Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Unclear sentence in WP:BLANKING

The following sentence in the list of things that may not be removed by the user seems to me unclear:

Declined block, ban and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect)

What does "declined block" mean? If it means "declined unblock requests", it should say so; and should separately make clear the position on block notices which are still in force - may the user remove them? JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I see that the change was introduced, I guess inadvertently, during a major rewrite by FT2 (talk · contribs) on 15 March. Before that, it read "declined unblock requests". I have amended the line to read:

Declined unblock requests, ban and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect)

and will check with him. Block notices while a block is in effect are not covered, but I see no reason to prohibit removing them as anyone editing the talk page or looking at the user's contributions sees a block notice anyway. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is not part of the MoS. Gigs (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New tables

I don't like them. I started reading down the first column, and then I started reading the second column, and it made no sense. There's nothing to indicate the right side is detailing the general concepts on the left side. It's just a mess of bullets. The old way with two-level bulleted lists was much better. Gigs (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

takedown of controversial map

It was agreed in the discution of Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid that the map will be removed. Please don't add it without discution first. Thanks. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Plan to ensure wide TOC

I am planning to change the display of guideline WP:User_pages, at the Table of Contents (TOC), to ensure that the TOC-box does not compress on narrowed (or half-screen) windows. The following wikitable will keep the TOC as 340 pixels wide, avoiding the namespaces-box, so that the TOC will not compress as 2-words-per-line on narrow windows: 

{| width=340px
|__TOC__
|}

Such special typesetting of tables, for narrow screens (800x600 pixels), is part of guideline WP:Accessibility. The screen could actually be narrowed even more, but users with wide laptop screens should be unaffected, and would not see any difference about the Table of Contents on their laptop screens. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused...are you talking about all TOCs or just the one at WP:User pages? And why is it necessary? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It's just the display of that guideline page, not a rule to be added to the guideline for all TOCs. Setting the width for the Table of Contents will prevent squeezing it (as a 2-words-per-line TOC box) on 800x600px display (so the page would looked balanced on narrow windows). Users with wide laptop screens will see no change. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Why just that page? And I'm still a bit confused....I just looked at it in a very small window, and it seemed fine? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
@Wikid77: Would you please spell out the section of WP:Accessibility that you believe justifies adding such complexity to the wikitext of this guideline. Is there a discussion somewhere that such hacks are desirable? Accessibility is great, but simple wikitext should be strongly supported. If your change is warranted here, why not on a thousand other pages? Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In WP:Accessibility, the issue is to beware how narrow windows "stretch paragraphs vertically". The full text is:
"The lowest resolution that it is considered possible to support without adversely affecting other users is 800x600; all articles should look acceptable at this resolution without excessive horizontal scrolling. This is sometimes an issue in articles with multiple images on both sides of the screen; although lower resolutions will tend to stretch paragraphs vertically, moving images apart in that direction, be careful not to add images or other floating content on both sides of the screen simultaneously."
The problem actually does occur on thousands of other pages, as well, so that's why WP:ACCESS says to be careful "not to add images or other floating content on both sides of the screen simultaneously". Perhaps that phrase could have been re-worded more clearly, with examples, but that is why the change is being made, to conform to WP:ACCESS. I have removed the HTML comments, in the change, to show just the simple wikitext. For more cases, see: HELP:Table. Again, there are many thousands of pages that need similar changes, when 2 images or tables are floated around text (or a Table of Contents), and that is why WP:ACCESS was written: to formalize the reasons to change page layout to support sight-impaired users or those with smaller screens. Perhaps over 20,000 pages need to be changed, so that users with special needs can read those pages easier. I brought the issue here, at this time, to avoid the questionable irony of guideline WP:User_pages not conforming to guideline WP:ACCESS, while expecting others to heed both sets of rules. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm really not seeing what the problem is at all. I looked at the page in 800x600, and smaller, and it looks just fine. WP:Accessibility is primarily geared towards articles, and I'm really not seeing any reason at all for this change without some better evidence that it is, in fact, any kind of problem. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The view might change depending on which browser is used: MS Internet Explorer is often different than the Firefox, Safari or Opera browsers. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Looked at it in both FireFox and IE. The menu is slightly more scrunched in IE, but rather than changing the width, why not fix the namespace box and guideline box to stack instead of being side by side (which would seem to be a far better fix than hacking the menu width) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a solution looking for a problem IMO. If, as alleged, this affects "thousands of other pages", then it should be take to a more central forum to discuss fixing the problem directly by altering how MediaWiki outputs TOCs rather than hacked around on this one page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Solved: Thanks for stacking the namespaces box & guidelines box, as a better solution to fit the Table-of-Contents box for narrow windows. I did not realize the lower shortcuts-box would simply float alongside those stacked boxes. The "more central forum" about the alignment-problem is with WP:ACCESS, which has formalized the problem, hence this discussion. I would not have raised the issue here, except it has become another existing guideline. Again, thanks for the solution: the more times WP:ACCESS is solved, the easier it becomes with other pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Format of: You have new messages

I was wondering if anyone thinks the box is confusing about the "...have new messages..." and might consider a side-note of "EXAMPLE" to be added. The result would be:

  EXAMPLE:
You have new messages (last change).

By putting the bolded word "EXAMPLE" beside the new-messages box, it would not appear to be a live anouncement that someone has new messages. Should some other words be inserted instead? Otherwise, we can just leave it the way it is. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems fairly clear to me, but wouldn't object to having it more clearly identified as an example. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:REMOVED - should current blocks be in the list?

A point for discussion, following the recent addition (4 days ago) and even-more-recent removal (today) of "current block notices" being something which should not be removed from a user's talk page.

I have no firm opinion on this one way or another, but I thought it would be useful to discuss it.

At the moment, it says that Declined unblock requests, ban and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect) may not be removed.

Should current blocks be added to that list, or not? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  • FYI the exceptions were originally discussed here, there was a brief discussion regarding removal of block notices here. There was a time when I thought that block notices should remain while they are in effect, but I've been moved off that position somewhat. One example I can think of as food-for-thought is a user who has been indefinitely blocked for some dispute, or what-have-you, and they don't want to change their behaviour, appeal, etc., they simply want to blank their talk page and {{retired}}. Should they be allowed? I daresay they should. –xenotalk 17:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I say current blocks should be there. Editors who are blocked shouldn't be allowed to edit anyway, except to post an unblock request. If they want to remove old warnings and messages from their talk page then fine, but current block notices should stay since they provide a clear sign to any editor who views that talk page that the account has been blocked already. Then the editors won't keep placing useless warning templates or filing needless reports at AN/I or AIV, thinking the account is still able to edit. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Why would editors be placing warning notices after a block notice? -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
They wouldn't if the block notice wasn't blanked by the blocked account. That is why we are here. If you happen to see an article that was vandalized by someone and you go to their talk page to place a warning, a current block notice tells you they're already blocked. If the page is just empty, chances are many people will just go ahead and place it not realizing the account is already blocked. Many people do not look at block logs. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If they're editing manually, they'll see the note that the user is blocked when they edit the talk page. If they're using semi-automated tools, perhaps the tools should double-check if the user is blocked. I don't really see this as a compelling reason to add block notices as an exception. If a garden-variety vandal gets a warning after they're already blocked, I don't see a huge problem with that. –xenotalk 18:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec)This is probably what separates experienced admins who always look at recent contributions where the talk page edits will be the most recent, and usually the talk page history as well. The type of behaviour you describe is restricted to the types of editors who warn people for vandalism after someone else has warned them for the same vandalism. In any case placing a warning after a block has no beneficial or detrimental effect. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe not, for the simple reason there is no reason to keep them there. Many users will blank their talk page in a huff if they get blocked for a short time. What would ensue would be an edit-war with an over-keen guideline-quoting RC patroller, a request to RFPP, an indefinite block, and a permanently disgruntled blockee. We have seen this over and over again and it benefits no one. Current blocks are easily seen when looking at an editor's contributions. There is no reason to retain them on the talk page - it's not like the user will be editing while it's there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If "Account A" vandalizes a page and I view the diff in the page history, I'm not going to automatically view the accounts contributions, chances are I'll just click the link to their talk page. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
They won't be vandalising if they're blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A best practice would be to check their contribs for vandalism on other pages. –xenotalk 18:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I also don't think current block notices need to be shown. The block notice is there for the benefit of the person being blocked. If they've seen it and want to remove it, I see no reason to revert them. Unblock requests, ban notices, sockpuppet tags...those are there for the benefit of the people who may be dealing with an ongoing issue. --Onorem♠Dil 17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about this in the last hour or so, and I think that they should not be counted as something that has to remain on the page. My actual thoughts are pretty nicely summed up by Onorem above - the user themselves knows that they are blocked - once they are blocked, the only page they can edit is their talk page (which, if abused, they lose the right to do), so no further warnings, etc, will be needed. The items on the "do not remove these" list are (as Onorem says) needed for other users who may be dealing with the issues. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree that block notices should not be added to the list, per Onorem, and to avoid unnecessary edit-wars. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Secret pages: Ok or not?

Should "secret pages" be discouraged in userspace? Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

this edit was reverted as lacking discussion, so let's start one:

Support

Support the inclusion of this diff, discouraging secret pages.

  1. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. Cunard (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  4. Nancy talk 11:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  5. Aren't they already discouraged? We might as well document that we already discourage them. Gigs (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  6. WP:NOTMYSPACE. There are any number of creative ways to make a constructive game around improving the encyclopedia. Rd232 talk 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  7. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  8. DustFormsWords (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  9. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  10. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC) - if Wikipedia isn't a social network, Facebook or MySpace, these don't belong here.
  11. RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  12. (X! · talk)  · @848  ·  19:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  13. MZMcBride (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  14. as per any silly useless game of no novelty nor educational value. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  15. The guideline already indicates that these are not acceptable: there is no other intelligent way of reading Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". However, some editors choose to interpret the lack of explicit mention of this particular case as implying that this case is not covered, and so making it more explicit can't harm and may help. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  16. I believe that secret pages violate both the letter and the spirit of WP:MYSPACE, and I would be pleased to see such explicitly codified on WP:UP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  17. Secret pages aren't original and not particularly a good way of community-building. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  18. Yes, secret pages should be discouraged. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  19. This is a Encyclopedia. In other words, we should only give info. Secret pages aren't good. This isn't a social network! (Though with all the discussions, it seems like Wikipedia wants it to be one.) --Kaleyann (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Kaleyann

Oppose

Oppose the inclusion of this diff.

  1. User:Kizor. [1]. Added 11:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. Reyk YO! 02:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. Avicennasis @ 09:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  4. Seems to be based on the deep-seated fear that someone, somewhere is enjoying themselves. DuncanHill (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  5. As to DuncanHill Mlpearc MESSAGE 20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  6. Different people have different learning styles; some users cut their teeth in wiki markup with sekrit pages. As long as they move on to being productive in the mainspace I see this as perfectly acceptable. Sometimes I wish that a few more of our newbies would do their early testing in userspace. ϢereSpielChequers 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  7. A quick sanity check for supporters. Does the rule and the enforcement of the rule waste more or less time than the behavior under discussion (since there appear to be no malign outcomes from the existence of the pages per se)? If so, then why in blazes would we bother with it? Stop trying to busybody around in their userspace. Storage is cheap. Reputations are not. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion of the merits of the proposed discouragement of secret pages.

I can't see how secret pages build the encyclopedia in any meaningful way--even arguments about them being harmless fun seem weak: I don't really want to encourage people to hang around who are so easily amused, I'd rather have editors who gain satisfaction from improving the encyclopedia in some way, no matter how minor. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Secret pages are unacceptable in an encyclopedia. Barnstars are devalued when they are awarded for the "hard work" of finding secret pages. Instead of being given barnstars for commendable work on articles or vandal patrol, users are rewarded for playing games on Wikipedia. See an extreme case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List where Wikipedia is used as a hide-and-seek game; with seven secret pages, five of them are fake.

This is an encyclopedia, not MySpace or Facebook. Cunard (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

While occasional recreation is fine, there has been a trend towards the proliferation of secret pages and guest books, and an increase in indiscriminate barnstar and wikilove templating. Some argue that an editor who is largely interested in such pastimes now, may become a useful contributor later, and others claim these practices are harmless. However, I am concerned that a subculture could become established so that in two or so years it may be difficult to restrict various forms of play (due to a large number of ILIKEIT votes). Secret pages conflict with WP:USERPAGE and give new users the mistaken impression that they own their userspace and can use it to express themselves in any way they like ("MYSPACE"). There are plenty of places where a largely anything-goes attitude is encouraged (wikia.com and lots of others), but here it is a fundamental conflict with our focus on the encyclopedia: the attitudes are simply incompatible. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ot

  • How about... Secret pages should be protected on sight by an administrator. This could make the silly old game into something potentially interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As a point of note, the ArbCom case referred to in the revert ES did not "okay" secret pages, simply made a ruling about the manner in which a batch of them was deleted. — Coren (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm taking this to mean ArbCom is perfectly fine with this RfC as a means of ascertaining consensus on the matter and formulating a way forward? Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
      • ArbCom doesn't make policy. The case made it clear that it was not OK for one administrator to take unilateral action, and this merely backed up the existing and continuing wording prominently at the top of WP:CSD.
      • Jclemens' proposal "Should "secret pages" be discouraged in userspace?" is too soft to have much use. They are already discouraged. Perhaps not explicitly enough for people. But when someone insists on having them, what then? Are they to be forbidden? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
        • The edit is to the WP:UP#NOT section. Since I don't see that it meets any current speedy deletion criterion, I'm interested in how you would suggest it be made stronger. I don't oppose a stronger statement, but will take what community consensus will support. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I think silly games, including secret pages, should be discouraged. The question is what do you do with the secret pages that do occur? Should they be tolerated? Should they be tolerated based on some assessment of the editor, on his productive edit history and percentage productive edits. Should they be tolerated for a new user, if under one week old, but not over one month? I recall agreement that userpages involved undisclosed alternate accounts (an effective technique at creating hidden pages) are directly contrary to WP:SOCK and are not to be tolerated for that reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm OK with that, but those nuances do indeed go beyond the initial scope. If seen, yes, I'd MfD 'em. If invited to an MfD discussion on a secret page, I would !vote delete in many cases. I personally don't see how anyone who knows anything about Special:PrefixIndex can think such games can be fun or challenging, but yeah, I don't like BITEy XfD's. If I saw a secret page that no one else had MfD'ed, I'm more likely to give the "author" a talk page note about Special:PrefixIndex than to actually MfD it myself. I think that should be sufficient discouragement in most cases, really. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
              • We are in agreement then. My concern is that imprecise wording may lead someone to start unilaterally deleting pages that they consider to be silly and hidden, and that mistaken deletions (false positives) cause much more problem that ignoring a thousand silly hidden pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
                • All I can fall back on is the limitation inherent in the narrowly drafted CSD criteria. I don't think anyone here has argued that such pages are so harmful that an out of process deletion is necessary to prevent harm, and nor would I. Thus, the most disruptive thing that can be supported by this change, in my view, would be a mass-MfD'ing. I wouldn't ever do that, but I don't doubt that someone else might feel it appropriate. Is that possible outcome problematic? Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The inappropriate pages are listed at Wikipedia:User pages/Secret pages to be deleted. Why would you oppose a mass MfD on such pages? Cunard (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is worth explaining to those who devalue barnstars why doing so is a bad idea, and have no objection to the deletion of sekrit page barnstars. Otherwise I see sekrit pages as almost as harmless as guestbooks. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Should secret pages that exist despite discouragement be tolerated?

  1. sometimes. I assume "not tolerated" means "sent to MfD". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. No. Secret pages should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. Yes- No harm in them, since they're not in the mainspace. Reyk YO! 02:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  4. Yes - It's more disruptive to the encyclopedia to hunt them down and AfD them than to leave them be. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  5. No - but they are only disruptive if they take up people's time, so people looking for pages in order to delete them is counter-productive. They should merely be deleted (MFD'd) as and when they are discovered. Rd232 talk 07:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  6. Yes I am sure a number of discouraged practices also have a positive side. People are also "strongly discouraged" from making WP:COI edits, and I am sure there are editors who have contributed greatly to an article with which they had a COI, but did so in a NPOV and positive light. Avicennasis @ 09:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  7. No. Of course nothing requires an editor to submit a page to WP:MFD just because they find it (nor could such a requirement be enforced even if we wanted to), but there should not be any official policy of "tolerating" them. --RL0919 (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    It wasn't meant to be a question of establishing a precedent or even policy of toleration. Do you think that an MfD should be filed to have Cunard's list of violating/discouraged secret pages deleted? Do you think that all obviously silly secret pages should be deleted next week in an MfD, subject to the formal discussion at MfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    I don't see much point to the question if it isn't about establishing a precedent or policy/guideline. Anyone who sees a page has the choice of putting it to MFD or not bothering no guideline will change that fact. I would not favor putting large numbers of unrelated pages in a single MFD, nor do I go out of my way to look for such pages to nominate, but if I see a nomination for such a page at MFD, I !vote "delete". You can count that as tolerant or non-tolerant as you see fit, but the idea of this talk page is to discuss the UP guideline, and on that score I hope I've made my position clear. --RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
    I think you are saying that if the pages are discovered and nominated, they should be deleted. Well, they are automatically generated at User:MiszaBot/PSP and Cunard has removed the many false positives, see Wikipedia:User pages/Secret pages to be deleted. We could have the bot not report previously vetted pages, and routinely delete via MfD all such obvious secret pages. Some people have strong feelings wanting to do this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  8. Yes ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  9. No. The idea of having policies which say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a playground, but then going on to say "but if you want to ignore these policies and guidelines then we will let you do so" makes no sense. Obviously any editors are free to tolerate such pages, i.e. to ignore them and not propose deletion, but to have a guideline or other agreement that we will collectively tolerate them, i.e. in effect that nobody is allowed to propose deletion is unreasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    James, your contributions here and in the next section are sound and persuasive. Can you say something about the difficulty in achieving consensus to delete sekrit page once they are listed at MfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  10. Not really. I believe the question is whether extant secret pages should be grandfathered in; my response to that is that they should not be. When we modify a policy or guideline on Wikipedia, we should usually try to conform preexisting material to the new standard, or delete it if it cannot be edited to conform. That's not to say that grandfather clauses are forbidden – heck, WP:STICKY recently became policy with just such a clause – only to say that this is not the exception to the rule. Editors should not feel to compelled to nominate secret pages for deletion if they do not want to do so, but the doctrine of ex post facto is in all ways irrelevant here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  11. No. If policy changes to discourage secret pages, then they should be taken to MFD as they are found; without being POINTY. There should NOT be a rush/contest to find these and delete all of them. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  12. They should be deleted. This isn't a social network! --Kaleyann (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Kaleyann

Should secret pages be tolerated based on some assessment of the editor, on his productive edit history and percentage productive edits.

  1. Probably. Users should be given leeway if that leeway is for things that are a small fraction of their productive edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    As per below, this is the single deciding factor as to whether these pages get deleted, in practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. No. All editors are equal and should be treated equally when they violate policy such as WP:NOTMYSPACE which applies to games such as secret pages. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. Certainly. Reyk YO! 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  4. No - All editors should be treated equally. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  5. Partly - As a minor consideration of net gain for Wikipedia. A user having 10,000 positive mainspace edits and only one to a secret page vs editors who do little else but secret page hunts - one is clearly contributing to Wikipedia while the other is wasting resources. However, this factor should not be taken alone. Editors matter. 09:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Avicennasis @
  6. Yes If an editor shows no signs of outgrowing the sekrit page phase and doing something useful, then after appropriate nudges MFDing of their sekrit page might be appropriate. But newbies and useful editors should be tolerated. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  7. No I can see the attraction of this idea, but if we allow some people to do this, then it will be very difficult to justify not allowing someone else to do it. "Such and such a user has 37 secret pages and nobody objects, but I had 2 and you deleted them". Also it introduces the whole "where do we draw the borderline?" issue, and endless arguments in MfD discussions as to whether a particular editor should be given allowances or not. The idea that established constructive editors should be allowed leeway is not a wholly unreasonable one, but I disagree with it. Firstly, the fact that established and respected pillars of the community are allowed to do something makes it look very unjust to someone with less standing in the community that they are not allowed to do the same. This is exactly the sort of thing which is likely to encourage some people to see Wikipedia as run by a self-appointed cabal of editors who run things just for their own pleasure. I am not, of course, suggesting that that is the intention of those who advocate leeway for established editors, but that is how it would look. Secondly, in my experience not many serious editors spend time on this kind of thing anyway. On the other hand the idea that newbies should be allowed such secret pages, but that after a while they should be stopped is an odd one. Someone who comes here just to play, and is allowed to do so with smiles from the community, is one day told "Hey, you've done this long enough: all these pages are being deleted". That seems odd, to say the least. Then there is again the "where do we draw the line?" question, and the endless arguments about individual cases, and MfD discussions for old "secret pages" left by users deemed to have passed this stage. Or is the idea that these old pages are left in place, but no more can be created? If so what do we do if the user does continue making them? Delete ones created after a particular date, but leave those from before? And where do we have the stupid arguments about where that borderline should go? And couldn't the time we would spend on this be more usefully employed on other tasks? Then there are the strings of sockpuppets to ensure that there is always a "newbie" account available to play with. For a whole string of reasons it is much easier and more effective to say "no" than to say "well, no, but sometimes yes" and have to deal with the complexities. Finally, I am quite unconvinced by the argument "newbies who are allowed to play with Wikipedia will grow up to be proper editors". I am not saying that never happens, but my experience suggests that far more often people who are allowed to play with Wikipedia think that playing is what one does at Wikipedia, and continue to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  8. No. Put simply, one of our principles is that editors are on a level playing field because we don't have vested contributors. For example, we block admins for edit-warring just as we block regular editors for the same; we don't maintain a double standard. I believe that we should avoid a double standard regarding secret pages as well. We should not be telling newer users who ask, "Why are you deleting my secret pages and letting admin X keep his?" that "Admin X is a better user than you, that's why." That's unacceptable; we should only pass judgement on an editor's merits if he solicits such judgement (i.e. at WP:RfA, WP:RfB, WP:RfBAG, WP:ER, etc.) or if his conduct is so problematic as to demand such judgement (i.e. at WP:RFC/U, WP:WQA, WP:ANI, etc.). I also agree with James's comment that editors who have secret pages and yet remain productive are the exception and not the rule. Generally, those who come to Wikipedia for a playground will continue to use it as a playground. We've all seen it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  9. No, being a user in "good standing" has no bearing on secret pages. If the policy changes, then delete via MFD. (without being POINTY) Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  10. Yes per this. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Actual practice. Secret pages judged by editor behaviour

Looking at the results of the recent rush of secret page MfDs:

Secret pages are, as a rule, effectively undeleteable if the editor is an active and mostly productive editor, and deletable if the editor is long since inactive and/or not a serious contributor. This is in keeping with my impression of these things over some time. Why not document this consistent, predictable practice, so that we might avoid repeating the same lengthy no consensus debates over and over again? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Should they be tolerated for a new user, if under one week old, but not over one month?

  1. YesNew users should be welcomed, pointed to WP:UP, and asked to remove the page. This should not override Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Newcomers should be welcomed and educated. Note, however, that undisclosed alternative accounts (WP:SOCK) are not newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. No. All editors are equal and should be treated equally when they violate policy such as WP:NOTMYSPACE which applies to games such as secret pages. It would quite suspicious if a new account's history begins with the creation of secret pages. Instead of allowing secret pages to remain for a month and then MfD'd after a month has passed, secret pages should be nipped in the bud. Removing secret pages before the new user becomes obsessed with them is kinder and more helpful than the new user learning afterwards about acceptable use of the userspace when the policy-violating material is deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. N/A- any definitive statement one way or the other would be pointless instruction creep. Reyk YO! 02:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  4. No - All editors should be treated equally. But in enforcing policy, attention sould be paid to WP:BITE. There's a polite way of doing things and a mean way. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  5. Yes WP:AGF and WP:BITE goes a long way. An editor who is very familar with policy and has a long history on Wikipedia may be blocked for violating the WP:3RR, while a new user, responding on their talk page (and clearly confused about the rules and policies here) is often helped and coached along, possibly making 7 or 9 reverts in their learning attempts. If new editors are to be given leeway, it should be for all policies or none. Avicennasis @ 09:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  6. No. Yes, be particularly nice to them in saying it's not appropriate. But what's the point in letting them get used to something for 29 days, and then coming down like a ton of bricks? Rd232 talk 10:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  7. No. Of course be polite and assume good faith, but there is no reason to say these pages are OK one day then not OK the next. --RL0919 (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  8. No See my comment above at Should secret pages be tolerated based on some assessment of the editor, on his productive edit history and percentage productive edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  9. No, we should not hold a double standard on this for anyone. That we should be polite about sending newbies' pages to MfD is unquestionable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  10. Would new users even consider making a "secret" page if they hadn't seen the concept done on other userpages? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  11. No, it's counter-productive to let secret pages be created in the first place. I agree with what Scott5114 said above, new users probably wouldn't consider creating them if it was documented in policy, and the existing ones were deleted. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

View by A Stop at Willoughby

In a nutshell, my view is that secret pages violate both the spirit and the letter of WP:MYSPACE, and that it's about time we made this clear in WP:UP.

WP:MYSPACE, as you know, is a longstanding part of a core Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT. It states: "Wikipedia is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. [U]ser pages...may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. ... The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

Some secret pages are in the userspaces of active editors who did not register a Wikipedia account for the purpose of social networking. However, this policy is clearly applicable to all Wikipedia users, not just users who have registered accounts solely for the purpose of social networking. Therefore, all users must avoid creating material in or adding content to their userspace that is used solely for social networking, instead utilizing their userspace to provide "a foundation for effective collaboration." Some userspace content that is borderline social networking is protected by this "foundation for collaboration" clause:

a) Userboxes Although userboxes are often not related to the construction of the encyclopedia, they allow editors to get to know other editors better. By learning about other editors' interests, hobbies, views and biases, etc., a "foundation for collaboration" is built.
b) Barnstars Barnstars are usually related, directly or tangentially, to the construction of the encyclopedia. They also allow editors to commend other editors for their work. Although some barnstars are irrelevant to the construction of the encyclopedia, most are sufficiently relevant to building a "foundation for collaboration."
c) Signature pages Although I personally dislike signature pages, they do allow editors to expand their contacts in the Wikipedia community by meeting other editors, thus assisting in building a "foundation for collaboration."

However, secret pages and other games are not only completely irrelevant to the encyclopedia – they also do not and cannot serve any purpose with regards to "providing a foundation for effective collaboration." They might be acceptable on a site designed for such social networking, such as Facebook or MySpace, but not on Wikipedia. While it is true that, in general, these pages are not described by their creators as "social networking" or "games," I argue that de facto that's what they are. In the long run, it will be helpful to draw a line in the sand here, so WP:MYSPACE will be taken more seriously in the future.

Are secret pages directly harmful? No, they are fairly innocuous. However, we have to keep in mind that most users who have secret pages are not very productive editors in the mainspace or in project maintenance/administration. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost, and therefore we have no obligation to allow those who are not contributing much to use Wikipedia as a playground for social networking. Wikipedia is a community, but it's not a community in the traditional sense where members spend nearly all of their time. If someone wants to social network, they can do so on numerous websites – just not on Wikipedia. That's the essence of WP:MYSPACE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of block notices

As this page is currently worded, it is ok for users to remove block notices but not declined unblock requests. It seems to me like the block notice should stay up for the duration of the block. At the very least it will let any user stopping by know that the person they are talking to is currently blocked, and it can help admins reviewing an unblock request see why the user was blocked in the fist place as there is often a specific reason included that goes beyond what one can glean from the block log. It seems nonsensical to make users keep declined unblock requests but allow them to remove the initial block notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  • This is discussed above at #WP:REMOVED - should current blocks be in the list? The reason to not allow users to remove declined unblock notices is to prevent gaming the system. When editing a user talk page of a blocked user, a log of the block is shown - so one knows to look in the history if no block notice is found. If a user is removing the block notice while simultaneously posting unblock requests, surely that will be looked upon unfavourably. –xenotalk 17:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see the recent conversation on this rather long page, I'll just move up there. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Secret pages???

Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community, and where the games involve people who are not active participants in the project such pages are routinely deleted at MfD. (Compare Category:Wikipedia games and Category:Wikipedia Word Association.)

— WP:UP#GAMES

WHAT THE HECK?!? There is no community consensus that secret pages are not allowed. The opinions of Wikipedians are quite diverted and it is common practice to delete only the secret pages by puppies. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Support keeping it since they are a waste of time. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 02:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: it's true... —mono(how's my driving?) 02:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Ummm... there's already an MfD/lengthy discussion for this. Also, there's already a discussion at the top of this very page. You might want to move this section up or participate there. But I don't see any need for constantly beating what seems to be a dead horse. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse consensus Sorry that it doesn't include you, but yes, there is a consensus that secret pages are not encyclopedic, nor do they contribute in any meaningful way to the creation of an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply No, that's not what the consensus said. According to the MfD page, "I'm deleting the fake secret pages, as consenus was formed here, and the rest of those pages should be on a case on case basis. Note this is not a keep result." It only means certain (case-by-case) secret pages can be deleted, not all of them. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support current wording since it simply states the obvious: "games...secret pages...and other things pertaining to 'entertainment'...are generally frowned upon". There is a wide latitude for creativity in userspace, but it needs to relate to the improvement of the encyclopedia, or be particularly creative and interesting. There are lots of places on the Internet for social networking, and people should learn early on that normal Internet behavior is not normal here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse consensus (support current wording) that secret pages do not contribute to writing an encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a split in opinions on this subject, but the current wording is a reasonable attempt at a middleground. Secret pages are frowned upon in general, and all do risk deletion at MfD, and some, such as puppys' pages, are routinely deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Another Comment If we were to include secret pages on this list, you do realize that only certain secret pages will be deleted, right? (Again refer to MfD and discussion at the top of this very page for more details.) So I suggest that if that were to happen (the inclusion of secret pages) that we reword "routinely" to "for most of the time" (as MfD of secret pages doesn't apply to some). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 12#Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. –xenotalk 20:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fake Wikipedia articles on userpages

Is there any way that we can set up a filter to automatically tag any userpage which, by the use of "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the top, is clearly intended to fake being an actual Wikipedia article? Mostly, of course, we see this with vanity items by clearly non-notable editors whose main purpose here is to publicize themselves in hopes of increasing their Googlehits, etc., in clear violation of WP:NOT#FACEBOOK and our general reasons for existing. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, user pages and indeed all pages always contain "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I see that line at the top of this talk page. (Come to think of it, I see it on this page too. User:Orangemike)--Cube lurker (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
In the example I'm thinking of, it was part of the text the user added to the page, apparently intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing assertion. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you give us a direct reference? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
As an alternative, how about an edit-filter that flags "unconfirmed editor creating his user or usertalk page"? Seems like that would catch editors comiong here to promote their $whatever as well as ones posting random other screed, social-networking/chatsite/facfebook, or roleplaying/character-data charts. OTOH, it would also catch newbie editors who are just getting started practicing, or sandboxing for a potentially viable article, etc. Those latter ones would be ripe for {{welcome}} or other newusercabal attention. DMacks (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to "How do I create a user subpage?"

The FAQ seems to contain a link to "Wikipedia:User page#How do I create a user subpage?" which doesn't seem to exist, and it's not clear from a visual scan of WP:User page if the equivalent information is somewhere else. What happened to it?

I would also like an answer to the question: how do I create a user subpage? Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I see it says "You can create subpages ... at will, by navigating to the page and clicking the Start the ___ page link" but I can't find such a "Start the ___ page" link. Where is it? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to check the history atm, but my guess is that the links were originally red, but someone has created the example pages. If an admin notices this and agrees, please delete following: User:Example/draft article on violins and User:Example/test.
I notice that WP:Subpages#Using subpages includes a link to Wikipedia:User page#Creating user subpages, but as you say, the anchor does not exist.
To answer your question, you would make a link (perhaps by editing your user page, then using "Show preview"; you do not have to save the edits). The link would be like [[User:Example/My subpage]] which will appear as User:Example/My subpage (replace "Example" with your user name). You then click that red link to create the subpage. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. My senses just came back to me, and I think I just found the easiest way: I can just type "User:Mypage/Subpage" in the search bar, and it will bring up "page doesn't exist, do you want to create it?" which is just as good, and reading the instructions again, I think that might be what they were trying to say by "navigate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinTime55 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Sexually provocative content in userspace

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.
Resolved via consolidated proposal below - FT2

Is this allowable? (In the case of the first one, I only discovered the page while scanning through the MfD and finding this page). There is potentially divisive views on whether or not this is allowed, according to the MfD, with some people citing WP:Censored and others citing this very page. WP:User pages#What I may not have in my user pages doesn't explicitly say that this sort of content is prohibited in userspace, so I'm asking for comment on this. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Now this is difficult to prove further, but unless these pages are used for building an encyclopedia or to .. represent themselves and their work on the encyclopedia, I would qualify them as 'personal pages', which would be in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly concur with Dirk; see also WP:POINT. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia being not censored - that's a red herring. This sort of page is a 'personal page' and shows up in Google if you search on ""weird pictures" wikipedia". Although a different issue, this bothers me User:Kingstonjr - a list of the prettiest Wikipedians? Do they know they are on that page? Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree as well. NOTCENSORED is about dealing with encyclopedic topics that certain groups want to censor for whatever reason without giving in to such demands... it is NOT a license for people to put whatever they like on their user pages. Let's keep the sexual content to appropriate articlespace, and deal with it there in a superlatively professional manner. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • For me, I would say: 1-2 images=meh (AGF, some user latitude, possibly files that he uploaded to support an article); 4-5=pushing the envelope (not likely to produce constructive edits); 10-20=entirely inappropriate userpage that should be CSDed). I would delete those pages if it was allowed. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In general agree with an option to remove a few narrowly defined types of material from userspace (including express or implied sexual material not directly related to the project's benefit), without needing an extensive MFD. But a broad-worded ban may cause more disruption than anticipated (some people will class anything as "sexual" if it touches on the topic). I am not convinced the best way to word it yet, and it also might get taken wrongly as part of the current "Fox News" scenario which it isn't, so I haven't proposed anything on this. Quick thoughts:
  1. Some content should be much easier to remove from userspace, without causing issues, but the leeway in userspace means this will probably be hard to word in a way that's widely accepted.
  2. The guidance and norms on removal should be updated to make WP:UP less ambiguous on how to handle contentious material and allow saving of bureaucracy for clear or likely problem material.
  3. The material considered contentious may need review, the current leeway could be a little wide in some areas (although it is not hugely abused). We might be able to address how material is dealt with better.
Now someone else has also suggested this I will try to give it some thought. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:49, 22 July 2010 (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.

Vandalspaces

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.
Resolved via consolidated proposal below - FT2

Should "Vandalspaces" be allowed or deleted, according to the recent MfD for User:NerdyScienceDude/Vandalism space? In other words, following this MFD (please take a look at the consensus for delete; its really important), I've decided to create this discussion for the deletion of this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Avicennais suggested that I bring it over here. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps having a "my vandalism page" was once funny, but any humor has long gone, and these pages are not appropriate. All instances should be deleted because they serve no purpose; indeed, such pages may promote the idea that some forms of vandalism are fun. I have seen a claim that having a vandalism page helps to reduce vandalism on the user page. This claim is very misguided because a genuine vandal would not even notice a vandalism page, and they certainly would not respect it. The best procedure for handling vandalism is revert, block, ignore because vandalism thrives on attention: denying that atttention is the best response. No page on Wikipedia should contain WP:BLP or WP:CIVIL or WP:NOTMYSPACE violations – this consideration also rules out having a "my vandalism page". Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I opened up the discussion on an MfD page (if that's a mistake, then I'm sorry; but it looks like it's going nowhere at this moment). There should be a policy against this kind of thing. Probably we should get more admins on this. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Johnuniq; vandal spaces should be banned. In addition to what Johuniq stated, they serve as a source of a dirty reputation for Wikipedia; as I and others have said in past AFD discussions, there have been attacks made on them that range from racist comments to homophobic slang. The fact that Wikipedia supports content like that being on here is simply preposterous to me; it doesn't matter where it appears, it's there, and it's hurtful. I believe that they very rarely, if ever, actually "divert" vandalism; if a vandal wants to actually vandalize Wikipedia, they won't be doing it in a spot meant for it. In addition, all the edits in vandal spaces does not necessarily mean that those edits would have appeared elsewhere otherwise. A long while ago, I made a "vandal" edit to a vandal space; but does that mean that if that vandal space wasn't there, that I would have vandalized elsewhere? Of course not. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they should be specifically disallowed unless people are just myspacing on them. I haven't really seen much "real" vandalism on most, but they don't really encourage vandalism to me. Perhaps redirect all of them to the sandbox, or just keep them as is. But there's no reason to waste our time with this discussion--it's not that big of a deal, really. And who might be practicing something other than what he or she preaches...? —fetch·comms 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I placed no such homophobic comments on their page! I simply called the page "useless"and experimenting Wikicode. That's not that big a deal, right? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Fetchcomms: Forgive me for not understanding, but what do you mean when you say "real" vandalism? Regarding myspacing, I don't really understand that rational either. If myspacing is bad because it distracts from building an encyclopedia, how is a vandal page any different? It certainly doesn't contribute to building one. As for whether or not it encourages vandalism is up for debate, but the perception of what Wikipedia is may very well be distorted by such pages. JamesBWatson, in this MfD, mentions how he has "actually known vandals to object to reverting and warning, giving reasons which amount to 'Wikipedia is just supposed to be somewhere where you can have fun editing.'" ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"You're useless"? Could have been clearer. Don't you have your own sandbox...? Real vandalism, as in not just regular users being bored, but like a vandalism-only account targeting the page. I said that the vandalism pages can be deleted if there is MySpacing on them--which I have not really seen. It doesn't hurt, and has the potential to help. Perception due to these pages? To be blunt, that's ridiculous. Perception of Wikipedia is bored kids thinking they can be stupid and no one can find them. These pages help to reduce vandalism in mainspace, not promote it. —fetch·comms 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"Doesn't hurt"? MySpacing is the thing that doesn't hurt; uncivil and slanderous claims do. I don't understand why you find MySpacing to be bad on vandalpages, but insulting content to not be. To be blunt, that's what's ridiculous to me. Do you have any evidence that suggests that these pages help reduce vandalism is the mainspace? I don't see any; the most interesting thing I've seen are anonymous users who "vandalize" a vandalpage, then proceed to actually vandalize the mainspace. I've seen that happen at least once. If that supports anything, it's not your claim that it helps reduce vandalism in the namespace, but rather, it supports the opposite claim that it does support it. In addition, individually deleting vandal spaces when MySpacing occurs on them is also an odd concept to me. You state that this discussion is a waste of time; well, individually having discussions for vandalpages that happen to have MySpacing going on on them is an even bigger waste of time. Deleting these pages would be the best solution; their negative characteristics outweigh their only positive one, which is that they divert vandalism from the mainspace (which, even that claim is debatable). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Both hurt. I have NEVER, EVER said that any BLP vio, libelous comment, slanderous claim, or any other form of attack statement made ANYWHERE is by any means acceptable. So I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't slander me with that sort of accusation. I do indeed have evidence that these pages dispel vandalism in mainspace pages--look at a more active one's history. Do you have any evidence that suggests that these pages defame Wikipedia? None that I have seen so far. There are always exceptions--there is no proof that the vandalpage caused them to vandalize an article. In fact, it likely caused them to NOT vandalize an extra article! I think all claims here are debatable--there is no really solid evidence either way. I think MfD for these sorts of things are odd; see my comment below about my "official" view--if no one cares about them, then just CSD. If it belongs to an active user, then there's no real issue when they are diligent in removing libelous comments. —fetch·comms 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if it seems that way; the point I'm trying to bring across is that if vandalspaces are present, then that sort of thing will appear on them, and that supporting the presence of vandalspaces is, in essence, supporting the appearance of that negative content. I know you, or any one of us, definitely don't want to see that, but if vandalspaces are present, they will. Most of the current active ones do not contain any significant problematic material, the worst being "lol, you suck." The recent ones that have been deleted, however, showed the worst of the worst; these contained the things I was talking about, such as racial insults and homophobic comments. These linked pages have the potential to become the same thing, which is why they are a problem. And I still don't see any evidence - as I said before, edits made to a vandalpage don't necessarily signify that those edits would've appeared in the mainspace. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
But my point is, that sort of thing appears inevitably everywhere. By your logic, we should semiprot all BLP pages due to potential vandalism. And I do agree that there is no evidence either way. —fetch·comms 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Vandalspaces

Across Wikipedia in userspaces, you'll find plenty of sandboxes for developing articles, testing wikicode, and more. Then, you'll find vandalism spaces (places for semi-/experienced editors to be "funny") serving no purpose. Many of them contain innappropriate content,BLP violations, MYSPACE violations, and CIVIL violations while the typical rationale to keep them is "having a vandalism space helps to reduce userpage vandalism", which, as Johnuiniq points out, is "very misguided" and "the best procedure for handling vandalism is revert, block, ignore." Finally, as SuperHamster indicates, "they serve as a dirty reputation for Wikipedia," expecially when they turn up in search results. monosock 23:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • See the pages linked in TeleComNasSprVen's post above for examples. I would be inclined to delete the lot since they encourage exactly the type of edits we are supposed to be discouraging. They can also turn up in search results as pointed out unless NOINDEXed. Not good for WP's reputation if you are making homophobic comments or claiming that a certain (named) Hollywood actress likes to have sex with horses or whatever... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I was attempting to say: "Sandboxes good. Vandalspaces bad." monosock 00:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear me. Yes, all those should be deleted, per WP:NOTMYSPACE: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia."; WP:UPNOT: "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."; and WP:UP#GAMES: "Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia"." We may want to update WP:USERPAGE to specify that these are not acceptable pages. I'm not aiming to be a curmudgeon, but a trawl of Category:Wikipedia humor might also be wise. Fences&Windows 16:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If and when vandal spaces become "officially" not allowed, it would be wise to also list vandal pages at Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses in addition to, as you said, WP:USERPAGE. This may be a bit excessive for this small topic, but would it be a good idea to create a page at, for example, Wikipedia:Vandalspaces? On this page, it could describe what vandalspaces are, that they are not allowed, and give reasons why. I'd be happy to make it, then have it reviewed. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to say that this is only part of a time-wasting campaign by mono, et al, to purge the project of any sort of "MySpacing" in userspace. Should we delete all the humor pages as well? Can we remove guestbooks too? (Oh wait, who's been changing his opinion on those for the past month?) This is a ridiculous discussion to be having. Do those pages hurt? Well,
    • "(places for semi-/experienced editors to be "funny") serving no purpose. Many of them contain innappropriate content,BLP violations, MYSPACE violations, and CIVIL violations" -- well, let's see. Uh, regular users introducing BLP violations? Block, please. MySpace violations? How frequent is that, and how many times have you MySpaced that often? Everyone does it occasionally; no one actually vandalizes for fun regularly. Show up in Google searches? Yeah, can I have an example please? Unless anyone actually looks for, say "User:Chancellor Alt/vandalize", you find it. I searched for

tea-cups to fry. Let it becomes too soon and stir it the oven for some balls as to take trouble with or pale leaves. Let it with gravy, the yolk of fish must never boil after having mixed in the whites cut up, and gently for three hours. If the pan. If you have freed from a quart of bread in grated cheese on slowly, sweeten it get cooked by sprinkling over a shower. Let it then add the butter in the trimmings. Bake till they really take about from the sugar over them into each shell and mustard with

  • and did not come up with User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!, which does not have noindex as far as I can tell. Reputation? Who takes us seriously, we have a disclaimer! Wait, the media is the one who has caused the current perception of Wikipedia. Not these vandalspaces, saying that these bring us into disrepute is just absurd. And ""very misguided" and "the best procedure for handling vandalism is revert, block, ignore.""--misguided how? "because a genuine vandal would not even notice a vandalism page, and they certainly would not respect it."? Can someone explain how just even one vandal noticing and not vandalizing an article is a Very Bad Thing? And revert-block-ignore is something that needs to be applied on a case-by-case basis, because of AGF--any VOA can be blocked quickly, yes, but if one decided to be silly on a vandalspace, how does that hurt? Prove that that's never happened, and I'll be happy. Lastly, if our vandalism patrollers can't catch BLP vandalism on these pages, we have a much more serious issue in the mainspace, too. Obviously, things will fall through, but that doesn't mean all such pages should be deleted (can we remove the Seigenthaler page too?) —fetch·comms 17:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't take it too kindly to be considered as part of a "time-wasting campaign". I'm not sure about others, but the reason I'm against vandal pages in not because I am against all MySpacing, and it is not part of my evil plan to "purge the project of any sort of "MySpacing" in userspace". I support the use of guestbooks and humor pages. By all means, I like guestbooks and humor pages. I have a guestbook and I do read humor pages quite frequently. These pages, as long as they are in limitation and are in good humor in relatedness to Wikipedia, are great. The reason why I'm against vandalpages is because those pages are a host for scandalous claims, racist and discriminatory comments, and other insults. Yes, MySpacing does also occur on them. But there is a formidable difference between the MySpacing that occurs in guestbooks/humor pages and the MySpacing that occurs on vandalpages. The MySpacing that occurs on vandalpages is often not in good humor and not related to Wikipedia in any way. It is often random junk that is only humorous to a select group of people, usually only being humorous to the one that is writing it. Guestbooks and humor pages, as far as I know, are not a place for this sort of thing. If they are, I'll happilly support the banishment of them.
Now, you state that things such as BLP violations, in addition to appearing on vandalpages, also appear in the mainspace, which is very well true. But there is a difference in it appearing in the mainspace and the vandalspace. In articles, such things are not allowed. But on vandalpages, it is allowed for such things appear. Of course you won't delete the Seigenthaler page, because what has happened before is not supposed to happen. On vandalpages, however, it is supposed to happen, and that's just wrong. But let's say that it isn't allowed, and that vandalpages are to be patrolled to rid of any over-the-line content. Suddenly, vandalpages have become pages that have to be patrolled just like normal articles have to be. That would be a complete waste of time, to patrol pages that have barely any, if any at all, positive return for Wikipedia. Beyond that, the whole point of a vandalpage has been destroyed, because it is now being patrolled just as articles are (of course, with more leniency, but being patrolled just the same). You call this discussion a waste of this; it is patrolling vandalpages that would be the big waste of time.
As for reputation: No, of course Wikipedia won't be known as the place that has evil and malicious content on it's vandalpages to the entire world. But to a select group of people, these pages are offensive. Regarding your comment where you say, "Can someone explain how just even one vandal noticing and not vandalizing an article is a Very Bad Thing?", I believe you read the comment wrong. Johnuniq is saying in the sentence that you quoted that a genuine vandal who wants to vandalize would not vandalize on a vandalpage, but would rather vandalize on an actual article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
MySpacing is okay, when used in the spirit of building an encyclopedia, and only to a certain extent. I'll use the most extreme example of bad humor out there: do you actually like to visit this page? I'd be comparing vandalpages to such a page; whereas other pages such as guestbooks are treated in lighter respect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
When has a vandalpage been a "host for scandalous claims, racist and discriminatory comments, and other insults"? Al that I've seen is general harmless messing around with code and stuff. And "But on vandalpages, it is allowed for such things appear."--no, it is certainly NOT allowed, anywhere. It is not supposed to happen. "Suddenly, vandalpages have become pages that have to be patrolled just like normal articles have to be."--uh, all pages need to be patrolled. Like, one's user sandbox, or one's guestbook, or some obscure project page, all of which I have seen gross vandalism on that was not caught for weeks. Obviously, anyone who wants to cause real harm (like a run-of-the-mill VOA or Willy on Wheels, etc.) would target an article. But a curious, new user, might decide to vandalize a vandalspace page instead, thereby reducing the overall amount of mainspace vandalism and letting them avoid a warning--which sometimes defeats the purpose of DENY for certain users, but that's a whole different issue. If a user chooses to create such a page, it is his or her own responsibility to patrol the page--and if they leave, sure, feel free to delete those pages as useless. But for someone active in vandalism patrols, and whose userpage might be a target for persistent vandals, it is a useful page to keep. I never said that you are personally part of a time-wasting campaign--but I just see this as a useless discussion. I have, however, seen some other users continue to lead a sort of crusade against these sorts of pages--most of which are inactive and do no harm. Let sleeping dogs lie, no? Some of the rationales I have seen from others are rather POINTy to me, and some seem more valid. But can we just write articles and forget about this?
When would MySpacing be in the spirit of helping the encyclopedia and be OK? The concept of MySpacing is detrimental to advancing Wikipedia. ED is NOT close to a vandalpage at all. They do not exist solely to attack people. Their purpose to avoid such attacks.
My "official" stance is, for any user whose vandalpage serves no real purpose because no one will see it, sure, delete. But for anyone whose page is still employed in a useful fashion, keep. We can't mass delete these things--it has to be case-by-case. —fetch·comms 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you suggest that we tag vandalism pages with "no real insults allowed"? So we delete some vandalpages and keep others. The problem here seems to lie in how useful a vandalism page actually is. For an example in how difficult it is in determining the usefulness of a page, see Chancellor Alt's: :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Your mom dad! oooh...
Dar-Ape 03:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say that usefulness is determined by pageviewability--so any editor who has edited recently (maybe the past year to be a bit broad and general) and who was a vandalpage can keep their page in light of it being useful. But any useless page, from someone with maybe 20 edits or who hasn't been around for years, those can be deleted as generally useless. (Also, I moved your comment down...) —fetch·comms 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
How is ED not a vandalpage, when it clearly exists to disparage BLPs such as President Bush? This content-free encyclopedia is exactly what's encouraging vandals and co. to mess up main- and user-space. And what is pageviewability? I think the usefulness of a vandalism page should be determined by whether it fulfills its purpose or not. For example, you mention that it diverts vandalism away from userspace; has anyone vandalized this, as opposed to the Userpage (see userbox to right)? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course, yes, we're here to build a reputable and reliable encyclopedia, but do you propose to turn the whole of Wikipedia into a Victorian school, or some sort of dictatorship where any form of amusement is treated with the upmost scrutiny? Honestly, what is the point of living if you can't have a bit of fun in a while? I personally have a slightly amusing user page (whilst I do not have a vandalspace), and I don't think it at all distracts me from doing work on Wikipedia. No, we're not a social network, but my page, and I'd say that most, if not all user pages I've been on have not in any way reminded me of my Facebook profile at all, they are just a bit of harmless fun that helps other users mesh with other users so that our work only here is a little less painless. WackyWace talk to me, people 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Fetchcomms: the NSD vandalpage contained several very racist, homophobic, and sexist comments; this Google search contains three vandalpages, including the cached version of Nsd's page from 16 May 2010. I initially also thought that Mono's action against NSD's page was a waste of time but quickly realised he was correct in his assessment. "Reputation? Who takes us seriously, we have a disclaimer!" Well, if no one takes us seriously, not even us, ourselves, there is little point editing...

@Wackywace: no, I don't want "to turn the whole of Wikipedia into a Victorian school, or some sort of dictatorship". The last thing I want around here is the Ministry of Happiness ensuring everone is miserable and working as hard as possible on articles, policies, deletion discussions etc. On the other hand, we have Policies and Guidelines for a reason: we are ultimately working towards the same goal so we need to follow the same strategies even if we use different tactics for certain aspects of the campaign. The ultimate goal of WP is the creation of an encyclopedia. Certain things would seem to be peripheral to that goal but are actually there to motivate the editors: guestbooks, humour pages, userboxes, and many other things. Many of my user talk discussions go off at weird tangents and we often do discuss things off-topic to WP, such as other websites we have joined or what grade piano we got to. If all we were doing was discussing such stuff, we might as well join MySpace or FaceBook; but those aspects of the discussion are generally short and intended as light relief from the often onerus tasks we have voluntarily decided to undertake. Nothing wrong with that.

One issue only touched upon so far is that these pages contain "rules". Well, vandals have no rules so how do you expect anyone vandalising a vandal page to follow the rules? It is a contradiction in terms.

The main reason I object to vandalism spaces, though, is that while they might not cause Wikipedia's reputation to be damaged they certainly contribute to that damage. Imagine if we all had such pages: the perception that the rest of the world would have of us would be that we are a bunch of hypocrits. "Look", they would say, "these people hate vandalism in articles and even block vandals but actively encourage it their own user space but never block themselves." OK, it is unlikely that everyone would create such pages or even that 10% of active editors would do so; however, the perception is still going to be that we allow vandalism when it suits us but delete and block when it doesn't. Pure hypocracy, according the rest of the world. Should we care what they think? Of course we should if we are to retain any sense of dignity and encourage intelligent and thoughtful editors to join us. If all we want are hacks who couldn't care less about the stuff they write about, then what does it matter what the rest of the world think? Vandalism pages represent a dumming dowm of Wikipedia's standards that needs to be checked here and now. The fact that they often contain offensive or libellous material (that still turns up in cached results) is almost secondary to that --Jubilee♫clipman 23:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a joke... but we do indeed have a disclaimer. No one actually searches on Google for "vandal space", correct? We do not encourage all vandalism by having these pages--we discourage it in the mainspace. It's a preventive or alternate method, not a hypocritical one. Anyone who thinks "that we allow vandalism when it suits us but delete and block when it doesn't" needs a cluebat, you can't make everything clear enough for a very stubborn person. As I said, I see no real way that these contribute to our "bad reputation" of sorts. There is simply no evidence either way--no "evidencial consensus", if I can say. So, deal with these on a case-by-case basis, but keep those which still serve their purpose. —fetch·comms 23:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In any case, I am advocating that any user with a vandalpage needs to keep an eye on it. Not trying to blame anyone, but the fact that BLPvios were let in and not immediately removed brings only disrepute to that user. —fetch·comms 23:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Fetchcomms:
I confess that I did a purely-bad job at conveying what I wanted to say regarding what's allowed and what's not. You're completely correct about the BLP-violations and all the jazz not being allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, and I worded what I said to sound just like the opposite; however, what I basically wanted to say was that on vandalspaces, based on all of the ones that I've seen, none of those policies were actually enforced, which is why I say that they are "allowed". In technical terms, yes, they're not allowed, but in reality, it wasn't actually enforced, as was seen on NerdyScienceDude's vandalism page; as a result, in essence, it's "allowed". Now, if the pages were to actually be enforced, I would think that that would be a large waste of time: to patrol a page that is simply used to place random junk on. That's my view, at least.
However, I like what you said about it being a user's responsibility to upkeep their own vandalpage. If a user wants to make sure that their vandalpage is clear of any out-of-line content, that's fantastic, and I wouldn't have as much as a problem with such pages. It's just that I haven't seen it happen yet, and I doubt that many users who say that they will patrol their page will actually live up to that standard for an extended period of time, and I do believe that it will end up being more problematic in the end. From what I've seen, many vandalpages are also created by new users; these users are not aware of Wikipedia policy, and as a result, don't actually clean out their vandalpages. This leads to problems, like this whole discussion for starters. I know that I keep rambling on about you calling this discussion being a waste of time; however, I doubt that all those individual discussions to delete individual vandalpages, which may very well stretch on with arguments as we see here and have seen in past MfDs, would constitute as being a useful use of users' time either. Vandalpages may be helpful and could possibly be held up by several users, but when so many haven't been and aren't being done so, I think it would be wise to simply ban them altogether to avoid foreseeable problems in the future. If users want to direct new users who want to make curious edits elsewhere, there's always the Sandbox that they can link to.
When I say "good" MySpacing, I mean things such as guestbooks. They certainly constitute as a form of communication that is often not directly related to Wikipedia; however, it is a mode of collaboration, which is what Wikipedia thrives on, and they are generally problem-less and help promote both a good atmosphere and potential collaboration. I myself have met a user through my guestbook that sparked up my involvement in different areas of Wikipedia, and another user met me through signing mine, in which they promptly invited me to a WikiProject afterwards. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue is, many vandals (though not all) find every page something to put their crap on. Yes, I agree that upkeep of the vandalpages is not evident currently, and I certainly agree on the guestbook issue. Perhaps, as I mentioned earlier (I think) that we simply redirect all these vandalpages to the general sandbox, and any user who commits to maintaining his or her own vandalspace can change the redirect back. —fetch·comms 00:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You did mention that earlier. I like the idea, but there are some things wrong with it that I don't like, as I think that it would end up a bit more problematic than necessary. In the long run, we'd have to inform new users who create a vandalpage about upkeeping it and we'd have to make sure that vandalpages are actually being monitored by the user, all while it's a page that doesn't have that much of a great product as a result of its existence. It's completely up to anyone's guess, but I also believe that over time, there is a chance that interest in maintaining vandalpages (on the behalf of both the users who own the page and others who are checking them) would decline back to where it is now, unless we have some sort of a "foundation". Since users didn't do a great job of monitoring them in the past (because as you said, the presence of those attacks and BLP-violations is a no-no anywhere, but their presence was still in the vandalspace for long periods of time), I believe that if we do go with what you suggest, it may be a nice idea to make a new page that acts as a policy regarding vandalpages that basically tells users that they have to upkeep their vandalspace from out-of-the-line edits, or it'll be redirected. Anyone else who's reading this want to add their input? It would be appreciated, since I guess we're pretty much at a standoff right now (though I'm pretty much neutral with Fetchcomms' idea; it it's implemented, great; if not, that's also great). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Basically, a vandalpage is only acceptable if it lives up to its own standards. Does this mean that since most vandalpages don't live up to that certain standard that they can be deleted? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with making some sort of guideline about it, and I would say redirected first, but deleted is fine in most cases as well, I suppose. —fetch·comms 13:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. This is not a proposal to eliminate "vandalspaces", it's a proposal to eliminate sandboxes. Policies such as BLP already apply to user space and can be enforced there. A user subpage containing silly, irrelevant edits may appear to be useless, but is actually a tool for community development and community relationships which later aid in the coordination of editing. It may also allow editors to provide feedback on the editing skills of other editors. Dcoetzee 15:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Dcoetzee, please take a look at the links at the very top of this section before going off about sandboxes rather than vandalspaces. These are clearly degrading, insulting use of userspace. I also provided an example with the picture above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Others seem to think that my stance is "eliminate sandboxes," which is incorrect. I use sandboxes heavily, and approve of them, as long as they remain appropriate for the encyclopedia, based upon policies/guidelines such as WP:BLP and WP:CIVIL. I fully understand that Wikipedia is not censored. —mono 18:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I am undecided on the issue of vandalboxes. I do not feel that inappropriate content or images should be allowed in them, but I also feel that, if a user is going to make inappropriate edits, it is much better for those edits to be madfe in a vandalbox than on a userpage. Immunize Contact me Contributions 20:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If sandbox pages contain offensive content then it should be removed. There's no such thing as a "vandalspace" - to my knowledge no user has ever created a page designated for use by vandals, and the very idea of creating one is silly. The so-called "vandalspace" page deleted in that MFD discussion is just a sandbox page with a facetious name, and contains very similar content to Wikipedia:Sandbox. I'd like to think we can also distinguish harmless frivolity from actual attacks. Dcoetzee 21:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If you looked at the page that NerdyScienceDude had before it was deleted, it clearly had a tag on the very top of the page designating "For vandals, only". You could also say that the tag contained, "Please do not place offensive material here", but whether the user was checking for that is in dispute. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The tag did not say "For vandals only." As far as the offensive material goes, I only considered personal attacks, such as things like "Suck my dick" or "Fuck off", as well as swearing to be "offensive". None of the vandalism were attacks pointed directly at another editor. I'm now neutral about this since I really don't care anymore. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 21:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have misunderstood the tag then. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Just a note (and a page break)

Note: It is interesting that most of the people who comment in the Vandalspaces section appear to be Mono's tps. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We do not appear to have consensus on what to do with Vandalspaces. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What I think we could possibly do is to have a list of the different options, similar to what is being done with the RfC for unsourcd BLPs. Users then provide either their support or oppose for each one and provide a bit of reasoning. If enough users participate, it would *hopefully* end up being a consensus. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Proposal:

  • Rename "vandalspaces" to "sandboxes", changing the "idea" to present a more constructive use of pages.
  • Remove "vandalspaces" from user page design materials, such as WP:UPD, instead encouraging sandboxes.
  • Delete all "vandalspaces" with content violating policies/guidelines.
  • Delete vandalspaces on a case-by-case basis, similar to the "secret pages" MfD.
  • Clarify that content violating WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, etc. will be deleted in userspace.
  • Encourage renaming of "vandal spaces" to sandboxes. —mono 23:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Regards, —mono 19:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I only thought of simply deleting and then recreating those vandalpages as sandboxes (like the Great Flood). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is nothing but instruction-creep. Defamatory statements and the like are prohibited by existing policy. There's no need to ban vandalspaces. Wikipedia isn't a gated community with a restrictive covenent. As long as users aren't allowing toxic waste to spill out over their yards, let them put whatever lawn ornaments they like in their space. Violations can be dealt with individually; there's no evidence that this is a widespread problem that can't be dealt with under existing policies. --Danger (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
But this is exactly the problem; "let[ting] them put whatever lawn ornaments they like in their space"; especially when such lawn ornaments become insulting and degrading, as I've pointed out by providing the picture above: "Your mom dad, ooohhh!" Is that acceptable? Also, it violates this. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, lawn ornaments that violate civility or anti-defamation policies are part of the toxic waste category. There is no need for my town to pass an ordinance prohibiting the creation of outdoor galleries of nude statues made of human feces; it's already covered under the health code. As to your example, I really can't be bothered to get worked up over it; this is the internet and we don't have to look at bare buttocks if they offend us.
And regarding the existing rules about user space use, I'm agnostic about whether vandal spaces are or are not prohibited. My point still stands though. If they are already prohibited, then this proposal is redundant. If they are not prohibited, it has yet to be shown that they are a problem great enough that they cannot be dealt with under existing policy. --Danger (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem I see is that, while policies certainly exist that disallow the appearance of BLP-violations, attacks, etc., they are (or were) a common sight to see on vandalpages for very long periods of time. The reason I say "were" is that the worst vandalpages have already been deleted as a result of several MfDs that occurred a short while before this RfC was initiated. Moving on, there are policies, it's just that they aren't being applied like they should be. The current vandalpages that we see linked at the very top of this section contain only a very limited amount of insultive content as compared to what's been seen in the short past; however, the reason I support the deletion of vandalspaces overall is that based on what I've seen before, these pages have what I describe as the easy potential to become what's been seen before, that being highly offensive pages that are against policy. Now, perhaps not every single one may turn out badly given exposure to vandals; some users actually patrol their own vandalpage, such as this one. However, the large bulk of them are far more "exposed" to inappropriate content that will likely not be removed for a long period of time once it's been placed. As stated, not every vandalpage is a bad one, but I believe the solution to delete them is far simply and much more hassel-free than if we are to individually check each one on a timely basis to see if it actually falls in-line policy. The only other alternative I see to deleting them is to make sure that they are all actively patrolled, which isn't the current state-of-mind that the community has towards them, as evident by current and past vandalpages. However, once again, I believe that that would turn out to be too much of a hassel for something that is not very detrimental, of even helpful, to Wikipedia.
But either way, I guess what Jubilee said below is what will unavoidably happen; this discussion will never actually reach a solid consensus. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose all per Gimme danger. We cannot simply mass eradicate these, because some are still, and eliminating all of them is basically eliminating the idea of a sandbox, regardless of what you claim. Can you explain what the difference is between vandalism at WP:SAND or on a vandalpage? None, the same rules still apply. —fetch·comms 21:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. I feel that the vandalspaces containing defamation or other very inappropriate content should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Immunize Contact me Contributions 21:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suspect that banning, restricting or otherwise limiting vandal-spaces is going to become one of those Perennial Proposals that some agree with and some don't but with no consensus either way. Personally, I think we should ban them for the reasons I stated above; clearly, others disagree with my reasoning and think we should tolerate them but not necessarily encourage them. We all agree that unacceptable edits on vandal-space pages should be dealt with in exactly the same manner as unacceptable edits on any other page. Perhaps that latter should be our priority for now --Jubilee♫clipman 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
We should simply revert back to the last revision that does not contain offensive content. Immunize Contact me Contributions 13:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would support an outcome like the secret pages MfD. These are simply too wide to deal with accurately on a mass scale. —fetch·comms 21:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Proposal

Okay, let's say we decide to review them on a "case-by-case" basis.
Then we can, for the users who are long gone, no longer contributing, and that they're vandalpages are no longer functioning:

1. Delete Chancellor Alt's, Charlie Huggard's, SlightlyMad's, Dark Ermac's, Crisspy's, Crodo's, and MJfan9's vandalpages.

or

2. Redirect them to the Wikipedia sandbox.

Remember, the rationale for this is that the users are no longer active (aka "retired"). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Obviously I am inclined to say "yes, delete the lot". OTOH, those pages haven't been touched for years and contain very little of real offence. The picture of someone's backside is actually a photo of a replica of Donatello's David and is in fact used in the article on Buttocks. I would personally kill new vandalpages... Some one else will reject that idea though! --Jubilee♫clipman 19:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I would just say redirect. That way, anyone who happens to stumble upon it somehow will get to the sandbox and vandalize there rather than see a "oh this page is gone guess I have to mess up a real page now"-inducing message. —fetch·comms 21:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • With respect to no longer active users, review on a case-by-case basis with redirection to the sandbox for non-functioning vandalpages seems appropriate. Shanata (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem with vandalspaces is that they don't work. At least not as advertised: An RC patroller active in anti-vandalism puts up a vandalspace page politely asking vandals to "please vandalize this page instead" so that those nasty vandals won't vandalize his userpage. A vandal comes along, sees the vandalpage, laughs and does whatever the hell he wants anyway. Does noone see how absurd this is? If a malicious vandal really was intent on vandalizing someone's userpage I doubt they would be swayed by any polite notice or directions to a subpage. They're very much aware that it's meant to distract them away from the person's userpage. Plus having a target accessible for the mischief makers is no different from feeding the trolls and just validates their actions. -- œ™ 09:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course OlEnglish is correct: no vandal would want to vandalize a page saying "vandalize here". What such pages will tell vandals is that there is a certain acceptance of vandalism, even a form of respect because some Wikipedia editors feel that vandalism is sufficiently funny to dedicate pages in its honor. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see any proof for that conclusion, nor did I think that there is a form of respect for vandals to dedicate funny pages (they aren't even funny) when I first saw one of those pages, before I was an active user. —fetch·comms 16:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal (2)

Without question test pages and sandboxes are useful, Wikipedia humor has a valid place, and a page for witty or off-topic comments can add a smile or a lighter side to Wikipedia. There is a difference between those and permanent, invited, "homage to vandalism" pages or "vandalism shrines". It's hard to draw a line, but I would say users should not have pages that invite actual vandalism or appear to endorse or support vandalism. Even if the vandalism were in one namespace or a subpage it would contribute to a perception that vandalism has a place somewhere - a view which I do not follow and would not wish to see gain any legitimacy.

In other words, sandboxes are obviously not a problem, but inviting or condoning vandalism is. There is usually no good reason why a sandbox must use or invite vandalism for its test edits. Even "If you want to vandalize my page do it here" pages are poor ideas - WP:DENY and WP:RBI are better.

Proposed addition to "#What may I not have in my user pages?:

Pages that encourage or condone vandalism, disruption, copyright violation, privacy breach, or defamation. Vandalism in userspace may be removed by other users (see Handling inappropriate content).

FT2 (Talk | email) 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But the issue is, vandalism will always exist, so we are "encouraging" it in a less disruptive setting. I don't feel that this is actually encouraging anything (none of the vandalspaces are heavily used), and none of them encourage personal attacks or copyright violations. To use a blunt example, this is like advocating safe sex--you can't eliminate people having careless sex altogether, but you can certainly tell them to do it in a safer, healthier manner, if that makes sense at all. —fetch·comms 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I am doubtful that edits made to a vandalpage signify that those edits were diverted out of the mainspace. I believe that vandalpages only add to the vandalism already on Wikipedia, not divert it. Looking at your safe-sex example, it sort of follows this line. Condoms, while they help with safe sex, also increase the amount of sex that takes place that otherwise wouldn't have occured. In comparison, vandalpages, while they place vandalism in a less-important area, also increase the amount of unconstructive edits that take place that otherwise wouldn't have occured. Of course, there's no evidence of this, but that's what I believe happens. Thankfully moving on from the safe-sex analogy, as OE states, someone who wants to vandalize an article wouldn't go, "Oh! Look! A vandalpage! Instead of hurting Wikipedia and vandalizing an article, I can just do it in a less-harmful way and vandalize a vandalpage." Yes, vandalism occurs in the mainspace, but now similar edits are also happening on additional pages where it need not be (once again, no evidence, but that's what I believe is happening). As for whether or not it encourages vandalism: it may unclear how vandalpages contribute to the perception of Wikipedia, but I think it puts it in a light similar to what FT2 said. I know that I've said this before (and you proceeded to call it ridiculous [=), but as JamesBWatson said in a previous MfD, he has "actually known vandals to object to reverting and warning, giving reasons which amount to 'Wikipedia is just supposed to be somewhere where you can have fun editing." Of course Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to have fun (which is why I edit), but it should also be to build an encyclopedia; that user's perception, however, is not that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but something more of it being a giant party. Vandalpages, which are places for users to randomly blabber (which may be considered "fun") and not focus on building an encyclopedia at all, in my view, contribute to that perception. I think it is clear, at least to me, that they do encourage personal attacks or copyvios to occur on vandalpages by simply being titled "vandalpages", especially to new users. Let's take a look at User:Blood reaper/Vandalism page. In the rules, it states that offensive language and stolen content is not allowed. However, both appear, as there is both mildly offensive content and the lyrics to a song at the bottom. The rules themselves encourage the opposite of attacks and copyvios, yet they still occur, simply because the page being a vandalpage basically makes it seem like anything goes to new users. In the end, I support FT2's proposal. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support There is no reason to imagine that a vandal would even see a vandalspace page, let alone use it in lieu of damaging an article, so the suggestion that vandalspace pages have a purpose is incorrect. Vandalism will always be with us, and experience has shown that the best results come from WP:RBI and WP:DENY. Pages suggesting that some forms of vandalism are fun are misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Vandalspaces do little to avert vandalism from the mainspace. Those who enjoy vandalizing Wikipedia will not be deterred by a vandalspace that condones vandalism. The potential for BLP violations and other harmful content in these unpatrolled pages significantly outweighs the benefits they may have in averting vandalism in the mainspace. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Placing this in the context of pages that condone or encourage copyright violations and defamation brings this home. All such pages should be discouraged. Vandalpages do encourage BLP violations, copyright violations, and racist, sexist, homophobic language: the recently deleted pages prove that beyond doubt. It also makes no sense to claim that vandals will edit on these page rather than in mainspace: why on earth would they bother? These pages are created purely for "fun" and are not usually really that funny, at all --Jubilee♫clipman 21:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
On reflection I'd reword my suggestion above: Encouraging or condoning vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, or defamation. Such content may be removed or collapsed by other users to avoid the appearance of acceptability (see Handling inappropriate content). "Disruption" is too ambiguous and abused. I'd also add "interface-disrupting CSS codes" as well. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd omit the "or collapsing" bit; remove 'em altogether. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
"Collapsed" is so as not to imply removal is the only option. In some cases the user may wish to remove the post from public visibility but leave a "click here to view" on the page. Example: someone posts such material to an admin's page, the admin may well wish to keep it "on the record" or for their own reference, but not have it on public display and will collapse-box it instead. Or the user who notices it may, as a courtesy, not presume they want it removed, but collapse-box it until the admin reviews it. The collapse box makes the same point as removal - this content is inappropriate. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably-way-too-simplistic proposal

My understanding of the rules surrounding userpages is essentially: If a given edit would be quickly reverted in articlespace(for reasons of personal attacks, profanity, BLP, etc) then it's probably not something that should be included ANYWHERE--not on a userpage or in a user "sandbox". Even granting that our policies for userspace are more lenient than those for articlespace, our policies exist for a reason, and these policies should still have at least SOME teeth no matter what kind of "space" the violation is in.

These "vandal pages" sound as though their content, in whole or in part, is prohibited in most of WP; if that's the case, if these edits wouldn't survive any policy-based scrutiny, then they DO NOT belong in userspace--whether it's a subpage, a userbox, or a sandbox. Does this make sense to anyone else? GJC 03:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, and I think it would be safe of me to say that everyone else here agrees that BLP violations, attacks, and copyrighted content should not be allowed anywhere. That's been something used in both sides of the discussion; on one hand, all pages are subject to violating policy when they are vandalized, so does that mean that all pages should be deleted since their content, at one point, has in the past or may in the future be prohibited by WP? On the other hand, many vandalpages, as evident by looking in the past and in the present, are often not as heavily patrolled, if at all, as compared to articles and the such and are often subject to holding inappropriate content for extended periods of time. Even then, there are two sides: do "many" vandalpages constitute as all? Should all vandalpages be deleted just because only some of them hold inappropriate content for longer periods of time? Or should they all be banned for the sake of simplicity and less hassling on an otherwise non-detrimental page, where they could all end up with the same faith as their counterparts? IMO they're all valid reasoning. I side with the latter, others side with the forerunner, but everyone agrees that content prohibited by WP is not allowed anywhere.~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as stated by SuperHamster, such edits are disallowed everywhere onwiki. As I said earlier, I'm willing to compromise with redirecting or deleting all existing found vandalpages and anyone who is willing to patrol their own may have one; if they do not keep that up it may be deleted. It's not too hard (I think) to run a DBR based on a regex to find all these pages, and any new ones. —fetch·comms 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I'm jumping to this discussion a bit late, but I agree here. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:36, 11 July 2010 (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.

Prohibition on shock value

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.
Resolved via consolidated proposal above - FT2
Fuhghettaboutit added this and it was mentioned on ANI...Were such spoofing is found, it may not contain links to images or pages that are included for their shock value.

This seems to make sense. However, I was involved in another change of guideline and, believe me, it is slow and there is careful consideration. So a bold change is ok for a suggestion but really needs input of about a month.

I fully support the prohibition of shock value images. Jimbo Wales already said he doesn't want pornographic pictures on Wikipedia. However, pages is a different thing. Who is to say what pages are shocking. If the page is shocking, that page should be AFD and then deleted.

I propose the following...

When such spoofing exists, it must not contain links to shocking images. Possible shocking images may include nudity which clearly show genitalia.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your last edit, which replaced "images or pages" with "images containing nudity". This is for two reasons. (1) It still needs to say 'or pages' and (2) the discussion above was about shocking images. Naked people are not shocking. They are merely as nature intended. Nipples, pudenda etc are not intrinsically shocking, they are merely anatomy. If you mean images such as 'a man pulling open his anus so that one can see his rectum', then really 'nudity' doesn't cover it. With respect, I think you need to discuss the form of words more, before amending the text to the specific. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This is always the problem when discussing matters like this. What is shocking or offensive is very much in the eye of the beholder. It's more or less impossible to accurately define what is and is not a "shock image." On the other hand I would say that in most cases if images are added with the specific intent to shock or offend it will probably be fairly obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the reversion, but that's because I think the rewording limited the scope instead of improving the guideline. I also agree with the idea that nudity in general is not shocking. That said, if someone was using this stupid new messages "joke" to trick people into viewing images of breasts or pudenda or penes or whatever, I would expect little resistance from the community in a forced change to their user space. --Onorem♠Dil 23:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we poach some wording from the offensive username guidelines? "Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible." If no one finds the link offensive then its probably not a problem. If people object to being taken to the page/shown the image, then it is a problem. Since there's no reason (other than a practical joke) to have the thing anyway, a couple of editors saying "Eurch, I don't wanna see that!" should normally suffice to ask the user to change it (or take more serious action if there is other evidence of disruptive behaviour). That way it doesn't matter if it's genitalia, insulting cartoons or pictures of lynchings, the key thing is that other editors don't want to see it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see others' viewpoint on not specifically saying nudity. OK.

Why not just make it simple as in the original version that lasted for several months, which read:

The Wikipedia community strongly discourages simulating the MediaWiki interface, except on the rare occasion when it is necessary for testing purposes.

This way, we discourage it. The way it reads with Fughett.'s edit, it weakens it. His revision implies....the community discourages it, but then you can have it as long as it is not shocking. The argument to discourage is weakened. Maybe that is the intend.

Maybe the intention is....the community discourages it, furthermore, having shocking images is an even bigger 'no-no'. Of course, if we decide on this version, it needs to be reworded to proper English. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First, when we say something is strongly discouraged this means that it is permitted (but grudgingly so). If we mean to say that UI spoofing is not permitted, then we need to say something quite different than "strongly discouraged". For that reason, I don't know what you mean when you talk about the revision implying it is discouraged "but then you can have it as long as it is not shocking." By saying "strongly discouraged", we not only imply, but expressly state that it is allowed. In any event, the reason this came up was because a user was sending people through his joke banner to our articles on Adolph Hitler, Nazi Germany and later, decapitation. None of these are images. It's not that this content is shocking, in and of itself, but that the intent of the link was to send people to a jarring article as a "joke". So maybe shock pages does not quite capture what is meant (but nude images is doesn't approach roping in what was intended, and would not only exclude all pages, but all images of violence, death, etc., which is what I think of as true shock images.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know how it got onto genitalia either (isn't this a general downward trend in all conversations?), as I saw the original report. Do you think there is any value in the suggestion above about being likely to offend. That covers anything from Adolph to Bonsai kittens.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that's fine. I like Beeblebrox's language "specific intent to shock or offend." Though as I said above, implicit in "strongly discouraged" is that it's permitted, we can take out any implication Suomi finds of weakening the statement with a lead-in turn of phrase that emphasizes disapproval again. Suggested language:

The Wikipedia community strongly discourages simulating the MediaWiki interface, except on the rare occasion when it is necessary for testing purposes. Where users nevertheless spoof the user interface, any internal or external links included must not send unsuspecting users to images or pages that have the apparent specific intent to shock or offend.

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit's wording is good, but it needs more. By having wording like this, we are saying that anything not mentioned is ok (a troll will not care about "discourages"). It is most definitely not ok to simulate the user interface and include a link that logs out the user, or that does other bad stuff (some links could probably move pages or other idiocy). Also, under no circumstances should a link which pretends to go to my talk page (for example), actually go to an external site (apart from shock/lulz, such a site could log the IP address and web browser information of each visitor). I'm not sure how to resolve my concerns without violating WP:BEANS, not to mention the bureaucratic detail that would be needed to spell out precisely what kinds of simulated interface were acceptable. Also, since it is impossible to prove intent, I am currently favoring a simple "no way dude, we're here for the encyclopedia" approach. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can't list every bad thing a link can do. Very few people, by the way, know how to do stuff like <span class="plainlinks"> Maybe some kind of catchall at the end would work... "or otherwise violate Wikipedia prohibitions on linking". As for the last part, are you saying we should change it to simply say UI spoofing is verboten?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes: a simple and problem-free solution is to prohibit user interface simulation (except temporarily, for testing). I am remembering the pointless arguments about someone's userpage which consisted of a sexually explicit photo with some wording intended to offend one side of U.S. politics, and the user's signature only linked to that userpage. People find ways to exploit vague requirements, and while we will never agree on what images are appropriate for a userpage, we should agree that messing about with the interface is disruptive: if I need to deliver a message, I do not want to waste time wondering about jokes that distract from the function of a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
My personal take is that I don't like the joke banners much but I do think they're rather innocuous most of the time—it's not exactly a big deal to to be spoof linked here—but it doesn't really matter what you or I think because the community has already spoken. The problem with your suggestion is that we are not in the era of "let's be bold and see if we are reverted and then discussion can ensue." Rather, we are post vast discussion on this very issue having already taken place and consensus (apparently) having been against banning them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Following Fuhghettaboutit's edit, I think I spotted a better way to achieve this. Been bold and fixed it - please revert or discuss if it doesn't in fact help. In effect:

  • Simulation of the interface requires CSS and formatting code (for the overwriting function). So I merged it in as an example of disruptive CSS which it always will be ("...replacing the expected interface with a disruptive simulation...")
  • The other issue, shock links, can be handled as Fuhghettaboutit and Johnuniq said, by giving a general rule: "Inappropriate internal or external links that unexpectedly direct the reader to unreasonable locations or violate prohibitions on linking may also be removed or remedied by any user".

These have the advantage of not being limited to specific kinds of shock links or simulations, but covers all kinds of disruptive simulation or inappropriate unexpected linking on user pages or user talk. So it catches uses that are likely to be disruptive - but doesn't outlaw "harmless jokes" like a link to rabbit.JPG or reasonable and well coded simulations, nor does it suggest WP:BEANS as much. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Quite a tidy solution in fact. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine to me as well. This would have applied to the situation that started all this, and is more inclusive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_7&oldid=1142514532"