on Wikipedia.
Many of my clients are companies, other organisations, public relations professsionals, and individuals such as university researchers, artists, and writers. My work often involves the provision of source material by clients, and if images and other media files that are relevant for an article need to be released and uploaded, I assist in this complex process. I always declare at those forums and on the article talk page that I'm working for financial compensation. By arrangement with a client, I watchlist an article after initial work to ensure that it remains of high quality and up-to-date. If requested and appropriate, I prepare and nominate articles for DYK or featured status (which can lead to main-page exposure). By request I train a client or their representative in how to deal with Wikipedia's bureaucracy.
Potential clients typically contact me via my email from this account, so that we can discuss their needs and I can give them an idea of costs, which are on an hourly basis.
Which bits are starting to become unacceptable here? Tony(talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
All the bits after ""Part of my activity". It's only my humble opinion, of course, but there's no grey area: we either ban paid editing, or anything goes. --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd second that last bit, despite the fact that my gut feeling on which we should do differs to RexxS's. Updated by —WFC— 00:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
While I still don't feel like trying to define rules for what does or doesn't qualify...I'd probably be ok with the first sentence of each paragraph. The simple statements without the salesmanship. [edit]I suppose I'd like any discussion of costs to be removed...even if no numbers are given. --Onorem♠Dil 16:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Support. I don't care if people are paid to edit Wikipedia, but WP:NOTADVERTISING is a policy and it states: "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: ...recruitment of any kind: commercial... or otherwise."Kaldari (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
So just announcing that you're "a paid editor" does about the same in terms of advertising, doesn't it? I wonder whether the detail in the example really changes anything in terms of defining it as personal information vs advertising. Tony(talk) 13:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I think most people have a pretty good idea of what constitutes advertising and what doesn't. Kaldari (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
support. A key distinction been information about oneself and advertising is talking about money or its equivalent. This would apply just as much is it were promotion for a charitable cause,or for a unrelated business. If I were to say I make widgets, and give a link to my website, that's information. If I say, see my widget site for a price list, that's advertising. If I say I support the Republican party, that's information. If I say, I support the Republican party, and suggest that if you agree with me you contribute to its national committee, that's promotion. For the material in the box above, the details are sufficient that it's advertising. Cla68's current page is advertising. Pete's page is not. whether the use of one's experience at DNK or AfD or a similar process for money is permissible is a separate question--my own view is that it is as inappropriate as the use of admin powers would be. The use of one's technical ability here for money is permissible; the use of one's prestige here for money is not, and this casts a special burden on people in respected positions here, whether formal or informal--I think they have more need for great caution in this regard than ordinary contributors. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
So which bits of the grey box would have to go to qualify as non-ad. BTW, I see plenty of "ordinary" admins; what do you mean by "ordinary contributors", please??? Tony(talk) 01:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Support- I strongly oppose the commercialisation of Wikipedia. ReykYO! 01:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Because then we'd just have to argue about what is and isn't "advertising." And for all those folks quoting WP:NOTADVERTISING -- are you going to tackle all the opinions and personal discussions in userspace? Nobody Ent 02:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You can't possibly misunderstand policy to that degree. Just because the shortcut link is WP:NOTOPINION doesn't mean that everyone is prohibited from expressing their opinions. Why don't you actually read the policy instead of just the shortcut link. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 02:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Clearly you have read the entirety of this discussion. So must surely be aware that, whatever you initially intended, this proposal is considered by all sides unlikely to materially impact on anything other than paid editing? Could you please therefore stop repeating that this is not about paid editing? —WFC— 02:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The "You disagree with me so you must be lazy or stupid" meme is not a compelling counterargument.
Frequent contrarian replies to oppose views reminds me of childish "Did not!" "Did too!" rhetoric.
No wiki anything stands by itself but is interpreted in context of other policies. The examples I provide clearly show the guideline is, by widespread and longstanding consensus, much more rigidly to article space than user space. Nobody Ent 12:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
There are parts of it which apply much more frequently to articles than to user pages. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply at all to user pages. It just happens to be much less likely to encounter an advertisement or an opinion piece on a user page. Sorry to keep arguing, but this is textbook wikilawyering. It says in plain English that user pages are not to be used as a vehicle for advertising. That people are trying to claim, "Yeah, but that's not really what it means" is baffling to me. ‑Scottywong| express _ 13:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
If the policy is so clear why was an RFC opened to change the wording? Nobody Ent 19:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The policy at WP:SOAP is crystal clear. The current wording of this guideline is not clear, hence the RfC to bring the guideline and the policy into accord. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (even for itself) -- Avanu (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Except when it is. And please stop shouting. Nobody Ent 20:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
No one's shouting, that's how its formatted on its own page. Sheesh touchy people you act like you never seen a panda before. -- Avanu (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Support Users should keep their personal business matters off Wikipedia. ThemFromSpace 02:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Support We do not allow advertising this includes of oneself.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Taken literally, this would imply that the page User:HBC Archive Indexerbot fails the guideline, since it advertizes a service. I understand that that is not the intention, but isn't it better if one doesn't have to guess the intention behind an awkwardly phrased clause? --Lambiam 15:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Question. Consider:
COI disclosure: I run a business to copy edit pages on request.
I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and will copy edit your page for a reasonable price.
Will both be equally disallowed under this proposal? If not, what is the difference? --Lambiam 15:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Well what I wanted from people when I wrote the grey boxed material above was their opinions on where the boundary lies. But I received no serious response. Tony(talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
@Tony: You received a serious response from me. It is abundantly clear from examples such as the one that Lambiam suggests that drawing a line somewhere will lead to wikilawyering a form of words that breaches the spirit of our ban on advertising services-for-sale. The only rational solutions are either to prohibit paid editing, or to allow advertising. There is demonstrably no middle ground, and my opinion is that we should prefer the former solution. --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
And I would repeat that while I have no objection to the latter solution, RexxS has hit the nail on the head logic-wise. —WFC— 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with RexxS and WaitingForConnection, no matter which side of the "editing-for-pay" dispute a person agrees with this is the crux of issue logically. Factseducado (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Support the proposal; strongly oppose commercializing the project. Tom HarrisonTalk 16:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Disclosure is a must for paid editing. Discussion here has been prompted by User:Cla68's disclosure of his paid editing, some users in the MFD argued to delete the disclosure, but to keep the page! That is flat out ridiculous. Just saying you're a paid editor is not good enough, I want to know who you work for, and how to contact you off wiki - through emails which your employer is legally liable for, and not some woolly user talk page. Those who are arguing support here, are arguing against clear disclosures of COI - being up front that you work for Bell Pottinger is not an advert, even if they can click on your link and hire you. I'm clearly against spamming your ebay auctions in the user space, but this is not what the discussion is about - the discussion is about tarring disclosure as advertising. - hahnchen 18:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to advertise your services to disclose your COI. That is flat out ridiculous. --Onorem♠Dil 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
So then what, a disclosure of "I work on paid articles", but no disclosure on the employer and how you may be contacted? How useless would that be? - hahnchen 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Useless for who? (though I never said saying who you work for and how to contact you shouldn't be allowed) --Onorem♠Dil 18:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Useless for everyone. Who did you think it'd be useful for?! Scottywong, who proposed this change even views contact links as suspicious.[1] That's where this discussion is coming from. - hahnchen 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Disclosing a COI is useless without making it into an advertisement? I'm sorry...I'm a bit slow. You're going to have to explain that more clearly for me. I'm not seeing how it's useless for us to know about a COI on wiki without also allowing the person with a COI to advertise their work. --Onorem♠Dil 18:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You have users arguing that contact links form an advertisement. - hahnchen 18:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I do agree that's a bad argument. I don't agree that because a bad argument has been made, the only answer is to disagree with the position of the person making it. This entire RfC is basically useless. Until we focus on either 'what qualifies as advertising' or 'do we allow advertising' first, it's just bickering with no set standard to what we're actually discussing. As far as I'm concerned, no RfC was needed. The change should have simply been made to make the guideline match the policy and discussion starts from there. --Onorem♠Dil 18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I voted oppose in order for no changes to be made. This whole RFC was a way to wikilawyer away Cla68's user page. We should be forming a standard disclosure agreement, that includes the necessary info such as employer, contact details and nature of editing. Anything other than that, we can blanket away as advertising - but we need to be clear on disclosure first. - hahnchen 18:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I (clearly) disagree with what you think needs to be included in a 'standard' disclosure, but agree otherwise. I have no idea how it'd be possible to actual keep a discussion on one track long enough to make that work. --Onorem♠Dil 19:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I would limit statements on the editor's user page to a statement that they are (or have been) a paid editor, together with a link to some sort of standard disclosure register. Disclosure of each paid commission would be needed here, with sufficient detail on who commissioned the work and what work was commissioned so that anyone who needs to know can tell what COI risks the editing entails. This would not restrict an editor from stating what areas they generally edit in, or what there personal beliefs are (within current guidelines) but would preclude pricing or direct contact details.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems entirely inconsistent for COI to say that editors should disclose, and then ban them for mentioning that they edit for hire. Be——Critical 21:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Disclosure in a strictly, agreed, controlled manner does not equal advertising.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Support - long overdue (and yes, that includes Pete or anybody else if they are advertising, not just disclosing COI). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
How is "This user's favorite color is orange." related to Wikipedia? Don't stretch (; How about "This user is thankful that the good guys won the Civil War †"? Be——Critical 19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The proposed change is to add "Advertising or promotion of a product, service, or any other for-profit, money-making venture; regardless of its relationship to Wikipedia." How would "This user's favorite color is orange." come into it at all? Are colors paying users to advertise for them now? Amazing. --Onorem♠Dil 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I said, strong oppose to current and proposed. Under the current, his userpage is against policy. But I'll add a bit to oppose the proposed change as well. Be——Critical 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose This bans far more than advertisements for commercial gain. It could be used for many people's userpages. Many Wikipedians have userboxes unrelated to Wikipedia, for example (See the first one on User:Delicious carbuncle, or the userboxes on User:Equazcion. These promote viewpoints unrelated to Wikipedia. So a strong oppose to current wording. Also oppose proposed wording, as it makes absolutely no difference to practice, but makes honesty impossible. Be——Critical 20:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't ban viewpoints unrelated to Wikipedia. It bans Advertising or promotion of those viewpoints. I don't understand why "This user's favorite color is orange" would qualify. I don't understand how "This user has no particular interest in Marilyn Monroe, Marilyn memorabilia, or memorabilia collectors." would qualify. What are these users advertising or promoting with these statements? --Onorem♠Dil 20:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
As with many people's userboxes. The key word is "promotion." The "orange" example may not be the best, but it's arguably promoting in the same way as a model saying "I love X." Depending on how much you like Mike (; How about the "George W. Bush" or the promotion of his livejournal, or homosexual marriage? Be——Critical 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess I just don't agree that a simple statement of "I like GWB" or "I like homosexual marriage" is promotional. If we're going to be that picky about what qualifies as advert or promo, I guess we should just reduce everyone to rednamed userpages. --Onorem♠Dil 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this text is not new: "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)." That text already exists in the guideline, it is not part of this proposal. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 20:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Provisional oppose until it's clear how this idea and paid editing expectations will coincide. I do not believe that the proposer would intend this to be used, in combination with a disclosure requirement, to backdoor ban paid editing (disclosures required for paid editing, and disclosures prohibited, thus paid editing is disallowed). However, I do not believe that we should approach a contentious topic from two separate angles at once, to avoid such an outcome. Also, nothing in the above passage cited as "advertising" is, in fact, advertising: if it doesn't contain a price, a pitch, or contact information, it's not an ad. Saying "I fix cars" is not the same as saying "I will fix your vehicle for money; email me for details". Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Which 'above passage' is it you're talking about? (I do agree that there is no chance this discussion with its randomness has any chance to be useful now.) --Onorem♠Dil 20:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Userboxen are in part to openly disclose that one has a viewpoint: that I might reasonably be considered to have a jaundiced viewpoint towards articles on neo-Confederates, or Unionism (Irish sense); or a favorable one towards the University of Chicago or Firefly. They should not be advertisements (coy or otherwise). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and I of course have no problem with them. Although that's usually their purpose, they do in fact advertise and promote, due to the nature of humans. I think the phrasing is too broad. Look at my userpage: does it say what my POV is, or does it promote? I think it promotes/advertises my POV, and therefore is technically against policy. One should be able to have a literal interpretation of policy and be right about what that policy actually is. Be——Critical 21:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - given that this is a very long page without a threaded discussion section and I've not scrolled from top to bottom recently will say per JClemens. Furthermore, in my view there is plenty of paid editing going on, whether or not we agree or like it, and my view is that full disclosure is better than nothing. Finally, am not convinced this falls under WP:NOTADVERTISING - but that's a minor point. The two most important points are the angle from which to address this issue and the importance of disclosure in general. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong Support. I see no reason to allow anyone to place text on their user page, which will could result in some financial gain for them or their company. If this is not stopped now, then it could be the thin edge of the wedge. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. If certain behaviour (e.g. paid advocacy) is not allowed, then obviously we should block editors who offer such services. Blatant self-promotion is also already disallowed. We don't need to change the guideline for that (which is only a guideline anyway). But users who remain within what is acceptable behaviour under our policies, should be allowed to disclose that they will accept payment for Wikipedia-related services. If this proposal is accepted, the problems of drawing a bright line between such (commendable) disclosures and advertising these services will lead to wikilawyering and only more unnecessary drama. It will not keep for-hire editors who don't care about our core policies from advertizing elsewhere. --Lambiam 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Question Does allowing advertisements for the profit of outside parties put Wikipedia's tax status in jeopardy? If so that is a no - contest argument right there. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I tried to ask about legal implications and was told that my question was "completely irrelevant to this discussion". So I am keen to see the response, if any, to your question. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The Law of Unintended Consequences could bite Wikipedia in the nethers if you tighten up the rules in this way. Enforcement will be haphazard, hilarious and habitual. →StaniStani 23:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong Support but a disclosure of being a paid editor is obviously not advertizing. --PnakoticInquisitortalk 02:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia doesn't have advertising on any of its articles. It's not too much to ask that users refrain from putting advertising on user pages. Gobōnobo+c 09:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The argument that our articles are ad-free is not relevant. It would of course be disgraceful if we allowed adverts in article space.
A more meaningful comparison is the fact that Wikipedia does, from time-to-time, promote external organisations in Wikipedia space, where there is a relationship between the two which is considered in the interests of Wikipedia. A wish to avoid spending years debating whether specific instances of promotion are "advertising" or merely "disclosure that coincidentally gives the other organisation publicity" is a primary motivating factor behind opposing this proposal. My position can be summarised as "how about we stop worrying about people whose reputation in improving content is such that people are willing to pay them, and instead crack down on those who have little or no interest in improving Wikipedia?" —WFC— 11:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
support This is a clear form of self-promotion and allowing it essentially allows people to make money off of the project. That's not ok. It also encourages paid editing which is a serious threat to neutrality. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Advertising break7
Oppose on wording grounds. The second bullet point isn't meant to do so, but would make unacceptable things like the "This user is Free Software Foundation member #XXX" userboxes and other 'I'm interested in this organization' style userboxes, that are currently not controversial. In an effort to fry one fish, you've proposed a policy that calls for setting the ocean on fire. Sven ManguardWha? 19:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Support per Rexxs and RonHJones. Though as Sven noted the wording might need tightening up to exempt some userboxen. Paid editing is a pernicious problem, a straightforward ban would be best for the pedia. My encounters with certain paid editors have brought me to the conclusion that blocking and salting is the best policy here. Public Relations people should not be allowed to edit articles about their clients or the competitors of their clients. Neutrality and Public Relations are rarely compatible. ϢereSpielChequers 21:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose for lack of a good rationale. Explain to me, in simple terms, and without reference to existing policy, why such advertisements are harmful, and I'll reconsider. --NYKevin @825, i.e. 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Why would we want to discuss policy based reasoning? That'd just be silly. --Onorem♠Dil 19:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a proposal to change policy. If it were already policy to remove this kind of advertising, you would not need to make this change. As it stands, you do, since it explicitly excludes this kind of ad. So don't tell me about what other policies say. You're asking to change this policy, and you need an independent rationale for that. --NYKevin @846, i.e. 19:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a proposal to change a guideline so that it matches what the policy already says. --Onorem♠Dil 19:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
If you aren't able to justify how this improves the encyclopedia, then I submit that it does not. And if that's the case, why should I support it? --NYKevin @850, i.e. 19:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It's been explained. I realize the discussion is long...but I'm not interested in repeating the same arguments over and over. Sorry if you missed them. I was just pointing out that arguing against policy based discussion is silly. --Onorem♠Dil 19:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Since consensus is one of our policies, why are you characterizing good faith attempts at finding it "silly"? Nobody Ent 19:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all against finding consensus. Nowhere did I say anything like that. I said that it's silly to not consult policies when we're discussing guidelines and policies. If we're just going to ignore policies entirely, why bother having them? I don't think anyone has gone with IAR in the discussion yet. I am going to unwatch this for now. I'll put it back when the discussion's done and we're allowing blatant adverts. --Onorem♠Dil 19:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)My original point stands: policy is irrelevant. WP:NOT is too general to cite for this kind of argument. It mentions user pages in passing, and could easily be interpreted exactly how WP:UP is currently worded. If you have an actual rationale about how this helps the encyclopedia, perhaps you should put it up there with the policy-based one, so that people can !vote based on it, instead of having to read a long and drawn out discussion. --NYKevin @858, i.e. 19:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep. We don't want people to have to actually read the discussion before they comment. That's almost as silly as making policy based arguments. I really need to take this page off my watchlist before I get blocked for saying what I actually think. --Onorem♠Dil 19:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, no. You (or maybe it's someone else?) are making this proposal and you are responsible for making the rationale clear. If you don't do that, I have zero interest in supporting it. --NYKevin @864, i.e. 19:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
If you're not even willing to look at who made the proposal, I don't care at all for what you think about it. Have you read it? There's a signature at the end of it that would solve your confusion over who made it. --Onorem♠Dil 19:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Why does it matter who proposed it? Why should I be bothered over details like that? --NYKevin @879, i.e. 20:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, reviewing the proposal, I notice that it explicitly puts the benefit of the encyclopedia out of scope. So as I've utterly destroyed the policy argument, there's now no other argument to make. --NYKevin @896, i.e. 20:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose -I disagree that the guideline needs changing. This RfC originated from a particular instance. This particular instance is covered at WP:UP which is a guideline intended to clarify how user pages are meant to contribute to WP as a whole: "They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute." The guideline then specifies what is allowable on a userspace: "There is no fixed use for user pages, except that usually one's user page has something about oneself..." It further lists some but not all other kinds of material allowed on a user space: "...other uses of user space include (but are not limited to):..." The guideline then specifies, "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material" is allowed. It then clarifies what is in and outside of the scope of this specific type of allowed material: "Pages used for blatant promotion or as a soapbox or battleground for unrelated matters are usually [emphasis added; not always] considered outside this criterion. For example: a five page résumé and advertising for your band will probably be too much, a brief three sentence summary that you work in field X and have a band named Y will be fine." The advertisement in question should be reworded to so that it mirrors the allowed "brief three sentence summary." Suggested wording would be, "Along with being a volunteer editor I sometimes work at editing Wikipedia for pay. My work is always to help make Wikipedia the best it can be and to attempt to help elevate more articles to Featured Article status. My experience is..."This will then explicitly follow the purpose of the guideline, WP:UP, which specifies that user pages are meant to contribute to WP as a whole in such a way that "They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute." Wording the summary of the user's work in this way would uphold all elements of the guideline's purpose: 1) It would enhance community participation because the community would be aware this specific resource to aid the improvement of the encyclopedia exists. 2) This would be a purpose related to the improvement of the encyclopedia and this wording would not be excessive. 3) This wording would not bring the project into disrepute. In summary, all necessary guidelines are already in place. The particular case which prompted this RfC can be handled within the existing guidelines and doing so will contribute to fulfilling the mission of improving the encyclopedia. Factseducado (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)17:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
even if the wording within the guideline WP:UP is internally consistant and clear (just for arguments sake) how do we reconcile with the fact that such an interpretation is at direct odds with the policy at WP:NOTSOAP? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
My reply is WP:NOTSOAP needs to be updated and tightened up. Paid editing had not been the officially endorsed standard it has now become. I do not expect the allowance of paid editing to change so multiple numbered bullets under WP:NOTSOAP must be updated to reflect this reality. Also, WP:NOTSOAP states, "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." A statement worded in the way I demonstrated above meets both the guideline WP:UP allowance of "a brief three sentence summary that you work in field X" and WP:NOTSOAP's allowance on user pages of "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies... as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." The wording I provided, is non-disruptive, clearly favors the opinion that paid editing should be allowed, and most importantly is "relevant to the current and future operation of the project." That's the crux: paid editing has been allowed to make the project as good as it can be. For that same reason allowing statements of the kind I framed above are also for the benefit of the project. Factseducado (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
And where and when exactly did this new community standard come into effect? What I am seeing on this page does not reflect a consensus to change the policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know when allowing paid editing became all right. I believe The Signpost has covered it recently. I see no movement from anyone with authority to stop paid editing (i.e. the ultimate owner/founder of WP, the Foundation, or the administrators.)That paying for editing is acceptable does not require consensus on this page. Pay for editing is done and will be done. Factseducado (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. I think it would be inappropriate to deliberately write a policy aimed at stopping people who earn money by improving articles. Spammers and hagiographers, perhaps, but we already have policies which preclude what they'd want to do in article-space and the community is already fairly good at identifying that. I also share Sven Manguard's concerns about careless wording. bobrayner (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Userpages are the place to make such declarations, and I cannot see how declarations are to be separated from subtle advertising. If paid-editing occurs, we need to control, not prohibit the advertising. I don't think paid-editing can be effectively eliminated, and driving it, or keeping it, underground will have side effects worse than the central problem. In any case, we need a clear policy on paid-editing (Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) is currently tagged "{{failed}}") approved by consensus, before we start making associated rules. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: Poorly thought-out. I understand the underlying idea, but the ideas that "advertising is okay here as long as profit isn't being made" or "profit is evil" are both wrong. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 08:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose proposal. Ths idea is not horrific but is slightly confusing and perhaps a bit worrisome. If this was adopted as policy, how would we deal with someone who has a userbox saying that they use a certain type of product and think "you should, too", or simply advertise the fact that they use it? What about someone who has a userbox reading "This user is a member of the Republican Party?" The hypothetical userboxes are advertising money-making organizations, and the second could be considered promotional, too. There isn't anything wrong with either statement, as editors should be allowed a reasonable display of their personal feelings, but wouldn't they become inappropriate under something like the proposal? If I am correct in my interpretation of the proposal, most displays of an editor's personal views (so long as they regard something that in some way makes money) would become inappropriate or at best frowned upon. This is not something we need on the English Wikipedia. dci | TALK 20:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose A solution in search of a problem. Noting further that as given it would bar any useful c.v.s from userspace, when such are specifically permitted uses thereof. Also that it is overly broad and encompassing, and does not "fix" any actual perceived problems, which creating specific perceivable future problems. Collect (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Support -As originally stated. An important and necessary clarification of the advertising guideline/policy. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Nicely summed up as "a solution in search of a problem" above by Collect. -- Ned Scott 21:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
null comment to keep from archiving till formally closed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Question is this RfC simply a sneak attack against the whole paid editing debate, which as I understand it, is currently Ok ? Penyulap ☏ 18:27, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Having To Edit Pages
I don't like having to edit pages because it just proves that some people don't know what there talking about.Such as some people could say that Elvis was gay, but he wasn't so I would have to edit the page and who knows if its even true? Is this site reliable? You tell me.--Alsomealli98 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)A.S.
This isn't really the place for this discussion, you'd be better off asking at the reference desk or help desk. Hut 8.5 21:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,
I was on Alex O'Loughlin's wikipedia page and found stating that the age of 18 Alex has a son name Louis. I needed someone to get the facts straight because Alex only mention he has one son name Saxon only. Alex has never mention he has a son name Louis at all. I do know anyone can edit on anybodys wikipedia and it doesn't me it is true so can someone please figure this out. I would appricate it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightbynine (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Meanwhile, as the war rages over my sock puppet's userpage, I figure this is a lovely opportunity to suggest the inclusion of the sentence "User pages may be redirected into article space", but knowing how people love to discuss improvements rather than allow improvements, I'll open a discussion here. I'm doing this while the war rages because I'm not a fan of secret knowledge that fuels suspicion of admin cliques, so those who shout 'CREEP' can automatically have their foot in their mouth without my assistance.
My prediction over the issue indicates that it's worth a RFC to assist clearing up the confusion, the decision I already know, so the RFC is more about CREEP vs add, less about allowed/not allowed. Penyulap ☏ 19:41, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Without looking into the issues that led up to this, I'd say oppose. Redirecting a user page to an article has a lot of potential to cause problems; if someone wants to leave a message for a user, chances are they'll click on the username in the signature and go to the corresponding talk page. Given that there's no obvious reason I can see where redirecting to an article would be an advantage, and that there's a potential disadvantage (in that people could leave messages intended for the user on an article talk page, confusing the hell out of anyone happening to read that talk page), I can't see any good reason for this. Mogism (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose for now. I haven't seen any example posted which would benefit from this change. I do, however, see potential drawbacks, including confusion and misrepresentation. We could also have a bit of a BLP issue if we're redirecting obnoxious or offensive usernames to a BLP who is not associated with the account or its activity. In fact, short of someone providing a reason why we should allow this, I'd support adding "User pages" to the existing prohibition in the article, to say "User pages and user talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of an account controlled by the same user." — Jess· Δ♥ 20:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Jess and Mogism. I do not see any benefit and lots of potential downside. User space and article space should be seperate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. In addition to the potential for BLP violation noted by Jess, above, I oppose this change for the following reasons:
It does not help build the encyclopedia (see WP:5P #1) - how does a redirect from a Userpage to some Article do that?
It does not help Wikipedians communicate with each other (see WP:5P #4). Rather, at best it would be confusing to click on a link to a User, expecting a Userpage, and instead end up at an article. At worst, depending upon the Username in question and the linked Article, the result could be disrespectful and uncivil.
It has the potential for being reckless (see WP:5P #5) and disruptive.
I, too, support adding "User pages" to the existing prohibition in the article JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose User pages can be redirected to the talk page only, nowhere else. DreamFocus 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Jess, JoeSperrazza et al. This is potentially confusing and I can't think of a way in which such a redirect could be a net benefit. I support Jess's suggestion that we add user pages to the existing prohibition. Kahastoktalk 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Can't think of a reason why there would ever be a need to redirect a user page to an article. If the "owner" of the userpage is the subject of the article, they can provide a wikilink to the article if they want people to see it. If the owner of the userpage is not the subject of the article, what are they doing redirecting to an article? User pages are supposed to provide information about the editor. I would support adding wording to the policy explictly prohibiting redirecting from userpages to article space.
I would also add: Penyulap, if you knew what people were going to say, and therefore had strong reason to suspect your action would be problematic...why did you take it? Were you just making a WP:POINT? You seem to be spending a lot of time lately making those, and it would be wonderful if you would consider your points made and go back to regular editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
last edited 21:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose No benefit, obvious potential drawbacks. However, I note it should be allowed to redirect a userpage to another userpage controlled by the same person, not just to a user talk page controlled by the same person. Anomie⚔ 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
i would support allowing redirect from an alternate account to the main account user talk page, but not the other way or to a different alternate account. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - never appropriate under any circumstances I can imagine. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose on BLP cases unless it has been clearly established the editor is the same as the one that's the subject of the article they're trying to redirect to. Someone above mentioned offensive words, but even redirecting an editor's who's name A to the article on a different person A is bad because it may lead people to think editor A is the same as person A the subject of the article. In non BLP cases like the OPs, I would weak oppose based on the potential for confusion and the lack of any good reason (as well as more serious problems which we could deal with in other ways and are already forbidden on user pages but a complete ban on such user page to mainspace redirects could handle just as well). Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think this needs to be codified one way or the other. If such redirects are being used in an abusive manner, there surely aren't so many that they can't be dealt with on a case-by-case basis using common sense. The example at User:ThomasMoore1852 is harmless, yet it has been deleted and is currently being edit-warred over, all without any apparent basis in policy. I'd be willing to bet that most other such redirects are equally harmless and not worth the dramaz. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree that the edit war does not help build WP. A policy update (explicitly allowing or disallowing redirects of User pages to Articles) should prevent future uncertainty and issues. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Some of us (myself and Jess, for example) are suggesting that the policy should be updated to include a prohibition of redirects of the User page to article space, e.g., per Jess, "User pages and user talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of an account controlled by the same user." Depending upon the results of this RFC, I'd like to update the Policy accordingly. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think you're looking at things backwards, Dennis. The discussion has gone roughly: <Penyulap>: "Hey, policy doesn't say I can't do this thing, so I'll do it!" <various people> "You can't do that! We're going to undo you!" <Penyulap>: "Ok, how about we discuss this as an RfC. I propose adding wording to policy that explicitly says that I can do this thing." <other people> "We oppose adding wording saying you can do this thing!"
So I guess what we ought to be addressing but so far aren't is the issue of "Ok, if we don't want policy to say you can do this thing, do we want policy to say you may not do this thing?" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you strike this crap, thank you. I do not like to be misrepresented in a manner that violates policy. Penyulap ☏ 01:56, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
per Bongwarrior perhaps this is an area that the project can allow humor. I recall Bishonen having humorous sock accounts. Penyulap has been attempting to encourage changes. Perhaps some users have found that input was not made in their preferred way. Perhaps Penyulap is having difficulty expressing difficult to hear ideas. The humorous redirect does not seem to be worth much discussion. Consensus should be followed. At the same time more encouragement of Penyulap could have positive consequences. NewtonGeek (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that s/he can do so, under the current policy (despite some editors not liking it). I'm suggesting that the policy be updated to address this issue clearly, one way or the other. Is this RFC an inadequate venue to do so? If so, why not (hopefully we don't need process for process' sake). Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The current policy is "User pages are pages in the User and User talk namespaces, and are useful for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users." There has not been any consensus that a redirect to article space falls anywhere whithin the basic guideliens of the policy, and strong consensus that redirects out of user namespace runs counter to those objectives. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Neither is the redirect from user space to article space something that is specified in a very long list of what redirects are to be used for Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Purposes_of_redirects and in fact also runs counter to the purpose of redirects " Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles."-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I oppose changing policy to deal with this. This is a perfect example where bureaucracy is not needed – if it is a bad idea (and it is) but doing it won't harm the encyclopedia ( it won't), then let the editors who think it is a bad idea weigh in at the talk page of anyone doing it(yes, I catch the irony) and express their displeasure. Anyone interested in being a part of the community will comply, or suffer the consequences.SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
See Red Pen's comment, above. If his interpretation has merit (and it seems to), then a policy change here prevents future confusion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There does not appear to be a cat in hell's chance of this policy being changed as a result of this discussion. If there is any doubt whatsoever about that, I would invoke IAR anyway. If there is any benefit in explicitly allowing users the right to sock in specific ways, that benefit would be more than outweighed by the effort it would take to define what socks may or may not do. Non-admin closure. —WFC— 23:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4 hours for a RFC seems rather short, re-opening. Penyulap ☏ 01:49, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Re-opening this doesn't seem very productive. IIRC, everyone who so far commented opposed, and that includes quite a few tenured editors. Even without WP:SNOW, you yourself said that you know what the result will be. Are you doing this just to prove a point? If so, please stop. If not, this is a waste of time, please re-close. — Jess· Δ♥ 02:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems a fair statement, however when you look carefully at the reasons for opposition, in so far as policy is to be assumed and naturally based upon common-sense in some cases, that argument doesn't take into account that the RfC has now illustrated the actual problem, which is a failed addition to the policy page is assumed by many to be policy of the opposite. Now, rather than common-sense and a policy page not restricting something meaning it is allowed, the initial closure of the rfc is taken as 'it is now policy that redirects are prohibited' even though it is not on the policy page. Thus it is a self validating question, and the incorrect response produced causes further discussion as the assumption rolls across the project. You'll be locked into future problems further along you see (actually come to think of it, maybe just i can see, whatever). Penyulap ☏ 03:17, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
For the record I was not informed about this RfC's reopening, and consider it utterly inappropriate for a nominator to re-open without refuting the basis for closure. My judgement was, and remains, that this highly watched page is not the place for attention seeking, that the proposal as written does not have a cat in hell's chance of instigating a change to policy, and furthermore that the author openly admitted such, which in my opinion takes this into the realm of disruption to prove a point.
My judgement is that this should be re-closed, but I accept that I should leave that for a third party to decide. To the nominator: my advice would be to drop this, as it seems like a lot of stress for very little potential gain. However, having been in a position where I felt I was right and other people were wikilawyering, I understand that you may not feel able to do so. In that case, I would suggest first trying to demonstrate that the action against you was unjustified. While I don't encourage you to go down that route, a discussion along those lines would be neither disruptive nor a foregone conclusion, and would probably be your best chance of demonstrating that a policy change is needed. —WFC— 14:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I second closing this discussion and the one below and reopening a single RfC with three options: Modify guideline to specifically allow redirects from user page to article space, Modify guideline to specifically prohibit allowing redirects to article space 3) making no modifications to guideline about this issue at this time. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What RPoD said. There's a discussion to be had here,but the initial phrasing of the RfC was sufficiently muddled that we really need to re-structure and start over to get valid responses. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I must say I find it amusing to be calling me pointy or attention seeking in this case, like I somehow convinced everyone to edit war over my _hidden_ userpage, did I do that ? Can it be done at all ? Hmm. I don't think so. No, I think the editors and admins are not my sockpuppets (wait, just checking.....hmm...umm....nope, Not mine..) looks like it's their idea and their confusion not mine. The proposal doesn't actually seek to change policy, it seeks to help stop the confusion over an existing widespread practice. It's to prevent the dramaz, not start them, even if the hero did duck under the big bullie's legs and kick him in the bum for good measure, but hey, that's TV for ya.
I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom and Fluffernutter that, provided a practical proposal is launched and advertised, this one can be closed. However, changing existing policy in four hours flat sending people out to enforce a conlimited is like, so totally not a great idea in the peace and tranquillity department, which is why I'd re-opened it. Warring over userpages is not my idea, writing down the policy where there is confusion, to prevent further confusion is. Penyulap ☏ 19:39, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
transclusion, copying, truth, verifiability
If people are going to want to wander along the (wrong in my opinion, but that's cool) path, then how far along this path are you wanting to go ? Is transclusion OK, to prevent the messages to the subject of an article sort of thing, is copying the article ok to solve that and other problems like people wanting to edit my userpage (it happens I kid you not, no, it really does, amazing eh?) and then if you can't copy are we going to limit people to telling things that are plausible, or go further into verifiable or truth ? Penyulap ☏ 12:11, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I for one look forward to the next round when we argue over whether transcluding article space articles into your userpage is acceptable. {{:Thomas Moore}} Monty845 15:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, do you want to sit on the board and judge whether people can say only the notable things about themselves ?
Or the WP:V/u board, where I have to prove that I am Thomas Moore :)
How about copyright issues, can we quote ourselves on our userpages ? Penyulap ☏ 18:01, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Redirecting a user page to an article page has no benefits for anyone but the user. If a user wants to link to an article, it can be done in the user page, maintaining a clear separation of user and article space. G. C. Hood (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No clear consensus for either position seems to exist, and a few people have also brought up possible issues with instruction creep. Therefore, the status quo stands. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I contest the change, at least at this point, and I have removed it. I think the best course would be to refocus and continue the above discussion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I would have liked to continue the discussion, but it was closed. I was surprised at the WP:SNOW-labelled close, as most editors seemed to favor a policy change. Unclosing such discussions usually leads to WP:DRAMA, which I choose to avoid. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Trying the discussion again would work for me, yeah. It might actually be a bit less confusing anyway to open a new RfC with a clearer proposal - something like "Should it be made explicit in this policy that user pages may not be redirected to anywhere other than user talk pages?" There are, of course, loopholes there - I can think of a scenario where many of us redirect user pages to other user pages (for instance, I might decide to redirect my traveling account's user page to my main account's), and often when someone moves an article out of a userspace sandbox there is, at least temporarily, a redirect to mainspace that no one has much of a beef with - so I'm open to other phrasings. Perhaps we could focus the RfC on the specific phrasing I floated, or another specific phrasing, rather than a general concept of what it should communicate? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Fluffernutter's comments, above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Also agree, a new discussion might be clearer. I'm sure you both understand that I'm not trying to be a pain - the wording change accurately describes the gist of the discussion so far, but I just don't think the opposition had much of a chance to state its case. If we're still in the same ballpark in two weeks or so, I'll probably still disagree with the change, but I'll be more willing to go along. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries - glad to discuss. There's no rush. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd oppose the proposed wording due to the concern you raised, and counter-propose something along the lines of User pages should not redirect to anything other than the user page or talk page of another account controlled by the same user. Although that along with the existing sentence gets somewhat long. Anomie⚔ 01:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Eek. I saw the above discussion was closed, read through it quickly, and implemented my change, figuring we'd get a revert and some input if anyone disagreed. It seems there was already discussion open in this section. If anyone has a problem with my edit, feel free to revert, and we can discuss it in more depth! Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥ 02:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's my change, by the way, which reads User pages and user talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of an account controlled by the same user. Actually, I think my wording could be improved upon. The more relaxed the better. Perhaps one of these 3:
User pages and user talk pages should not redirect to anything other than another user page or user talk page controlled by the same user.
User pages and user talk pages should not redirect outside of a user's own user space, and should not lead to page intended to cause confusion to other editors.
User pages and user talk pages should not redirect outside of a user's own user space, and should not lead to a page intended for another purpose.
I prefer the first suggestion, but the others might give someone else a good idea for wording. — Jess· Δ♥ 02:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
while i cannot see where a redirect to article space would ever be appropriate, has this ever been an issue anywhere other than [2]? is it likely to ever come up as an issue again? i am not sure that making modifications based on a single isolated incident (which was as far as I can tell intended to be "fun" and not malicious in any way) is good practice. while i wouldnt oppose the change, i think i have reversed my opinion from above and would not support a change at this time.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted the change again, there is one case of this being an issue, and as far as I know the only harm that has come from it is the fight over whether its permitted. User talk pages are very important for a variety of reasons, but userpages are much less so, and a redirect there is much less likely to cause problems. We don't need this WP:CREEP. If you really want to make get rid of the redirect userpage, take it to MfD (as this is more about whats permitted in userspace then normal redirect policy as would be found at WP:RFD) and make the case there. If I find an WP:AfC submission as a person's userspace, they have requested review, am I prohibited from leaving a redirect behind when moving it? That makes no sense. Finally the version I reverted is likely to lead to confusion and could be interpreted to apply to all user pages including sub pages, which would clearly not be supported by consensus. Monty845 04:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I also disagree with the (now again reverted) change to disallow redirecting from userspace to mainspace. First, it is now based on a single issue. Secondly, most of these redirects are not causing any harm. People have a lot of freedom about what to do with 'their' userspace, only few things are outright forbidden (or can be unquestionably deleted). Leave it be, we are not a bureaucracy. If you really have such a problem with a specific case, try to convince the editor (though it is still 'their' userspace), or put it up for an MfD. --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe that redirect was humor. If this is about the user, then perhaps telling the user that trying to make points about what the rules leave unclear is not constructive. I don't think that redirect was trying to make a point. Otherwise, aren't there enough rules. If this ever happens again and damages the project maybe a rule could be formed then?NewtonGeek (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
That is what I mean, try to convince the editor (though it is still 'their' userspace), or put it up for an MfD. Not revert and protect. But that is apparently what mop-wielders think that the mop is for. And indeed, this is what drives editors away - now suddenly all those editors who in good faith move their userpage into mainspace (leaving a redirect behind) are disrupting the project, and may face their pages being deleted or blanked - leave their userpage alone, and talk to them. --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I know - and I agree, this is about what we can and should control as a community - however, and I have expressed that in this particular instance as well, control is not performed by the community, the control is performed by one, or some, individual(s) - those that remove what they don't like, and even go as far as enforcing it. Law of unintended consequences. --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussing issues openly with users makes sense to me. I think this is an area where common sense is telling different people different things. I'd rather people in charge reached consensus before a user's choice was taken away. That could result in hard feelings. The user did positive things by bringing the issue up for discussion when it became an obvious point of contention. The user has reacted calmly when things didn't go in the user's favor. Some recognition for being responsible and a good sport seems like effort well-spent.NewtonGeek (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
for the sake of discussion, should this user have been allowed to keep their user page as a redirect to article space?
In your example, it is less clear. First, it is a redirect to a redirect, which automatically wrong, but it was an article just recently, so we look at that instead of the redirect, and since the policy is mute on the point, we look at each on a case by case basis. Motivation is the key when redirecting. If the article title is just a website name hiding as a NEO, and the redirect is for self promotion, we already have policies that cover that. If he was an engineer, and he just redirected his page to Engineering technologist, then I would leave him alone. As long as we have full access to his talk page, the user page is not so important, even if it is inconvenient. As a matter of fact, it is trivial to get your user page deleted and we even have a specific criteria for it, CSD#U1. It is almost impossible to get your talk page deleted, showing how differently the community views those two pages. The two pages are NOT the same, and this is why the policy spells out the rules for talk page, and leaves editors alone on their user page, meaning we only interfere if it is genuinely disriptive. As an admin, I shouldn't be able to just tell an editor what they can put on their user page without having clear and obvious reasons to limit them, to censor them, literally force them to change the page that by definition, is their page to define themselves on. Dennis Brown - 2¢
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of this situation. I do however question some of the applications and premises that you are making. As per the nutshell: "User pages are for communication and collaboration. While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium. They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute." If user pages are "community project pages" to be used "for communication and collaboration", then directing to article space is directly opposed to that, since, as you point out, doing so is "inconvenient" which is never helpful and in fact IS disruptive in communication. The nutshell also quotes the policy that the user page is "not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium" which is, by definition, usage by which a user would "define themselves", and hard to claim on its face "is genuinely disruptive" to any greater degree than direction to article space.-- The Red Pen of Doom 08:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Right here is where the path splits in two. Editors can move towards co-operation and collaboration in an enjoyable manner where quirks and individualism is defined and celebrated and people can match themselves up, OR the other path, by moving towards regulating content in usepages it creates idiotic discussions and over-regulation. So weighing up the pros and cons of each approach correctly is pivotal, moreover, and I will say it to my last breath, if you keep decisions to yourselves by not writing them onto the policy pages, you do noting but foster warring. My sock userpage being a lovely example. Penyulap ☏ 16:54, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
(e/c)Actually I have.
Pros of allowing redirects to user space: "ha ha ha" (potentially)
Cons of allowing redirects to user space: inconvenience in using user pages for their intended purpose (communication and collaboration), lots of potential for confusion for readers and other users, either intentional or unintentional, dificulty in determining if a user is in good faith trying to "ha ha ha" or whether they are attempting to misdirect
when you pro/con there is no question. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
because creating a redirect to article space is not describing yourself. Creating a user page that says I am a snus user. however, is describing yourself. How do we interpret a redirect to Thomas Moore? That the user is a flat out liar because they most certainly not Thomas Moore? How would we interprest a redirect to Lady Gaga? that the person is an imposter account and needs to be speedy blocked?
Perhaps the biggest error was "we have traditionally been very lenient with humor accounts," and continuing the error may be very harmful to Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This is like the monkey with his hand in the jar, he wants to pull out the treat, but with it inside his fist, he can't remove his hand through the narrow opening. To achieve the goal of getting the treat, he must first let go of the treat. If you're going to say people can only have true things that build an encyclopedia on their page, who is going to police what is true ? I say I'm Thomas Moore and ok, it's not true so it's not allowed. Look at my other sock, User:PALZ9000 and the bans that have been placed on him on his userpage. Was he banned from interacting with Strategic command and the United States Department of Defence ? There are diffs provided to prove the claim. Lots of diffs and the diffs are real. So is someone going to tag it with 'in world' writing style ? do you need diffs at all, or is it left to vote on whose guess is correct ? You can say it's not a great example and 3 more editors will say it is. There is nothing but a pandoras box of more overdiscussing userpage content here. What board will all this be discussed on anyhow ? Thomas gets warred over, so where is that dispute settled ? Before you say anything starting with 'you' remember it's not me who is doing the warring.
I know only too well that to work for a cause, sometimes you have to work against the cause in order to have the greatest net gain. If you follow through the effects of the proposed regulation of userpages, you'll see they lead to a net loss. Penyulap ☏ 21:47, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
are we here to construct an encyclopedia or to allow "funny" sock accounts? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
A little humor here and there is a good thing and can help avoid editor burnout. Its a thin line between positive levity, and disruptive editing, but there is a line. Monty845 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have often advocated, sometimes successfully, the redirecting of a draft article on a user subpage to the mainspace article that was produced as a result of a copy-paste move. I don't see a big problem here. Note that userspace to mainspace redirects occur by default every time that a userspace draft is moved to mainspace. I don't see a big problem with this redirect. However, if people think this redirect is a problem, it could be converted to a soft redirect. Userspace essays moved to project space also leave redirects by default, and here I think it is a good thing. Users often bookmark userspace essays, and if they are moved, the redirect is needed. Userspace userboxes may be moved to template space, and when this happens, the redirect is good. Also, when a draft article is move, it also makes sense to have its old talk page redirected. I think the above discussions are half baked, and that people should consider wider perspectives, and that if they mean the "main user page" or "main talk page", as opposed to subpages, then they should say so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Just as a note, we don't have to bar all userspace redirects in order to bar a user's userpage specifically from being a redirect. I was never advocating the former, only the latter. — Jess· Δ♥ 01:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Some of these responses make sense to me, so I'm willing to retire from the discussion without pushing for changes. However, it seems relevant to point out that the examples we've discussed here appear to be rather tame, and the community has spoken clearly that even they are not appropriate. Given the possible BLP issues I mentioned above, we can imagine more egregious disruption than simply redirecting to a favorite article, or to your own biography. With this in mind, I'm having trouble envisioning a userpage redirect the community would approve of. If we know ahead of time that user-page redirects, in practice, are never going to be ok, then mentioning that here isn't creeping (or buro) as much as documenting an existing practice. I think that makes sense, but I'm willing to wait until this seriously harms the project before pushing rules about it. All the best, — Jess· Δ♥ 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, sure, but that's just being pedantic (and I don't mean that as an insult). Our policy pages describe consensus, and are naturally open to revision as consensus changes. If consensus right now is that some behavior is always inappropriate, then we shouldn't fail to update our policy pages because CCC; we should update our policy, and if consensus does change, we can update it again. Similarly, and more to the point of your specific wording, the five pillars represent the consensus of the community, and I don't see this proposal violating that in any way. I don't think the two even intersect. If something changes in that respect, these policy pages aren't immutable. "Policy goes to great lengths to leave [userpages] alone", as you say, because we don't have firm standards for their treatment. If we do, then it doesn't make sense to avoid it just to avoid creeping. Anyway, I think there's general agreement right now that this isn't a big deal, so until it is... meh. All the best, — Jess· Δ♥ 03:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
What the policy pages do not say is significant. On one hand Dennis points this out by reading the context of what it does say, and on the other hand I point it out very clearly with the wording of my proposal and the surprising result. I must say I was quite entertained by the slamming shut after 4 hours, producing a conlimited, which, by the way more time won't remedy (the RfC is not really advertised properly). What is to be expected is when the proposal fails, same as some of the last ones I have done, editors go off believing that the opposite is now policy, and seek to enforce it as such, causes me no end of amusement right there, because as I've said, it doesn't matter what is decided, it has to be written down. Secret knowledge, Chinese whispers, cliques, it all ends in tears. My other hobby horse is nobody has a monopoly on right or wrong, and whoever is speaking should have little to do with the idea they are proposing. When you only listen to people you like, you shoot yourself in the foot right there, plus, you leave yourself open to people like me who will use your own silliness against you :) Doesn't matter who is talking, they may or may not have the right idea, you can never tell until you examine the proposal carefully on it's merits alone. Penyulap ☏ 17:55, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I apologise to everyone, I shouldn't be such a smug bastard about the confusion everyone is in over this.
The problem is still here, that the failure of any addition to the page gives the impression that the opposite case is in effect, even when it's not the case. People say CREEP, we don't need something so obvious, I say baloney!!! as the confusion from not having it written is even worse, and demonstrate as much. This needs a proper top-down approach for clarification, as there are people who now want to create new policy where it didn't exist before, and well, I guess I am as responsible as anyone to take it to the correct place so people can thrash it out. Penyulap ☏ 07:42, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
