Editing of this page by
new or
unregistered users is currently
disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
User pages page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
If you are new to editing Wikipedia, you might be on the wrong page. This page is not meant for general questions or discussions about articles. This page is specifically for discussions about the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:User pages. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page instead. For help with using and editing Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Teahouse. |
This is not a place to post autobiographical information or user profiles.
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Is (repeated) removal of block notices e.g., 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)
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)
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)
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).)
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)
This user [1] is challenging someone telling them they should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them, saying that they cannot find anything preventing them from doing so. I think this needs to be made explicit. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
[state] it fairly clearly. It doesn't state it at all. It does not say that blocked editors
should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them. It says that
editors [...] are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. It says nothing about what the blocked editor can or cannot do. Tewdar 18:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
That "unless" means that proxying is only prohibited if editors are not able to show the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. If they are able to do so (e.g., "fix obvious typo"), then editors are permitted to edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. I'm not sure that's what the community wants it to mean, but that's what it says.Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) UNLESS they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.
It has an inherent logical contradiction in its phrasing, which is that it is by definition impossible to have an independent reason to do something at the direction of somebody else. Either it's "at the direction" or it's "independent" but it can't be both at the same time. Teh community should probably vote on whether they do or do not want blocked/banned editors to point out obvious typos, BLPvios, etc., and then update the docs to say so clearly. Levivich ( talk) 21:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I wish admins wouldn't keep bollocking or sanctioning people per the notion that we have that rule- that's why I want to pursue this line of inquiry and potentially clarify things; I was wrong and have have changed my opinion, but there are still a large number of admins who likely have misread the policy (or conflated it with the BAN regulations). Primefac ( talk) 14:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Firefangledfeathers, Tewdar, Blueboar, and Primefac: I think the need to continue this is demonstrated by the XRV discussion involving me mentioned below. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The “proxying while blocked” editor mentioned here subsequently had their talk page access revoked by the OP. In case anybody is interested, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding that TPA revocation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by XMcan ( talk • contribs)
Editing of this page by
new or
unregistered users is currently
disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
User pages page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
If you are new to editing Wikipedia, you might be on the wrong page. This page is not meant for general questions or discussions about articles. This page is specifically for discussions about the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:User pages. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page instead. For help with using and editing Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Teahouse. |
This is not a place to post autobiographical information or user profiles.
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Is (repeated) removal of block notices e.g., 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)
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)
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)
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).)
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)
This user [1] is challenging someone telling them they should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them, saying that they cannot find anything preventing them from doing so. I think this needs to be made explicit. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
[state] it fairly clearly. It doesn't state it at all. It does not say that blocked editors
should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them. It says that
editors [...] are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. It says nothing about what the blocked editor can or cannot do. Tewdar 18:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
That "unless" means that proxying is only prohibited if editors are not able to show the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. If they are able to do so (e.g., "fix obvious typo"), then editors are permitted to edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. I'm not sure that's what the community wants it to mean, but that's what it says.Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) UNLESS they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.
It has an inherent logical contradiction in its phrasing, which is that it is by definition impossible to have an independent reason to do something at the direction of somebody else. Either it's "at the direction" or it's "independent" but it can't be both at the same time. Teh community should probably vote on whether they do or do not want blocked/banned editors to point out obvious typos, BLPvios, etc., and then update the docs to say so clearly. Levivich ( talk) 21:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I wish admins wouldn't keep bollocking or sanctioning people per the notion that we have that rule- that's why I want to pursue this line of inquiry and potentially clarify things; I was wrong and have have changed my opinion, but there are still a large number of admins who likely have misread the policy (or conflated it with the BAN regulations). Primefac ( talk) 14:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Firefangledfeathers, Tewdar, Blueboar, and Primefac: I think the need to continue this is demonstrated by the XRV discussion involving me mentioned below. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The “proxying while blocked” editor mentioned here subsequently had their talk page access revoked by the OP. In case anybody is interested, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding that TPA revocation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by XMcan ( talk • contribs)