Wikipedia talk:User pages

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

Userpage info

If a user, at one point, had their email address on their userpage but removed it due to harassment they were receiving for edits, is there some way they can have those versions of the userpage suppressed so that the address cannot be viewed by regular users? --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The revisions in the page history that contain the email address can be deleted by an administrator, which will leave the address visible only to administrators who check the deleted pages history, or they can be oversighted, which will hide the address even from administrators. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comments from other people's pages?

WP:UP#CMT states Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages. Is there any policy regarding the removal of comments from other peoples' pages? (That is, A writes on B's page, and then C deletes A's comment.) Jpatokal (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:TPO. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, but surely that's for article talk pages, not user talk pages? I wouldn't be very happy if somebody started refactoring my talk page! Jpatokal (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that guideline is for all talk pages. But you're right - not all parts may be relevant in all situations. I don't know of any specific guideline for user talk pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting one's own user pages

If a user is retiring and asking to delete his/her user pages the request should be granted. Why? Usually the users, who request their user pages to be deleted are very, very upset and hurt. Most of the time the users will reconsider few hours or few days later, but, when the request is made, it is better to comply with it even, if it is not the right thing to do. After all how anybody's user pages could be compared to the suffering of a person? It is not even important, if a person has the reasons to be upset and hurt, it is important that for whatever reason he/she is. As I mentioned above in most of the times, a user will come back, and have his/her user page undeleted, but, if he/she will not, so it be. A leaving wikipedia user should not feel himself/herself as a tormented piece of a flesh that is attached to his/her Wikipedia user pages forever.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And we typically do delete such pages on request. However their main user talk page is typically not deleted, because it holds a record of the messages left for that user. –xeno^talk 01:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the main user talk pages, it is what I am talking about. I do not know how often users request to delete their main talk pages. I do not think it happens very often. I know I requested my talk page to be deleted, and today I saw that one admin (Spartaz) deleted his own pages, and what a drama it created. I cannot explain why on January 26 I requested my talk page to be deleted. There were absolutely nothing there that could have hurt me more than I already was on that day, just the opposite. There were some nice messages, barnstars, FP promotion notifications at my talk page, yet I did, and when I was repeatedly refused in deletion of my talk page, it made me feel even much worse than I did before. All I needed were just few hours to feel better, and maybe some words of understanding... As I said above in most cases a user will reconsider deletion of his/her talk pages few hours or few days later, but, if he/she will not, so it be. If a user is gone how his/her talk page's history could be so important? --Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This courtesy should be granted because it costs us nothing. If a user unretires, then the talk page obviously needs to be undeleted for transparency. I consider the courtesy of own talk page deletion to be part of the right to vanish (which is actually a courtesy, not a right). Jehochman ^Brrr 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User pages may be speedily deleted via {{db-u1}} ... and restored just as easily if the editor wishes. However regarding talk pages, I agree completely with Jehochman.— Kralizec! (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding noindex to userspace pages

See WP:VPP#Userspace guidelines to allow NOINDEX as a remedy? and this edit by Xeno.

Amending Xeno's edit to add the critical piece that discussion and consensus is best before removal of a {{noindex}} tag, which makes it effective. Noting that the {{noindex}} template is transparent and harmless to legitimate userspace use and can only help if there's a possible concern. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reverted addition. It's good to be enthusiastic and forward thinking. Changing to noindexed userspace is a contentious change the community's turned down in the past, repeatedly. Adding license to do it piecemeal or ad hoc, and with to sidestep discussing a userpage among cited aims plus provisions they're forbidden from doing anything about it unless they seek and achieve consensus, after opening another village pump discussion that's been open not even a day I think is a bit too enthusiastic. –Whitehorse1 16:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding. This isn't "changing to noindexed userspace". It lets other users NOINDEX a userspace page. Currently that's difficult because addditions to userspace has very wide leeway for removal. If there is a problem, such as BLP or the like, it's better to de-spider first, then discuss. The tag can be removed if the concerns are resolved or consensus is comfoortable with it.

I'm not seeing any real objection at the VPP discussion, indeed it was another user (Xeno) who made this edit initially. It looks like you're the only person objecting there. Everyone else seems to be fairly comfortable with the idea. A significant number would like to go further than this rather modest addition. Would you reconsider your stance on the basis this seems to be something that has more comfort than not, is transparent to valid editing, and is only capable of removing harm? Please take another look? Thanks - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I am misunderstanding. The very core of the change is non-indexing userspace. Specifically, individual pages in that namespace, chief among them often the userpage. For problematic userpages we do have templates that switch on noindexing (such as {{db-attack}}, {{sockpuppet}}, {{banned user}}, {{db-copyvio}}), and I am in support of them.

The VPP discussion had been open less than a day at the time the edit was made, and the other user you mention had even commented there the several times proposed noindex of userspace had not met with consensus. Aside from you as proposer and me, just six users commented, and two of those just asking questions related to the proposal while another only mentioned templates of some bearing on the topic. One user expressed what'd be described as lukewarm support at best, ambivalent is probably closer. That leaves, like, two people. It may be I'm the only person yet to express reservation there, but then it really isn't the most participated in discussion. Another three since chipped in, and in favor. We've the earlier proposals eventually linked at the VPP discussion which, notwithstanding users that did like them, saw strong opposition. Sure, no problem, I'd certainly be comfortable taking another look at this. I'll rethink the proposal, and'll give the points you brought up some careful thought. Thanks, Whitehorse1. 02:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

←Reading through various archives related to this left me with as many questions as answers. I'm uncertain about its scope, application, implementation and value. Both xeno's edit here ("will remove it from search engines and may preclude the necessity of a formal discussion") and your proposal ("guidelines state that where a user page may be used inappropriately the user should be asked, and deletion may be discussed. This can take considerable time and effort though") present tagging as an action to take to sidestep effort or "headache" of discussing material.

The rationale considers since userspace is distinct from mainspace, with subpages, absence of categorizing etc., user pages may go a long time between being noticed or before being remedied. Yet it's not possible to tag it if it's not noticed. It's when a page is noticed, action can be performed. Essentially you're saying the user can't remove it, while opting to not raise it for discussion, though in contrast the user must build consensus, yet the content deemed inappropriate may be neither (where only individual segments are the focus) redacted or (where a whole page is the focus) removed by deletion being sought.

Problem user content of the unambiguous type comes under speedy deletion; the ambiguous type comes under miscellany for deletion. If it is problematic, requiring action upon it, one of those two methods exists. It's explicitly stated on this page that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. This was added after this, here. When such material is encountered it needs to go, not receive a tag it shouldn't be spidered.

I think the problem of the userspace guideline, its subjectiveness, is also its strength. I think it has to be like that, too. Its scope though is vast. The provisions in the present guideline extend to abandoned otherwise uncontroversial userspace drafts and the like. Noindex is surely opaque, for a legitimate use of userspace, short contributor profiles and the like, as the wider sphere of the web is unable to see in. On reflection, the guideline's form and scope are a significant part of why I'm uncertain about scope and application of the noindex tagging.

I wonder, is there value in increasing use of {{historical}}, which through namespace detection adapts to userspace, as here? That may give a page context it otherwise lacks.

Also, why is Noindex not implemented by the {{mfd}} template? Disabling spidering for the duration of the discussion seems unobjectionable and reasonable to me. Or even, new parameters could be added to the template to override a default, so it can be enabled using |blp=yes or |noindex=yes, aliased to each other, with template documentation advising their use for contentious content on a living person, or otherwise sensitive material? –Whitehorse1 00:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The MfD template noindexes because the material so tagged is often objectionable or promotional in nature. Gigs (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The MfD discussion pages're noindexed, I was talking about the {{Mfd}} template applied to miscellaneous-pages proposed for deletion which doesn't seem to do so. –Whitehorse1 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. It looks like it does. The VPP discussion mentioned manually noindexing while under formal MFD discussion, and I could've sworn it didn't already either. –Whitehorse1 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I (and I'm sure some others) already noindex pages on occasion as a low volume way to not have to go thru MFD. This is permitted by WP:UP#OWN and WP:BOLD. Adding it here just ensures the guideline reflects common practices. –xeno^talk 16:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Either of us two adding noindex to a page in special cirumstances when judged suitable, is v. different from changing a guideline to say 'this is the common established practice, do this'. –Whitehorse1 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that's what the paragraph said, though [1]. (Now having just read what FT2 changed it to, I liked my version better. I especially don't like the "should not be ... removed without consensus" - BRD ought apply and the status quo - indexing - is the default position). –xeno^talk 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
      • That is what you said, in your preceding comment considered with the banner that guidelines have at the top. BRD, is an essay. It's not in dispute there are many who support or approve of it, but there are others still who think it encourages edit-warring or're otherwise not behind it. Is indexing the status quo default position? You said six days ago at the VPP proposals to noindex userspace had not found consensus [2]. The focus is ad hoc tagging though. The guideline is open to wide interpretation as well as broad. The material considered to fall within its interpretation is many and varied, whereas something like this is clear promotion. Had I come across it (and the {{mfd}} didn't implement noindexing as it's now become clear it does), I would probably have {{noindex}} (+ {{mfd}} ) tagged it myself. –Whitehorse1 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Is it clear with concerns/uncertainties I've raised above what I'm talking about? If I've explained poorly I'll do my best to clarify. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition + discussion of any refinement needed

The VPP discussion's been there a week now,along with a second discussion started above. Combined responses:

7 appear to be in favor of allowing tagging of userspace with {{noindex}} by uninvolved users (either specific pages or entire namespace) - Nominator, Xeno, Roux, SPhilbrick, Jclemens, Ohms law, Kslays

1 appears broadly in favor though wary of instruction creep - Killondude

2 commented and did not appear to object - The Wordsmith, Gadget850

1 Not in favor - Whitehorse1

Adding back as clear consensus at VPP after a week + no other objections were made on this page other than same one person + there is both a very low risk of harm (it doesn't interfere with legitimate uses) and significant benefits to project (in addressing userspace concerns).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Xeno and Whitehorse1 and invitation to improve

A quick recap of key points:

1. Status quo and proposal - Because there is no consensus to unindex the entire namespace, the proposal was to allow case-by-case unindexing of pages which gave rise to concern.
2. Effect - The tags don't impede editing in the slightest, so adding them does no harm to legitimate uses. Its sole effect is to prevent external spidering.
3. Current remedies - Not all pages with concerns are suitable for CSD or MFD (it may be a BLP in the course of drafting and not yet cited or balanced, MFD may be too heavyweight and discouraging to the user, or the page may simply need edits requested rather than outright deletion, for example).
4. "May not be removed without discussion" - the reason for this is that unless WP:UP otherwise states, users may decide what's on their user pages and subpages. So a user who wants to promote something on their userpage has the right to remove any edits or tags others place there, and it's easy to lawyer tendentiously over their addition or possible issues. This is a tag placed for good cause; unlike most edits to others' userspace it should not be free to be removed just because the user wants their content spidered. If the content matters and is suitable to spider then it'll still be suitable after discussion. This way gives good motivation to fix the issues; if they choose not to then it's an internal linked page only and can be left or discussed at leisure.
5. Costs and benefits - Re-permitting spidering of an noindexed page isn't as likely to imply urgency, compared to unindexing a page due to a concern. If the community or tagging user agrees the page should be spidered (or it has been fixed), then the tag can easily be removed.
6. Mirroring - Agree that we cannot address mirrors and spiders that don't honor robots.txt. But that's true for all content, including all other uses of {{noindex}}. Not relevant. This will be honored by most major search engines.

Xeno - I appreciate you think your wording was better. My concern is that (like a few other tags) a noindex tag on a userpage stays until it's removed by discussion. That's not the norm for most of userspace but you can see why it needs to be that way. If the wording can be improved while keeping that explicit, please do.

Whitehorse1 - I understand you have concerns. Although consensus seems to agree with adding this, if they can be met in any practical way I have summarized the points above so we can discuss it further.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What does "except by consensus" mean? It's kind of confusing. Anyway at the last RfC there was actually pretty strong consensus for compulsory tagging of all userspace pages with a banner informing readers that they weren't reading an article. Never was implemented, but we had consensus for it. Gigs (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I just couldn't think of a better short wording. The sense it's trying to convey is "if someone noindexed your user page, don't remove the tag unilaterally without either discussing with them or some kind of wider consensus." If you can word it better, please do. That was the best I managed, it's "one small step" to help handle one aspect of the issue. If there happened to be consensus for more in future, then more would be done I guess. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think that "nor removed without discussion or consensus" goes too far - I've removed it for now. We are setting out a new rule here and the pendulum is swinging a bit far from where it was before. If the user does remove the noindex tag then the available and appropriate remedy is to take the page to MFD. –xeno^talk 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree on that. It was covered in the proposal, and saying "do not remove tag X without discussion" is quite a small change given the good it can do. VPP + talk page discussions open for a week is enough to check if there was general support (there was) or any substantial level of objection (there wasn't).

1. Many issues aren't suitable for MFD if disagreed.
2. Problems are much more nuanced; often the material is not a clearcut remove and really needs editing. This on a user page can easily be 'lawyered, delayed or unsatisfactory. Noindex solves the overriding concern without affecting legitimate uses, but if it can be removed without any discussion it doesn't solve a thing and the proposal (which got a very clear consensus) would not achieve its aim.
3. Some 50% of views on the proposal supported a blanket NOINDEX of userspace. While that isn't what was proposed it does suggest that allowing noindex to "stick" pending discussion is within the clear consensus.

I've reinstated for these reasons. The whole purpose of a consensus-seeking exercise is to check if users will or won't endorse a change and they clearly had. If it was a radical change then that might be different, but this doesn't affect legitimate editing; its sole use is to allow de-indexing to be achieved upon concern until discussed and sorted out. Considering the "no harm" aspect, strong consensus, and that about 50% wanted to go far further, reinstatement looks right.

Is there any overridingly strong argument that was not considered in the discussion? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to've thought I brought up some good points; I guess not though. :\ –Whitehorse1 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Where in the proposal was it said that a NOINDEX tag unilaterally placed could not be removed without discussion? –xeno^talk 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously any edit can be placed and removed already. (X can add noindex or any other reasonable tag to Y's user page already, and Y can remove it if they don't like it). An edit that merely noted the status quo would not be a "proposal", it would just be an edit noting the status quo.

The proposal clearly wasn't a suggestion to just note the status quo. "A NOINDEX tag can be added by any admin" tends to make it clear that this means add and not arbitrarily removed. In case it wasn't absolutely clear, the proposal then notes under rationale, "Allows immediate handling, with follow-up by discussion at leisure, if the page creator objects to NOINDEX..." -- again, making clear the route is discussion, not "if the user objects they can remove it as usual". So it was clear in the proposal.

To make it clearer, the proposal was posted at 19:41, 24 February. The first question asked was at 19:52 and the reply at 20:17 stated that the point being asked wasn't quite correct and clear it was an additional option to MFD ("[A]n additional option... At present it's unclear if an admin could NOINDEX someone's user page, and if they did a belligerent user could arguably remove it") .

All of these were visible under 40 minutes from the proposal being posted. The proposal was then open for over 9 days (24 Feb - 5 March) during which time comments were summarized as above. About 50% wanted it to go much further, but that wasn't the proposal being put forward.

As well as the above, at 07:29 25 February (less than 12 hours after the proposal was posted) the further post was made "All that is missing is consensus that if there is a concern over a userspace page, it can be tagged as NOINDEX by an admin (which is transparent to any legitimate use) and this must be left in place unless consensus agrees otherwise. That's what is being proposed". Still no objections except the same person who had objected already. Again the comments during the 8.5 days after this were the same as summarized above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I think this argument is by-and-large academic at this point since I doubt many people will go around no-indexing anyway. –xeno^talk 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd put Roux as in favor from his comment, Xeno differs I believe on the removal aspects; Killiondude's comment I'd interpreted above as lukewarm at best, probably ambivalent; still, glass half full or half empty I suppose. That'd make it about 5 in favor; the degree to which that's further tempered by previous marked opposition to noindexing proposals might be another matter.

On noindexing the user namespace at least, we've a contentious change repeatedly turned down in the past. The rfc a year ago saw wide participation; when proposed again six months-ish ago similarly failed to gain a consensus of support. Given that, it shouldn't be implemented by side route or by attrition.

The thing about the User page guideline is it comprises vague sweeping statements that are being the subject of wildly different interpretations.The new provisions for userspace instruct people to noindex tag what they consider "inappropriate" or "contrary to" the guideline or a "source of concern", entirely without qualification.

The MFD archives show it's seeing pages right from clear self promotion I linked above, to one-line userpage statements of someone saying they're an up and coming musician or short contributor bios written in a perfectly ordinary and mundane corporate report author's profile style that the contributor is presumably used to using.

There seems to be a disturbing trend as well of people "having a good ol' nose", basically. Rather than the intended emphasis on pov forks, preserving hotly disputed versions or similar, what's going on is acting on things like innocuous old scrappy drafts & similar, be it by deletion, blanking or quick & easy tagging. –Whitehorse1 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And (to take your last point first) that's exactly what this will help, because a page that's a concern right now goes to MFD. This way a concerned user can noindex it and it doesn't affect any legitimate internal use within the project. It doesn't impede any reasonable use whatsoever. It takes a lot of the "heat" out of such discussions by allowing the indexing concerns to be met. User pages are intended for project use anyhow - even their personal inclusions are for the benefit of other community members not the wider world - so this way allows the best of both worlds. Suppose an uninvolved user thinks X's userpage or subpage contains material that is "too promotional" or something. The worst case is they tag it (which does zero harm and is virtually invisible to X), and if X really wants to have their userpage reindexed, which isn't the main purpose of userspace, X needs to seek some measure of agreement or consensus over the concerns. Or X can fix it, or leave it "as is". Easy and pretty mild stuff. Effective damper on unsuitable use (WP:NOT#HOST) though. Even if ignored completely it doesn't impede X from any legitimate communal use of the page whatsoever because noindex only affects external indexing. The user with a concern is happy, any possible issue is reduced in impact and the user and page are for all project purposes, not even slightly in a different position.

Taking the other points, the proposal was considered for 8 or 9 days, fully explained and detailed, linked here as well. The wording proposed was posted and removed and clearly described. Anyone could have readily said "I think it's a bad idea", for example. Roux stated (in effect) wouldn't it be as easy to blanket noindex the entire namespace, which is hard to interpret as any kind of objection; Killiondude stated he'd done this himself, saw merit in it, his sole hesitation was creep, not any objection to the principle of it, and so on. Again, it's worth noting that while this was not a proposal to noindex userspace, about 50% of responses did suggest or imply support for doing that, which would go a lot further.

If there is a way this significantly impedes legitimate user page usage for project purposes, please let me know? Realistically {{noindex}} is a completely unobtrusive tag. Without express "visible=yes", it's actually completely invisible. It adds __NOINDEX__ to the page. That is all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We're at cross purposes. A small amount of personal information, some notes or works in progress, todo lists and the like are perfectly legitimate uses of userspace. This is the same argument you used advocating noindex of all non-content namespaces (please correct me if I'm wrong); the consensus was to allow indexing. You've talked about legitimate user page usage, but what I'm saying is, according to the community, indexing pages of users in good standing is legitimate and acceptable, even desirous. Among benefits highlighted in earlier discussions were openness, it attracts involvement, sits in line with the principles of the project, and provides vital background context; cutting off from the rest of the web prevents that. I've already said with examples it's acceptable in some cases.

I'm wondering about placing {{disputedtag}} on the guideline section. Instructing people to noindex tag won't _help_ the increase of acting on abandoned otherwise uncontroversial userspace drafts and the like, it'll make it worse. As I talked about earlier, the proposal presented it as a low effort quick action to take on supposedly problematic material. With this, you don't even need to create an MfD subpage. If there's nothing wrong with a userpage, there's no reason anybody should be touching it. –Whitehorse1 00:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus (you know that of course) and I'm just not seeing any failing of consensus here. Seriously, if there was considerable disagreement it was not visible then, and a week later it's not visible now. Disputed would mean somebody has added it and others disagree, or a disagreement of the WP:BRD type. It isn't about winning or losing, "I and perhaps one other person don't agree" just isn't going to prove the endorsement was disputed. At the same time as you are arguing on the basis of what "the community consensus" is, you're trying extremely hard to ignore the fact that in this case what you wish the consensus to have been, wasn't. consensus can change. Maybe this shows approval of a more open approach to the matter that previously.

The points you make are also non-issues. If a user page was tagged as noindex and the user page owner disagreed, then the consensus of others is what will finally carry weight - exactly the same as most things. A small amount of personal information is allowed so if the community feels a small amount is all that's there, they will surely agree that the noindex tag may be removed, hence not an issue. And yes, you would still MFD unsuitable pages.

On this matter other users didn't seem to significantly agree with you. I cannot see one other person having said "endorse Whitehorse1" or "per Whitehorse1" for example, or having argued a similar view. Not one. You even removed the edit at one point as premature (which was appropriate) leading to a talk page thread, and even so not one other reader disagreed as a result of seeing the diff presented. Not one.

If you can point to evidence that there was no actual consensus in the proposal, do. I don't think that's so. A number of people contributed and others saw it and did not feel moved to object. Those who did comment almost entirely endorsed it. You unfortunately were the sole person to strongly feel opposed. It happens. There are matters I've felt strongly on that didn't go as I believed best, because I was in a minority. The disagreement of a small minority does not make a matter non-consensus. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying the earlier discussion consensus, such as it was. Here, not a single person commented on the original discussion after 2 days, and it auto-archived after just a few days. The point almost everyone agreed is made substantially weaker when hardly anyone participated anyway. This isn't about me disliking an outcome as you say. If it were, I'd suck it up. Incidentally, the disputed tag simply adds 'the following section's wording or inclusion in this guideline is disputed or under discussion.'

It'd be unreasonable to avoid adding anything to guidelines or policies if existing parts are misinterpreted or ambiguously interpreted. There does seem solid basis here though to think the addition may exacerbate interpretation issues. Yes, consensus can change; it can even change quite quickly. I've not seen evidence it has changed though: You seem to ignore the extremely well attended earlier discussions that weren't in favor of (globally) noindexing, over this one composed of fewer than 10 people that was. One of whom, disagrees above with a central part of the proposal and acquiesces since they doubt it'll be used much, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. If you're just counting signatures of whoever didn't say no, then yes there's consensus. However, consensus, as you know, is not a vote but built on arguments. ...Although, you've also dismissed my points as non-issues.

At all times I've bent over backwards to work collaboratively here, providing examples of cases for disabling noindexing, asking if concerns were clear, bringing up specific problems, even replying to you on my usertalkpage agreeing to look at and improve on it while it's live on the page. You could have sought to contribute ways to address concerns about its application. Instead, you pretty much alleged I was petulant, obstructive and obstinate. I'm still willing to collaborate with you or anyone else on this. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 05:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look up, you'll find I did just that. During the 8 or 9 days of discussion those are visible on the VPP page, and even after it, a number of posts addressing concerns you (and perhaps later Xeno) might have had, which were unprompted but made specifically because it's about collaboration and the fact a discussion's concluded one view doesn't mean others' concerns should be fogotten. Specifically in those you'll find numerous comments regarding application, usage, removal, consensus, and impressions of (lack of) harm done. I would say that was clearly "seeking to contribute ways to address concerns about its application". Most of those were not responded to. To name three: a statement that 'noindexing the entire space was previously rejected' doesn't speak to a proposal that merely requires a user to check consensus before reindexing a specific page where others have concerns; the addition of noindex does not affect any legitimate editing; and "consensus needed for X" is commonplace on many policies and guidelines so "may be misinterpreted" is unlikely.

The core of the objection is... what? That consensus hasn't endorsed noindexing the entire space unconditionally, therefore specific pages causing concern need consensus before reindexing is against the community's view? That it won't be used much? That many people who didn't comment saw it, and yet of those who commented almost all were in favor and almost none (well, one) spoke against in the course of 9 days? That in counting arguments rather than heads it's clear that the majority who felt it was a big enough deal to leave a comment, almost entirely felt it was a good idea and almost half stated it should even go further? That some specific harm will be done by requiring users with contentious (but not deletable) userpage material to check consensus before it's spidered on search engines? That harm will be done by being able to forcible noindex userspace content of concern during an MFD even if the user for that page demands the right to have it spidered? I just don't see a strong point.

I'm sorry, but try as I can, the central points you're giving, whether that you were not responded to (you were/are), that the consensus was disputed or flawed (Not as far as I can see), or that arguments not !votes count (same either way), just doesn't seem to go anywhere. Each of those was visibly attended to in the discussion and afterwards. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To try and address what you've said I've posted (below, outdented) a possible starting point. –Whitehorse1 01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unanimously accepted:

1. site global userpage noindexing per community is undesirable
2. individual userpage indexing in certain circumstances is desirable

Generally accepted:

1. the userpages guideline is subject to widely different interpretations
   1. as such, editors act on pages outside those which the guideline provisions were intended to address
      1. acting on such pages has drawbacks:
         1. unnecessary – time, lost opportunity cost (poss. multiple editors per page e.g. w/MfDTooltip Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion)
         2. can be bitey (deterring or discouraging contributors, old or new)
      2. of the actions suggested in the guideline, adding a noindex tag is the easiest / most visually discreet action
         1. accordingly, of all the listed actions a higher volume of use is probable
         2. additionally, the introduction of this easier non-labor-intensive action may exacerbate the problem (a.) above, because of its ease of use
2. to remove a noindex tag, a tagged user must 'build consensus'
   1. if tagger says they may not remove it, where do they go?
      1. if MfD may be too heavyweight or discouraging to the user, AN/ITooltip Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents may be equally or more so
3. the following templates switch on noindexing automatically:
1. {{copyvio}}, {{sockpuppet}}, {{db-attack}}
   1. any pages suited for those should have those used
2. {{mfd}}
   1. a userpage or subpage clearly suited for deletion should have mfd applied; noindex tagging will not delete it. (the mfd template simultaneously noindexes)

Self evident:

1. must be a good and valid reason to apply a noindex tag
2. high volume, non manual, or en masse tagging means less time was allowed to consider a page, therefore risks going against (unanimously accepted) point 1, plus generally accepted point 1, as well as self evident point 1

Solutions:

1. seek to clarify when is it appropriate to act (period) and when is it not. e.g.:
   1. not okay: may require action
      1. blatant & excessive self promotion
      2. long-term repository-style preserving of previously deleted material, pov forks, hotly-disputed versions
      3. long-term repository-style storage of a page that has not been and cannot conceivably become a valid article. e.g., '9 year olds writing obituaries on pet hamsters and articles on rock bands who will hold their first rehearsal next Tuesday if they can find a bass guitarist' (orig. by User:WereSpielChequers)
      4. bio of living person (BLPTooltip Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)/corporation attack page
      5. in-progress draft of BLP that is not yet cited or balanced, but not a BLP violation or attack page
   2. okay and acceptable: requires no action
      1. a statement or two on a userpage saying, for example, they're an up and coming musician
      2. small contributor bios that happen to be written in 'corporate-speak', that the contributor may be used to
      3. any notes, draft or work in progress that isn't a "problem", isn't a problem; applies irrespective of age or otherwise how diligent the contributor is in completing it
2. seek to clarify appropriate and not appropriate noindex tagging, possibly through examples
    corollary: avoid facilitating 'lawyering' over pages that should be indexed yet are dissimilar to examples
   1. example v. above may be an appropriate example of suitable candidate for noindex tagging
3. seek to clarify where a user may build consensus necessary for them to de-tag, when tagger disagrees

...  –Whitehorse1 01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This kind of detail may help to find if there is an issue or not. I do disagree with some of the matters you're citing as kind of principles:

1. You've stated "site global userpage noindexing per community is undesirable" as "unanimous". In fact far from it. It didnt get consensus in prior discussions, but it did get considerable support, and in this case about 50% said that blanket mandatory noindex was more desirable - that's very far from "unanimous" too. This was not the proposal. In any event I agree (if it wasnt obvious) that past noindex of the entire space has not reached consensus. Basically not salient.
2. Not convinced that a claim of a guideline having "widely differing interpretations" in other areas is relevant at all.
3. Disagree with "unnecessary" as a concern, would agree that egregiously WP:POINTy use could perhaps be bitey. (Hence my initial suggestion only an admin could do this). But on reflection, disagree. No real evidence of a problem. Someone adds "noindex" to a page. Little to no harm is my impression. Its not a deletion, it's not a comment on the person. Its de-indexing the content only. It does not even leave a message for the user unless the tagger chooses to do so.
4. Disagree with the conclusion that something being easy means it was not thought out.
5. Disagree that it contradicts a general noindex for the space - tagged pages will by definition be those where a specific concern exists, not random pages or the whole userspace generally. (No consensus on blocking all users doesn't even slightly contradict blocking some users, so to speak.)

On to the points where we might have more productive discussion:

1. The wiki is fixable. If a page such as a small but appropriate bio, or an appropriate user page in a corporate-speak style is written, and noindexed by another user, then a few things immediately come to mind:
   • The tag would not harm legitimate purposes. The purpose of user pages is to allow other collaborators to know a bit about those they work with. Nowhere in WP:UP does it say the purpose of user pages is to create an external search for the user. It has that effect, but that's not its "purpose". I hope we can agree on that. (Speculatively, if someone did try to add to WP:UP a clause like "The aim of user pages is to facilitate collaboration and allow users to have a searchable page of arbitrary content on the internet" it would probaby be rejected.)
   • It is not likely to be mass used for small appropriate user pages. If it is, then we may need to clarify a bit, but that's part of the usual development of norms.
   • A tagged page will very likely get one of 2 responses - indifference (becaue it has no effect on editing) or an inquiry to the tagger who will explain what the concern is - ie dialog.
   • Only if unreasonably tagged and discussion goes nowhere is there more needing saying.
2. Agree "if there isnt a problem then there isnt a problem", and age as usual is not a criterion. (Except for the one case of oversightable information about minors, which will vanish anyway so not relevant here).
3. Three remaining points are worth discussion:
   • Clarifying of appropriate and inappropriate noindex tagging, if there were issues on it -- the proposal suggested "only admins may tag; no tagging to make a point" for those exact reasons. I think if there was an issue then restricting tagging to admins would be a good way to prevent this issue. In all other cases where there is a new area of development, it gets refined over time. This may be refined too, as cases emerge.
   • Avoiding lawyering - same really, see previous bullet?
   • Ensuring if there is a concern a user knows how to seek consensus as stated - agree. I am hooping to see {{uninvolved}} promoted as a universal standard means to get help on a page or issue. If so this would be an ideal candidate for it, and include it in the text of {{uw-userspacenoindex}}

Quick thoughts as I'm away from home today. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. The word choices could've been clearer. The Unanimously accepted part just meant what we (those taking part in this discussion) all agree on, e.g. that, at least last time it was looked at, the consensus by some margin was to keep userspace indexed by default. Age was meant to refer to the age of the page not author (a mundane uncontroversial draft is no more a problem when 5 months old than when 2 weeks old).

Comparitively, tagging for something other than deletion may be less harmful, but that doesn't mean it is harmless. It still increases the amount of noindexed pages within a namespace, where consensus is to index -- the attrition problem. It still wastes time. I can also see how noindex tagging on userspace pages unnecessarily, i.e. with weak reasons, will increase readiness and prevalence of acting on them by other methods as the given weak reason comes to be seen as a need to intervene.

"Widely differing interpretations" of any guideline will always be, at least to some extent, a consequence of how that guideline is written, and therefore can be improved upon. Its ease of use doesn't quite mean an individual tagging was not thought out, but that it is more likely to be used; combined with an already ambiguous and differently-interpreted guideline, that promises uncertainty about its use. A look through the mfd archives or the timeline for drafts discussion below shows lots of uncertainty over what's acceptable for userspace and in what circumstances. The {{uninvolved}} template is good; I hadn't seen that before. –Whitehorse1 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating a Subpage

I don't think it is very necessary to create a link on your user page because you can just type in the Search box "Special:MyPage/Sandbox". Keyboard mouse (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can. But then again that's more complicated, especially to new users, than simply clicking on their name in the upper right corner and then on the link that appears. Regards SoWhy 16:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A link for personal sandbox would be useful. Too complicated for new users otherwise.--Fountain Posters (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on a timeline for userspace drafts

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Codify_a_timeline_for_stale_userspace_drafts Gigs (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing the noindex tag

Although I agree that it has no effect on talk pages, I wonder if the comment about not removing it should be replaced but alongside the comment about adding it. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost by definition a namespace such as user talk: that's entirely noindexed, won't have noindex tags on any of its pages. So the only pages one might see a noindex tag and therefore have the possibility to remove it will be in user page (which is indexed and where noindex is therefore meaningful).

So in effect, users can be told "don't remove noindex tags without discussion" without further details, because the only place they would find a noindex tag in their user pages is in User:X or its subpages, not User talk:. Listing it with the other "stuff not to remove" and not confusing it by noting it only applies to one branch of userspace (when they won't ever need to remove it from user talk because it'll never get added there)... that's my 1st thoughts. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

user:Xeno made a similar point elsewhere; the observation below is one outcome of it. By mixing up "user page" and "user space" it gets a bit confusing what's covered at times. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, confusing user space and user page doesn't help. We don't want people removing noindex tags from User:X or its subpages and we should say so to avoid problems. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Should be better now, with the reworked guideline being clearer about whether it covers user space, user pages or just the user page. Added back, go take a look. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename and copyedit

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.

Page moved. NW (Talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Following discussion I've had a go at redrafting WP:UP which needed a good cleanup. I was amazed how much improvement is possible.

• Proposed reworked draft: User:FT2/User pages
• What's moved where and list of changes: User talk:FT2/User pages

I've deliberately made few or no substantive changes to allow focus on style and flow improvement.

I would also suggest a rename to "Wikipedia:User pages", removing the ambiguity that "user page" normally means just the one main user page.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. Style and flow is not something you get from a multitude of small edits. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, generally. –xeno^talk 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Much better. Changing the name is a very good idea. Do we need to point out that the 'right to vanish' may be denied? Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Edited to include "discretionary". Also added "If agreed..." to remove implication it's automatic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support rename. I think user talkspace is included by implication, too. This will enhance clarity. –Whitehorse1 00:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

5 days on... anyone with any objections? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• The logical structure is good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support rename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:24, 13 March 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.

"restoring talk page notices and Whois templates is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule"

Who is this aimed at? Everyone? If IPs aren't supposed to remove Whois notices, does this apply to editors restoring them? Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Those restoring. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative material

Separate to the above, would anyone have thoughts on this? It's possibly worth adding a short section to clarify.

=== Storage of negative material === For this section, negative material includes: (1) lists of negative evidence, claims, perceived flaws, and past actions of other users, and (2) negative or excessively critical material for draft articles or dispute cases that are not being visibly worked on. Wikipedia articles, processes, discussions, and disputes can require very negative or critical material to be considered or taken note of. However users should not keep compilations of negative notes and information related to others in public view on the wiki without very good reason. Compilation of factual reasonable wiki-based evidence on a subpage, for purposes such as preparing for imminent dispute resolution process or discussion, is usually permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner, and should usually be removed or courtesy blanked afterwards. Material for legitimate active article development may also be reasonable to keep (note: tag as {{userspace draft}}, and BLP policy can override this). In general though, negative evidence of these kinds should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (ie not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. Sections of talk dialog containing personal attacks can also be worth collapsing, courtesy blanking, or archiving at times, once the discussion is ended, though this is more likely to be down to the user's discretion.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the current:

(1) "Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason"

over

(2) "actual compilations of negative information related to others should generally not be maintained in public view on the wiki without very good reason."

This view is based on some encounters with disputes over such things brought to MfD. The first is direct and in simple terms. It is hard to argue (wikilaywer) with. If you want to list negative information, the onus is on you to have a "very good reason". The second contains extraneous words introducing ambiguity. What is the intended modifying effect of "actual"? Compilation? "Generally" is an escape clause for every worked up person, every worked up person believes that their situation is special. When someones records-transitioning-into-rants gets called into question, I would much rather be quoting and explain the first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Slight concern is people 'lawyering about user talk threads, SPI/ANI threads, other legitimate discussion, etc. Although ideally all such material could vanish or be collapsed, this section's mainly about users who try and indefinitely keep stuff they wrote that's about specific individual/s, group/s or user/s (or copied from elsewhere). It's not so much about genuine archived talk threads, and not really at all about project space, etc. Any suggestion for a wording that would do what you're saying but take this into account? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Slightly edited, re-check? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It took me a long time to find the edits you refer to. You edited the box above! It now says "However users should not keep compilations of negative notes and information related to others in public view on the wiki without very good reason". I support it. The sort of cases I remember coming to MfD involve material composed entirely by the user, and maybe one or two talk pages containing multiple and lengthy screeds. I don't see this text being misapplied to meaningful multi-sided discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Small grammatical error

Under General Guidance>Personal and privacy-breaching material it says, "It could be copied elsewhere or even used to harass you in future". I can't fix it myself, but it looks like it is missing a "the" before "future", or perhaps it is meant to read "future circumstances". /pedant ReySquared (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I edited the section and took the opportunity to slightly reword it. We'll see what others think. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sober Spike

Sober Spike is an alternative punk rock band frm a suburb of Hemet California. This Garage band has been compared in sound with : Blink 182 and rock band Green Day. The studio band consists of : frontman Blakelee McCowan, Bassist Mykl Walton, Rhythem Guitarist Grant Butler, And current drummer Chris Lara. The new "Live" band consists of: Blaklee Mccowan, Mykl Walton, Chris Lara, Grant Butler, James Aranda-Brass/accoustics/ and harmonys, and Lisa Lamb-keyboard and harmonys. The band has added and lost many members except for Walton and Mccowan. Walton joined the band in 2007 when Mccowan asked him to be the bassist, since he was the only bassist Mccowan knew. The band is still slowly emerging, still, they have gained the attention of many youth who are rebellious. The band is, unlike others, an authenic pop/punk band. Singing of Rejection and low self esteem. All members of the band were self taught( except Butler) and generally say on stage " I'm sorry we sounded like sh*t, if we knew how to play these instruments maybe we'd sound better." The band was never really a small local band. Considering their first Venue was at the Whiskey A GO GO in Hollywood, California. ( page in progress. more info soon to come) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykwalton (talk • contribs) 02:52, 12 April 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 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)

Oppose the inclusion of this diff.

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