Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Allow harmless MediaWiki imitations

Please allow imitations of the MediaWiki interface which don't harm the actual one. However, fake notification banners or harmful interface imitations mustn't be allowed. SonicIn2022 (talk)

I've no idea what you mean. Could you provide an example or a more detailed explanation? Schazjmd (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect it is about Wikipedia:User pages#Simulation and disruption of the MediaWiki interface. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Removing comments from user talk pages

An editor asked a question of me on my talk page and I gave a reply. Recently, the same editor removed the section [1]. Is this generally allowed? Not bothered either way in this instance, just wondering what the etiquette is. Rupples (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rupples, once you reply, it would be inappropriate for the other editor to remove the whole conversation from your talk page. It's up to you if you want to revert that removal (so the conversation remains and can eventually be archived) or not. Schazjmd (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Good of you to answer. Just realised this page isn't really appropriate for my previous question and was in the process of striking through! I wonder if something along the lines of the following could be added to the opening paragraph of WP:NOBAN? "It is not considered good etiquette to remove conversations from other users' talk pages, without first seeking agreement." Rupples (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rupples, the guidance for talk pages, WP:OWNTALK, says Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. I think in this instance, it's just a fairly new editor who may have thought that was an appropriate way to convey that they'd read your reply and considered the conversation done. They just need WP customs explained to them. Schazjmd (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Block notices

Is (repeated) removal of block notices e.g., User talk:37.147.79.38 allowed? I assume so, but I thought I'd check. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Question

I recently came across CooperGoodman's ^{(no ping)} userpage from a Village Pump discussion. That second section definitely isn't on-topic for WP, but I'm on the fence on for whether it qualifies as causing "widespread offense" or constituting "extremely offensive material". My inclination is to leave it alone, but I could definitely use with a second opinion. Cheers, Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: I mean, I understand (or at least assume) that the intent is humourous, but... Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

likely to bring the project into disrepute

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

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

In context, that statement is a summary of what has been found removable in the past by MfD, much like WP:OUTCOMES for AfD. I agree that it itself would be problematic to enforce as policy, but as a summary of consensus, it should probably be refined rather than removed entirely. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Cullen328: I think WP:UPNOT already has better alternate wording, likely to give widespread offense. (To save a click, the full sentence is: In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology).)

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

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

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

False claims on user page

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

@Skyerise Is that still an issue? Doug Weller talk 15:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: well, depends. The content of their user page is obviously and intentionally funny. Yet it also includes various templates and categories from the 20 YS etc. which still make the kind of claims above. And yet I've recently been told there is nothing we can do if an obviously not retired user posts a big retired from Wikipedia banner at the top of his user page. So do we even care about this? If current protocol is to just ignore such things, then I don't want to make waves. Skyerise (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know protocol but often see retired templates on active users user or talk pages. Annoying but not worth saying anything I usually decide. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed addition to information on removing notices from own talk page

Currently it reads:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters.

I think it should say something like:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters. While it is a user's prerogative to remove material from their talk page, removal and ignorance of warnings may be taken into account by administrators when evaluating any sanctions to take.

(adding "While it is a user's prerogative to remove material from their talk page, removal and ignorance of warnings may be taken into account by administrators when evaluating any sanctions to take", for anyone who can't see the bolded portion above on their browser)

Thoughts? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? Primefac (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Because I see a difference between someone simply archiving or removing stale notices, and a certain kind of belligerent removal-and-ignorance (often with questionable edit summaries) that certain users do who apparently don't like to be told what to do. I think it should say here you are free to remove it, but if you are doing it belligerently or simply ignore the notice, it can be considered as evidence of disruption. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

If the base assumption is that removal follows reading and awareness, then it doesn't really matter why (or how) the notices are removed; repeated disruption related to the original notices can still result in sanctions. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear. What does "taken into account" mean? Is that a euphemism for "might give stronger punishments because you didn't leave the badge of shame on your talk page" (in which case, it ought to be more direct), or does it just mean "might notice that you've already been warned repeatedly about this" (in which case, it's redundant)?

DIYeditor, it feels like you want to punish people for being defiant. That may not be the most productive approach to humans, regardless of whether they're teenagers sassing their parents or editors saying something snarky about a warning. If you'd like to read about a site that took a different approach, then I suggest https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-lonely-work-of-moderating-hacker-news The relevant stuff starts about halfway through that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Paywalled. I often encounter users who have some kind of problem with rules and express it by deleting warnings with snarky edit summaries, very often completely valid warnings. I do imagine it is they rather than I who don't get along well in life. Still, never said I would make a good cop, or wikipedia admin, or moderator. At any rate, yes, I think editors who do this "oppositional-defiant" behavior should be punished more harshly than those who try to accommodate the processes here. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Got a problem with my user talk page

I can not get the text on my user talk page to show up except by clicking on 'About this page'. Is there anyone who can help me with this John Kryten (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem was that you didn’t give the text a header. I added one, and now it seems to work. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you My username is John Kryten though not John Krysten John Kryten (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Oops… sorry about that. I have corrected the header I added (feel free to further edit that header if you want it to say something else). The important thing is that your userpage should now work, and that it shows the text you wanted. Happy editing! Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Happy editing John Kryten (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)