This is the talk page for discussing maintenance of the Guideline about Wikipedia:User page.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. Avoid voting, a guideline is made by listening to objections and resolving them. Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This is not a place to ask general questions. To ask questions about using Wikipedia, see the Help desk. To ask non-Wikipedia questions, see the Reference desk. For all useful links, see the Community portal.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 30 days are automatically moved. An archive index is available here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

• UI Spoofing archive (2007)
• Temporary userpage template archive (2008)

Contents 1 WP:UP#NOT/11 aka WP:UP#GAMES. "particularly" 1.1 More specific proposals on WP:UP#GAMES 2 Unearned "Merit badges" 3 Changes to "Removal of comments, warnings" section 4 Subpages of indefinitely blocked users 5 User:Florent Buca 6 Secret pages in userspace

[edit] WP:UP#NOT/11 aka WP:UP#GAMES. "particularly"

JamesBWatson reverted my removal of "particularly" (which, granted, with done with a poorly considered edit summary). That section (What may I not have on my user page?, #11) reads ("particularly emphasized"):

Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project.

With "particularly" included, the scope of the sentence is broad, covering all games, even if practiced with our best wikipedians, and is weaker, with the word diluting its power, because it doesn't necessarily apply to even the worst case of games. In this case, there is no bright line, and all sorts of stuff is sent to MfD for repeated policy-rationalisation debate.

If we remove the word "particularly", the sentence would then only refer to pages of participants who are not active, but it would clearly and definitively apply to them. I think this is preferable.

Closely related to this are James' comments in an MfD:

When I first came across hidden pages I didn't think they did a lot of harm, but things have changed. We have recently acquired a whole community of people who are here mainly or entirely to play games and/or build up social networks. ...

I, like James previously, don't think they do a lot of harm. (I further think that they do a small amount of good, and that forcibly deleting them does harm). But if James has learnt something, I'd like to see it. Where is this whole community of people who are here just to play games? James went on ...

... allowing this sort of thing [even with productive users] sends the message to newcomers that using Wikipedia purely for playing is alright. I used to be not very happy about pages such as this one, but thought they did little harm. However, because of the recent developments I have described, I now think they need to be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't fear that wikipedia is in danger from these game playing users, and am confident that we can keep games under control more effectively with more tolerance and a clearer requirement for simultaneous productive activity, and without giving the wrong message to non-contributors, simply by making the guideline more definitive, removing "particularly", as per above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between using pages primarily as games, and using games as a means of learning about Wikipedia. As WP has matured, it is clear that it is no longer attracting those who are here just to "improve articles" and perhaps we ought to recognize that allowing some amount of WP-oriented fun might be reasonable. Collect (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More specific proposals on WP:UP#GAMES

Would the following have consensus?

• Wiki games, such as “can you find my hidden page” or “don’t press this link” can be educational games for users new to wiki editing. However, there are limits on the games we can allow you to play using wikipedia userspace:

• Unoriginal games may be played for a month following your first edit, provided that you show some sign that you intend to contribute to the encyclopedia.
• After one month, your unoriginal games should be removed. This is best done by posting {{db-user}} on the pages involved. If there is something in the pages that you wish to retain for future reference, then it is acceptable to redirect your userpages to your main userpage. You can then find the information in the history of the redirected page.
• Note that anything promotional, or related to non-wikipedia matters, is not OK.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's been firmly established that there is no clear consensus on secret pages. There have been at least four centrallized discussions on that matter that have been highly controversial and didn't result in consensus. Trying to modify the guideline now is going to bring an angry mob, complete with torches and pitchforks, from both camps, not to mention those who have an opinion but didn't notice the change until much later. I think that if we wanted to draw a firm line in the sand regarding the existance of these pages, then we'd have to try RFC, or maybe the Village Pump again, just to make sure we get a clear cross-leveling.

Though, in this case, it seems like you're just trying to clear out the pages that are no longer in use? And/or probably prevent newbies from using WP as a game platform instead of contributing? The former makes sense. On the latter, I would say that a bit of mentorship would be a lot more effective than forcing a deletion. bahamut0013^words_deeds 07:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would say that is firmly established is that “secret pages” like other userspace pages, are not speediable.

To date, the centralized discussions have been poorly focused. I see this one as focused on certain userpage pages for which I see consensus, having followed and participated in a large number of userpage MfDs.

I don’t any reason for my suggested changes to incite a mob, I mean only to reflect that fact that next to no one will defend a userspace play page that is not being used by either productive wikipedians or by newcomers, with an MfD very likely to result in either “blank” or “delete”. As I can predict that certain MfDs will end in “blank” or “delete”, I think it is more than reasonable to document it here.

Let me try again:

Secret pages, and other play pages, not related to wikipedia, are only allowed if the participants are either (a) active wikipedians, or (b) newcomers to wikipedia.

I do not mean to prevent newcomers from playing wiki games. I think newcomers playing wiki games, initially, and not exclusively, is a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was removed by Rlfindia (talk · contribs) on 14:13, 13 October 2009 for no apparent reason. Putting it back now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not intend to spend the time necessary to give a point by point answer to all of SmokeyJoe's long contributions. However, the essential point is that SmokeyJoe thinks that people should be allowed to use Wikipedia for purposes other than writing an encyclopedia, such as playing games, and will not accept that consensus is against it. There are several places in policies and guidelines that make this clear, including this guideline on User pages. SmokeyJoe has a history of responding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when such evidence is pointed out. Eventually, after the relevant passage in this guideline had been pointed out to him repeatedly, he attempted to effectively nullify it by unilaterally changing the wording to say only that use of Wikipedia by people not actively participating in the project was not allowed. This he did without any discussion. The fact remains that Wikipedia exists for the sole purpose of creating an encyclopedia, and there is strong consensus that other uses are not acceptable. This consensus is recorded in this guideline and elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that I have a history of responding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I have been attempting to clarify the situation where consensus is unclear. Consensus is clear that non-contributors may not use Wikipedia for games, no more than they may use it for any unrelated purpose. But applying that consensus brutally to new contributors (which happens) conflicts with WP:BITE, and forbidding *any* games for *active* wikipedians does not have consensus, and conflicts with Wikipedia:Editors matter.

Wikipedia does not exist for the sole purpose of creating an encyclopedia. It also exists to maintain the encyclopedia. It also exists to support the community of editors, to encourage them to remain, to continue to build, and to continue to maintain. Allowing some established editors to play a few games is a very small cost if it keeps their expertise and experience available for the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not unclear: various places where this is made explicit have been pointed out to SmokeyJoe, who persistently denies it.

I cannot see anything in WP:BITE which says that we should not tell newcomers that Wikipedia is not for playing games, nor anything which could reasonably be interpreted that way.

I don't see that the consensus that Wikipedia is not for playing games conflicts with Wikipedia:Editors matter, and frankly it doesn't matter whether it does or not, as that page is only the opinion of a small group of editors, and is not a policy or guideline. I could just as easily create a page of my own, expressing my own opinions, and then cite it.

I am not convinced that there are established contributors who make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia, but would leave if they were told that any games playing must be done elsewhere. Besides, if I am wrong then does it matter? We have thousands of active editors who don't abuse Wikipedia by using it for games, and it would not be a huge loss to abandon the few who do. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don'ttypo think we agree that games played by non-new (~1 month) editors who don't contribute should be deleted. I'd prefer to see a simple unambiguous statement to this effect. Newcomers and contributors can be in another sentence.

I am more interested in games that are borderline Wikipedia-related educational. Would give your opinions on these two: (1) User:Oddmartian2/Wikipoem; and (2) User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I accept that there are some things on Wikipedia which exist only as jokes, and that some of these could be referred to as "games", and I do not strongly object to them, and accept that they will not be deleted. However, it is a very different matter when people spend considerable amounts of time and effort creating elaborate games, such as some of the ridiculous "hidden pages" mazes which were produced a little while ago. Nor do I think this sort of thing would be acceptable if it were done by editors who also made significant contributions. In principal Wikipedia is not for playing games at all; to say that in practice we allow some leeway for small-scale humour to active editors is one thing, but to make a policy statement that any and all games made by established editors will be accepted is another. The current version of the user page guideline says, amongst other things, "You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere..." and includes in its list of examples of unrelated content "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project". I think that is a reasonable balance, and I also think that there is broad consensus in support of placing the balance about here. Yes, there are people (such as yourself) who would like to make this more liberal, and there are people who would like to make it less so, but the overall balance in the current version of the guideline is reasonably close to capturing a view which is generally accepted. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that the current consensus is far from where I'd like it (The typo above didn't help). The "particularly" removal was more about clarifying that certain pages will always be deleted.

I'd like to distinguish between silly games (eg secret pages), and educational games. Admittedly, my definition of educational has been very generous.

But beyond that I worry about the tenor of the environment. To have some editors checking out that other editors are behaving to standard, and then enforcing administratively, is to drift toward an intolerant rules based regime. I don't want that, particularly if it affects newcomers or overall good editors. I'd prefer to see wayward editors "encouraged" to (re)turn to productive editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG a reason to delete the project? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case where consensus is changing; thinking about MfDs for these in the last 2 years, my impression is that we are gradually becoming less willing to accept these games (i admit that I have not attempted to actually count). I consider this an appropriate change in an organization that is gradually getting more responsible, more serious, and more widely observed. It detracts from our reputation. I doubt we'll lose any contributors--they have abundant opportunities elsewhere for that part of their life on the net. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reactive as well. We have increasing numbers of people trying to use Wikipedia for their own purposes, be that entertainment or promotion. Gigs (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unearned "Merit badges"

General question: I found a user page with an impressive collection of "merit badges" (veteran editor, 20K+ edits, multiple years service, etc). Unfortunately none of the badges checked out with the contrib log and there is no evidence of there being a prior account. While "role templates" (admin, bureaucrat, etc) can be freely removed if they are not valid, is there is a standard practice for removal of these merit badges? Manning (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all honor system, and very informal. Just let it slide. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to "Removal of comments, warnings" section

Under the auspices of WP:BRD, I have reverted the bold changes [1] that Multixfer (talk · contribs) made to the WP:BLANKING section, and am bringing them here for discussion. Ignoring the WP:CREEPy aspects of the changes, I do not see how they are necessary as they do not really add anything to the guideline other than increasing the likelihood of harassment.

Specifically, I disagree with the addition of {{whois}} to this section, which has been excluded from being considered a "shared IP" template until this point. The {{whois}} template was explicitly created to not be a shared IP template, as its history illustrates. Additionally the text in the section that reads "shared IP header templates" is directly linked to Cat:Shared IP header templates, which contains all of our shared IP templates (and notably, not the {{whois}} template).

Additionally this text:

“

Regarding shared IPs: shared IP and whois header templates may be removed if the IP has not edited disruptively, had had no disruptive edits for 6 months, or if the IP is not shared

”

strikes me as adding little to the existing guideline other than an additional layer of potentially confusing rules that will lead to greater harassment of IPs. We do not need arbitrary durations ("6 months") or highly subjective behavioral measurements ("no disruptive edits") to quantify what is already covered by WP:AGF as well as the header text listed at the top of this and every other guideline: "this page...is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

If an IP asserts that it is not shared and its edit history bears this out, what does branding him or her with an IP template really accomplish? Speaking as an administrator who has performed over 3000 blocks, I can assure you that I am in no way hindered when an IP's talk page does not have one of these templates on it. After all, the same information is generally just a click or two away via the whois/geolocate links that automatically appear in the footer of every IP's talk page. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but are you kidding me? I just went through all this crap at AN/I, seemed to find a consensus, only to have you undo it all? How does reinserting ambiguity help this project? I didn't act alone, rather there was a full discussion of this at AN/I. Either an IP must leave the SharedIP template alone or they are allowed to remove it and the guideline/policy MUST SPECIFY THIS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Currently, the guideline says it may not be removed, which has caused headaches, as noted at the AN/I. It has nothing to do with whether you are helped or hindered with the SharedIP template, it has to do EXACTLY with whether an IP editor is allowed to remove it or not. Just because you don't find that information particularly helpful is irrelevant. Are they or aren't they allowed to remove it? Because I assure you that this issue will arise again and no amount of redirecting people to AGF or some other page will resolve it. THIS is the policy quoted, THIS is the guideline that currently says an IP cannot remove a sharedIP template, and THIS is the direct problem. Every time an IP blanks that template from their talk page, someone comes along and reinserts it and quotes THIS GUIDELINE. Why can some IPs remove it but not others? Special rules for special people? Want to talk about "subjective"? This entire guideline is nothing but a big lie currently. I have been FORCED to allow anon IPs to remove this very template from their talk pages in spite of a "guideline" that specifies this is not allowed. Try to explain to me how this is perfectly normal, how the rule can say one thing yet mean another... sometimes if the person quoting it feels like it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize that WP:USER is a guideline, rather than a policy? Regardless, Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, but instead encourages users to use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines. The last three or four times the IP issue was discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), community consensus was pretty accurately summarized by Kim Bruning (talk · contribs) who pointed out that fighting with an IP over the contents of his or her own user space is the height of futility. While I was initially one of the most outspoken opponents of this view, I have to admit that we registered editors waste a lot less of our time now that we no longer get into edit wars with IPs over the contents of their own userspace. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this issue is covered by my addition to {{SharedIP}}: "This template should be used on IPs which appear to be or are likely to be shared by multiple users - typically IPs assigned to large institutions, or to a pool of dynamic IP addresses. Where there is no indication of this, or where the IP appears to be static and used by only one person, the template should not be used.". WP:BLANKING after all refers to "shared IP templates"; there's no point requiring these not to be removed if it doesn't seem to be a shared IP. Rd232 ^talk 16:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kralizek!, this keeps coming up at AN/I because people will keep (a) adding and (b) re-adding, warning the IP for removing, threatening with blocks, and (c) eventually either dragging the other party or being dragged to AN/I. The guidelines on this page are frequently quoted by the editor trying to keep the shared template. Ergo, it is worth altering it to be clear that - while IPs can be shared - it will not always be the case that the IP is shared, and it is not necessary to include the shared template on the talk page of an IP which appears to be used by only one editor. Simples! (where's that meerkat when you need him). Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here he is! And I agree that this needs to be clarified better on the specified guideline page. It has caused problems and will so down the line. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps our differences of opinion on this issue are because we are coming at it from two different perspectives on how the system actually works. As such, I hope you will allow me to explain the reasons behind my point of view on the subject.

Personally, my interest in this topic started when I began participating in WikiProject user warnings in early 2007, but has evolved considerably in the intervening years. As a result of the last big discussion on this issue at WP:VPP in April 2008 [2], the text of the guideline was sharpened to say "exceptions include...for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates." Therefore, if an anonymous user asserts that his or her IP is not shared, then why would the IP's talk page have a template on it from Cat:Shared IP header templates? Unless the IP's edit history indicates that the IP is not static, WP:AGF indicates that we should accept the anonymous editor's assertion and either remove the shared IP template or replace it with a non-shared header like {{whois}}. However, since {{whois}} is explicitly not a shared IP template, the anonymous editor could then remove the header template at any time they wanted.

As I see it, this system only experiences issues under one of a couple of specific circumstances. The first is where an over-eager vandal fighter reverts the anonymous editor's removal of header templates. This typically results in either the IP losing the ability to edit their own talk page (assuming they are already blocked for other disruptive behavior), or the vandal fighter being warned and/or blocked for WP:HARASS or WP:3RR violations. The second circumstance is when an IP sock is abusively gaming the system, in which case an administrator or checkuser will investigate and if necessary terminate the IP's ability to edit the talk page in question. However neither of these circumstances can typically be resolved without administrator intervention, which is why these issues often end up at WP:AN/I.

Speaking as an admin who processes block and protection requests nearly every day at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, the system works quite well more than 99% of the time. Of the less than 1% when there are issues, 99% of those are resolved by giving over-eager vandal fighters a gentle reminder about what anonymous editors are and allowed to remove from their own talk pages. These types of problems would only be increased, not reduced, by adding {{whois}} to the list of things that cannot be removed by IPs. Likewise, creating arbitrary rules about the specific yet subjective circumstances when these sorts of headers may be removed is only going to result in more issues being taken to AN/I, rather than fewer. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subpages of indefinitely blocked users

They seem all to be candidates for deletion as maintenance when old enough. I don't think there are exceptions, unlike temporary userpages/usertalkpages, we don't have to worry about sockpuppet tags and such. It seems uncontroversial enough to be done by a bot, no ? To be sure, it could delete them when the user has been blocked for at least 2 years, exclude pages that have been edited by another user or linked, those could be listed somewhere for manual or semi-automatic deletion. Cenarium (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate userboxes and other useful fluffery may be created as user subpages, so pages transcluded elsewhere (or redirects to pages transcluded elsewhere) should be excluded from automatic deletions. There are also wikiscripts: Special:WhatLinksHere cannot detect whether these are used, and I don't think normal redirects work, but useful ones can be moved to a new maintainer, then the old replaced by an importScript() statement for backwards compatibility. • Anakin ^(talk) 02:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Florent Buca

Is this appropriate? WP:UP#NOT states as an example "Extensive self-promotional material that is unrelated to your activities as a Wikipedian". Now this is certainly extensive and self-promotional, but this user's only edits have been creating the article Florent Buca (of which this is a copy) and creating his user page, so I suppose it could be argued that it does directly refer to his activities as a Wikipedian!   pablo_hablo. 09:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If the article has been deleted as COI/spam, I've usually found the page will go at MfD. A copy of a deleted article can be kept if the user is working to improve it, but it it's unimprovable..... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Secret pages in userspace

A discussion about secret pages in userspace and whether they are allowed under WP:NOT and WP:UP is ongoing at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page. Feel free to join the debate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)