Jump to content

Wikipedia:Userspace policy proposal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By tradition, Wikipedia shows considerable leniency towards pages in userspace. However, it is unclear whether this means that literally anything is allowed, or that existing policy should still apply in some form. The issue has recently come up in a variety of discussions, such as on the admin's noticeboard and votes for deletion. Many people mention they are unsure what to do with it. Hence, this proposal.

Basically, there is a conflict between the existence of policies that claim to apply to userspace, and the reality that these policies are not presently enforced. Logically, then, we should either assert that the policies do apply and can be enforced iff extreme cases make it necessary, OR we should amend the policies stating that they do not apply in userspace.

Particularly relevant policies

  1. WP:UP#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space "Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere."
  2. WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia."

This should not be taken as a witch hunt, nor is it a call for massive purges of user space. It is merely a fall-back so that if and when a debate again arises over the appropriateness of a certain page in userspace, people will know where the consensus lies, and can act accordingly.

If you have a good idea for a variant proposal, or know of a general controversy in user space not listed here, please add it.

Please realize that this is not proposing NEW policy, but rather verifying if EXISTING policy should or should not apply in user space.




Master proposal

[edit]

Proposal: we need to re-affirm that, per WP:UP, all Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to Copyright Violation, No Personal Attacks, and WP:POINT, apply in userspace as well as anywhere else.

As always, per WP:FAITH and WP:POINT, people should not frivolously or ungroundedly invoke policy on others. But policy exists and can be invoked if polite conversation fails; that's what it's there for, and userspace is not immune.

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. Bishonen | talk 02:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jmabel
  4. Users have more scope in userspace, but it's best kept vague to allow editors and administrators to exercise their discretion. Obviously WP:POINT, WP:FAITH etc apply, but I'm not going to sign up to "not limited to." I don't think NPOV applies anywhere except articlespace, for instance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tobycat 02:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC) As significant amount of the proposal is covered by existing policy. Where it is not, it places unnecessary restrictions on expression and control over one's own user page.[reply]
  • Comment
    • (See talk page; this summarizes the proposals below pretty well, since WP:NOT a bureaucracy)
    • Please see my alternative antipolicy proposal on the Talk page, endorse it if you like it. Bishonen | talk 02:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with the spirit, but cannot vote for this as worded. Clearly, it is wrong to say that "all Wikipedia policies... apply in userspace." We need to enumerate which do and which don't. I have no problem with the three that are mentioned, but (for example) NPOV clearly does not apply at all, the leeway for non-notability should be enormous, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted material

[edit]

Sometimes, if a page is deleted (via VfD or related processes), a user who wants to save the page moves it into userspace. This is unrelated to 'userfy' where a page about the user in person gets moved. Arguably, one could instead keep a copy on one's personal hard drive.

Applicable policies:

  1. WP:UP#Removal "Your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on wikipedia:votes for deletion, subject to deletion policy. Please do not recreate content deleted in this way: doing so is grounds for immediate re-deletion"
  2. WP:CSD#General "4.Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." (is a criterion for speedy deletion)
  3. WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted."
  4. WP:VFU#Purpose of this page "This page exists for (...) People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted"
  5. WP:POINT#State your point; don't prove it experimentally "discussion rather than unilateral action is the preferred means of changing policies"
[edit]

Proposal 1-A: a deleted page that is kept in userspace should not be linked to from the main namespace.

  • Support
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mgm|(talk) 12:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Thryduulf 16:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) but links from talk: should not be absolutely prohibited.
  4. Assuming talk is allowed SPUI (talk) 17:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. SchmuckyTheCat 17:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) and agree with comments: talk pages are ok. as well as stating this policy is redundant, but some users are that dense, so spell it out.
  6. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neo 23:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  8. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) And agreed with the first comment below.
  9. As long as we're only referring to articles and not their talk pages. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Postdlf 20:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Agree - allowing userpages to become "appendixes" to articles is contrary to the idea of reaching a consensus to delete. I also agree that talk pages are different and direct links may be acceptable there. MK2 06:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Rje 23:46, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose. This entire set of proposals constitutes massive instruction creep. Let's use common sense instead of applying legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. This already follows fairly obviously from WP:ASR --iMb~Meow 03:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Wikipedia already has enough legalism; all of this can be replaced by the obvious guideline that user space content isn't part of the encyclopedia and should not be linked to from the encyclopedia. Kelly Martin 03:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Concur with silsor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. No need for policy or restriction on this. Case-by-case. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • We shouldn't be linking to the user space from mainspace for any reason, so the proposal is redundant.
    • links from the talk: namespace should be allowed if there is a good reason. Thryduulf 16:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alternate to Proposal 1-A

[edit]

Proposal 1-A-i: No page kept in userspace should be linked to from the main namespace.

  • Support
  1. TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mgm|(talk) 12:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Thryduulf 16:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) iff this does not inlcude the talk: namespace (see comment).
  4. Assuming talk is allowed SPUI (talk) 17:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. As long as the "main" namespace is referring to article space but not article talk space. --Carnildo 18:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. As long as talk is allowed. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neo 23:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  8. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Ditto TenOfAllTrades below.
  9. As long as we're only referring to articles and not their talk pages. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. JYolkowski // talk 17:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) if talk is allowed and external-style links are okay.
  11. In general I Agree. Offhand, I can't think of a valid reason for having a direct link from an article to information on a userpage. But I'll concede there may be some good reason I haven't thought of. MK2 06:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. VladMV ٭ talk 15:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC). With Stevie's restrictions.
  13. Sean Curtin 23:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC) Assuming that talk pages aren't included. -Sean Curtin 23:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose. This entire set of proposals constitutes massive m:instruction creep. Let's use common sense instead of applying legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. This already follows fairly obviously from WP:ASR --iMb~Meow 03:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Wikipedia already has enough legalism; all of this can be replaced by the obvious guideline that user space content isn't part of the encyclopedia and should not be linked to from the encyclopedia. Kelly Martin 03:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. This policy is not necessary. Editors and administrators should use their discretion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Why, for example, shouldn't Tim Bray's Wikipedia user page be linked from his article? Phils 16:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • But isn't this the only reasonable exception to an otherwise good rule proposal? (and believe me, most of the proposals on this page are unacceptable) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 17:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Concur with silsor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. We must deal with things case by case, not restricting by default. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Per the comment on 1-A, there's no reason to link any user page from the main namespace. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • To be complete-ist about it - if a user page does ever get linked from the main namespace it is in the "external links" style e.g. Jimbo's article might link to Jimbo's user page as an external link. Pcb21| Pete 16:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Because proposed reworkings of articles are often found in userspace (e.g. user:Thryduulf/Geonamesongs) this policy should not apply to the talk: namespace. Thryduulf 16:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there some way for me to support, but with the qualifications mentioned in the previous two comments? If so, could someone ping me on my talk page? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

[edit]

Proposal 1-B: a deleted page that is kept in userspace qualifies for speedy deletion, as recreation of earlier deleted material.

  • Support
  1. Geni 16:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)don't people have hard drives these days?
  • Oppose
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC): On the assumption that 1-A is passed.
  2. Pcb21| Pete 11:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mgm|(talk) 12:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  4. SPUI (talk) 13:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. JYolkowski // talk 16:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) as per MacGyverMagic's comment below.
  6. SchmuckyTheCat 17:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Unnecessary if the first two proposals are clear.
  7. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Seth Ilys 02:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. What is allowed in article and user space differ too much for this to make any sense. --iMb~Meow 03:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 03:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. This policy is not necessary. Editors and administrators should use their discretion. This policy also conflicts with arbcom's catholic interpretations of policy with respect to deleted articles in userspace. I was agreed that "Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged" and "Anthony DiPierro has attempted to recreate material at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula which had previously been deleted at Shawn Mikula" but " The recreation of the deleted content at User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula does not constitute recreation of the article Shawn Mikula." (emphasis in original). Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2 --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Bad idea. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, in general. Posting deleted pages seems to me to be an acceptable purpose of a userpage. I would make an exception for some cases such as pages that were originally deleted for being inflamatory or libelous. MK2 06:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. VladMV ٭ talk 15:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC). No speedy on User namespace, please.
  17. Oppose. We must deal with things case by case, not restricting by default. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. People may have legitimate reasons for doing so, such as improving an article which was deleted because it "didn't establish notability" or was "not a valid stub". Sjakkalle 07:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • It should be possible to keep an article in a personal sandbox for improvement and reposting in some cases. Mgm|(talk) 12:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • It should depend on the reasons for deletion. For example: articles which are deleted because they are overtly racist in content should qualify for speedy deletion if they are recreated in user space. Rje 18:09, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion (2)

[edit]

Proposal 1-B2: a speedy deleted page that is kept in userspace qualifies for speedy deletion, as recreation of earlier deleted material, but only if appropriate policy has been cited by the deleting administrator. Otherwise it should go through VFD.

  • Support
  1. Mgm|(talk) 13:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rje 18:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. SPUI (talk) 13:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Thryduulf 16:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. SchmuckyTheCat 17:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Too broad. User space articles need to be disruptive, IMHO, to be deleted.
  5. Inter\Echo 19:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Too broad - Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. This entire set of proposals constitutes massive m:instruction creep. Let's use common sense instead of applying legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. What is allowed in article and user space differ too much for this to make any sense. --iMb~Meow 03:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 03:28, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2: "Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged." I think that's a good principle and it would be a shame to trample all over it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Just about as bad as the first Speedy deletion proposal. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, for the same reasons I posted above. MK2 06:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. VladMV ٭ talk 15:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC). No speedy on User namespace, please.
  15. Oppose. We must deal with things case by case, not restricting by default. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • I think this proposal may be a bit broad. Scratch pages, article fragments, foreign language articles that the user intends to translate, test pages, a little harmless nonsense...all meet the Criteria for Speedy Deletion but aren't necessarily things that should be (or need to be) speedied from user space. The recreation of speedied articles in User space—though sometimes bad form—isn't always acutely harmful. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Good point. But is there a way of preventing (or dealing with) the sometimes 'bad form' and occasional 'acute harmfulness'? Radiant_* 14:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • Pages in a the userspace in and of themselves aren't a problem (after all a user could keep such material off-site or off-line if they wanted and there is nothing we could do). It is when those pages are referenced and used elsewhere (on more mainstream pages, usually in the Wikipedia: namespace) in a distruptive way that we have a problem. I wonder if existing "don't be a dick" rules should apply to users in these cases. Pcb21| Pete 16:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion (3)

[edit]

Proposal 1-B3:

  • a. A page in userspace that was previously deleted after a VfD consensus is a criterion for speedy deletion unless the user explicitly noted their intention to keep a copy in their userspace and a majority of those participating in the VfD do not object.
  • b. Any page in userspace that was previously deleted for being a personal attack is a criterion for speedy deletion.
  • c. Any page in userspace that was previously deleted but is not a speedy deletion criterion under a. or b. must go through VfD to be deleted again.
  • Support
  1. Thryduulf 16:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Strong oppose, at least part A --SPUI (talk) 17:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Still somewhat oppose, see my own proposal below. JYolkowski // talk 19:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. m:Instruction creep; apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. part a is fatally flawed, while b and c are redundant with what is already done. --iMb~Meow 03:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 03:29, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Again this is trampling all over the liberal principles established in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. We must deal with things case by case, not restricting by default. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • This is an attempt to comments about 1-B2. Thryduulf 16:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This proposal should be broken down into separate proposals, as I think I agree with b but not the others. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion (4)

[edit]

Proposal 1-B4:

  • a. A page in userspace that is a recreation of deleted content from another namespace is a CSD if the content was previously deleted in a manner that demonstrates that it is inappropriate in any namespace. Specifically:
    • i. A CSD that applies to any namespace (except for "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy")
    • ii. A copyvio
    • iii. A page that was previously deleted from the user namespace.
  • b. If a page in userspace is a recreation of deleted content from another namespace, any user may add {{userspace-improve}} [template wording to be determined, but something along the lines of "This page has previously been deleted from another namespace and now resides in the user namespace for improvement or personal reference"] to the top of the page, or ask for it to be added. If the owning user removes or declines to add the tag, the page may be placed on VfD as "Inappropriate user page in stubborn or extreme circumstances".
  • c. In order to delete a page in userspace that is a recreation of deleted content from another namespace but does not fall under either a. or b. above, it should be treated as an "Inappropriate user page" and handled as per the deletion policy.
  • Support
  1. JYolkowski // talk 19:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neo 23:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose. m:Instruction creep; apply common sense over legalism, per Space Corps directive 9012. -- Seth Ilys 02:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. 9012? No member of the Corps should ever report for active duty in a ginger toupee? CXI 12:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. If a user is being that much of a problem and won't voluntarily delete (or request deletion of) something that bad, this belongs in the dispute resolution process, not in deletion wars. --iMb~Meow 03:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. (Thus, a copyvio would be deletable because a DMCA shutdown would disrupt Wikipedia.) Kelly Martin 03:29, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Obscenely complex. What does it actually mean? And if I don't understand it, how are other editors supposed to? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Also Oppose for its complexity. There might be kernels of good ideas here, but it needs simplification. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  8. VladMV ٭ talk 15:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC). No speedy on User namespace, please.
  9. Oppose. We must deal with things case by case, not restricting by default. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • I still don't quite agree with 1-B3, so here's my new proposal. JYolkowski // talk 19:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks like people feel that this proposal is too complex and legalistic. Since I've seen some encouraging comments, I'll try one more time. JYolkowski // talk 15:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion (5)

[edit]

Proposal 1-B5:

  • a. A page in userspace that is a recreation of deleted content from another namespace may be deleted as "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy" only if it is potentially disruptive and was previously deleted in a manner that demonstrates that it is inappropriate in any namespace, specifically:
    • i. Vandalism (including, but not limited to, personal attacks)
    • ii. A copyright violation
    • iii. A page that was previously deleted from the user namespace.
  • b. Problems with a page in userspace that is a recreation of deleted content from another namespace that does not fall into one of the categories listed in a. above should be dealt with using existing dispute resolution and deletion policies.
  • c. Users who recreate deleted content from another namespace in their own userspace are encouraged to indicate it as such.
  • Support
  1. JYolkowski // talk 15:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. definately support c. a and b weak support. Thryduulf 18:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. ugen64 22:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Concur with silsor. We don't need all these rules. We have enough rules to argue about already. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. VladMV ٭ talk 16:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC). No speedy on User namespace, please. I agree with b & c, though.
  4. Seth Ilys 18:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. We must deal with things case by case, not restricting by default. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • This is an attempt to resolve problems with 1-B4. JYolkowski // talk 15:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disruption of process

[edit]

Proposal 1-C: keeping more than a couple of deleted pages in userspace is in effect a disruption of the deletion process, and should be actively discouraged. Repeat offense may be considered a form of vandalism.

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) Again, on the assumption that 1-A is passed.
  2. Pcb21| Pete 11:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. SPUI (talk) 13:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. m:Instruction creep; apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Again, deletion warring is a poor substitute for the existing dispute resolution process. Adding opportunities to participate is a Bad Idea. --iMb~Meow 03:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Keeping deleted pages in own's user space does not, in and of itself, disrupt Wikipedia; it only annoys certain control freaks. Keeping an extremely large amount of crap in one's user space, on the other hand, would be disrupting Wikipedia by consuming unnecessary resources, but the point at which this becomes a problem is probably much larger than a "couple of pages". Kelly Martin 03:29, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Again this is a matter for the discretion of editors and administrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Bad idea. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. We must deal with things case by case, not restricting by default. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Unless the need arises for a general rule restricting the size of userpages, there's no need for a rule restricting a certain type of content to a size limit. MK2 22:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • I think that these pages qualify as "Inappropriate user pages in excessive and stubborn cases" and so should be taken to VFD. Continuing to recreate deleted pages in userspace after others have been deleted is a form of disruption, but I don't see how it could be considered vandalism. I also think the wording of this proposal is a bit strong. JYolkowski // talk 16:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Offensive pages

[edit]

It is perfectly all right to voice your personal opinion on politics, sport, wikipolicy, or whatever else in your userspace. However, a small number of people take that a step further and add personal attacks to their user pages, or grossly offensive remarks to other users or groups of users, which is something that would not be condoned in mainspace.

For example, a public statement that 'user:foo is a moron'.

Applicable policies:

  1. WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not a battleground "Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement."
  2. WP:No personal attacks "Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse."
  3. WP:FAITH "When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe they are helping the project."
  4. WP:Civility#The problem "By hurting the community, the quality of articles is affected as well."
  5. Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes "(avoid) Arming for war. Wikipedia is a unique community of altruistic and consensus-oriented people. In other words, this isn't Usenet, and flaming is just not done."

Request to remove

[edit]

Proposal 2-A: Users should remove strongly offensive content from their userspace when asked to do so.

  • Support
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mgm|(talk) 13:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. JYolkowski // talk 17:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) They should, but I don't think they have to either.
  • Oppose
  1. SchmuckyTheCat 18:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) We don't need this kind of nannyism.
  2. Inter\Echo 19:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. The phrase "strongly offensive content" is too general and maybe POV. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Avoid instruction creep; apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Redundant with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. --iMb~Meow 03:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. There is already a rule against disrupting Wikipedia and a rule against personal attacks. Kelly Martin 03:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose in the strongest of terms. Who gets to define offensive? Broad offense should never be a reason to delete material from userspace. It should only apply to personal attacks against specific Wikipedia users. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Who decides what is offensive? Who may ask for removal, who will enforce these decisions?Phils 16:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  10. VladMV ٭ talk 16:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC). Offensive is too broad. I would approve of a more specific definition.
  11. Oppose. We must deal with things case by case, not restricting by default. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, Against broad regulation of content.Tobycat 02:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • We should watch out for people holding grudges asking for deletion. It should be dependant on the opinion of a substantial group of users. Mgm|(talk) 13:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • It should be explicitly restated that "strongly offensive content" means personal attacks and legal threats. I am concerned that while well intended, this policy may be used to harass editors. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't need creeping nannyism. The talk page of an article is welcome to all and must be kept free of attacks. User space is not welcome to all. Good editors must use talk pages, but nothing forces any user to view the userspace of any other user. Any mature editor recognizes that words on a user page, that you have to seek out to view, aren't sticks and stones to break their bones. SchmuckyTheCat 18:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alternative version of proposal 2-A

[edit]

Proposal 2-A: Users should remove personal attacks and legal threats from their userspace when asked to do so.

  • Support
  1. Thryduulf 16:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. SchmuckyTheCat 18:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Support, but only if the list of personal attacks is strictly limited to those deemed libelous. I should be able to keep my Nixon style pig-headed moron enemy list (not that I have one, but maybe I should).
  3. Inter\Echo 19:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. If applied to personal attacks against other Wikipedia users only, and if personal attack is clearly defined. Mere criticism wouldn't qualify, but something like offensive labelling, such as calling someone a racist, or "fugly" would. Legal threats are usually empty, so I don't care about them. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. JYolkowski // talk 17:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. VladMV ٭ talk 16:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC). Fine with me.
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose. Avoid m:instruction creep; apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Redundant with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks and Wikipedia:No legal threats. --iMb~Meow 03:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. There is already a rule against disrupting Wikipedia, a rule against legal threats, and a rule against personal attacks. Kelly Martin 03:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose We should just continue to remove offensive content on sight. it's a Wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Not needed. Current policy is sufficient. Tobycat 02:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • This is following TenOfAllTrades' comments above. Thryduulf 16:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • They should. They should equally not be forced to remove them. Also I am concerned about misuse, since some people consider any criticism to be a personal attack: see [1], which calls [2] a "personal attack". Judge for yourself whether the latter is a personal attack or fair criticism. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

[edit]

Proposal 2-B: A user who persists in keeping offensive content in userspace may be temporarily blocked on grounds of disruption, similar to a user who persists in posting offensive content anywhere else.

  • Support
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mgm|(talk) 13:07, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Thryduulf 16:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Rje 18:15, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. SchmuckyTheCat 18:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Oppose because the definition of "offensive content" is too loose. I want to see disruption to the project before blocking users.
  2. SchmuckyTheCat says it well. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Avoid m:instruction creep; apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Redundant with, and a potentially dangerous expansion of, Wikipedia:Blocking policy --iMb~Meow 03:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 03:32, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Persistent offenders should continue to risk being blocked indefinitely at administrator discretion, as now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Again, who gets to define offensive? Agree with Tony Sidaway too. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • I would support a more precise version of 2-B, like 2-A (alternative version) VladMV ٭ talk 16:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regular deletion

[edit]

Proposal 2-C: Strongly offensive pages in userspace may be listed on WP:VFD (per 'inappropriate user page') and deleted by consensus.

  • Support
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Thryduulf 16:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) if "by consensus" means "if there is a consensus to do so"
  3. JYolkowski // talk 01:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Note that the first step, according to the deletion policy for "Inappropriate user page" is to discuss with the user and only list it on VfD if you can't reach agreement.
  • Oppose
  1. Rje 18:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC). Any user should be able to remove strongly offensive comments without going through VfD, the article should only go there if a dispute emerges between the editor and the creator.
  2. Inter\Echo 19:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) - VfD is enough of a mess already.
  3. Oppose. Avoid m:instruction creep; apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Redundant with existing Wikipedia:Deletion policy --iMb~Meow 03:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. VfD is messed up badly enough as it is. Kelly Martin 03:32, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. My personal practice is to summarily delete strongly offensive user pages on grounds of disruption. Less offensive (but still seriously offensive) stuff--slurs or attacks against named editors, for instance--I'll edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. VFD should be for articles only. Clogging it up with user pages is ridiculous. Instead, report such pages to admins and let them use their discretion, per Tony Sidaway's remarks. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. the VfD review process is already challenging enough. Keep it limited to articles only.Tobycat 02:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Refactoring

[edit]

Proposal 2-D: Strongly offensive pages in userspace may be refactored by any editor (or, obviously, by the page owner), per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.

  • Support
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rje 18:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. JYolkowski // talk 17:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose. This one's just asking for trouble. -- Seth Ilys 02:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Redundant (obviously) with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. --iMb~Meow 03:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. We already have policy that allows for removing personal attacks that disrupt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 03:32, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Redundant. Editors can do this now. It's a Wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose strongly. I don't support users editing other users' user pages, with the exception of a technical disruption, such as a user page appearing in a category (as no user pages should) or if a vandal placed a spam link on the user page. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 13:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment

Refactor & protect

[edit]

Proposal 2-E: A page in userspace that persistently has offensive content added with its owner's consent should be refactored by an admin and protected in non-offensive form.

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose. We have ways of dealing with vandals already without another rule. -- Seth Ilys 02:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Redundantly redundant in its redundancy, even. --iMb~Meow 03:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. This would prevent a user from controlling the content of their own user space. Protection should occur only if requested by the user, or when necessary to prevent vandalism. Kelly Martin 03:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Redundant. I do this already. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment

Wikiprojects

[edit]

A WP:Wikiproject "is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia." (note that something can be a wikiproject even if it isn't called one)

There have been a small number of wikiprojects kept in userspace, that have a particular POV, and that ignore or remove contributions from people not sharing that POV, on the opinion that the owner of the userspace decides what goes there. Some people feel that this causes a conflict between the open nature of a wikiproject, and the closed nature of userspace.

Applicable policies:

  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Best practices#How to help "Encourage contributions from everyone, even those that are new to the subject."
  2. WP:NPOV "According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"."
  3. WP:NPOV#introduction "we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute"
  4. WP:UP#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space "Other users may edit pages in your user space"
  5. WP:Wikiquette "Don't ignore questions."

Comments

  • Could we have some examples of what you mean please? Pcb21| Pete 11:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Certainly. I've put some links on the talk page here. Note that the point here is not to oppose certain Wikiprojects, the point is to oppose lengthy discussion about said Wikiprojects by forming a consensus now. Radiant_* 12:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Allow outsider edits

[edit]

Proposal 3-A: if a wikiproject is in userspace, it must still allow good faith edits and comments from anyone. Ignoring or removing comments that you disagree with is a breach of civility; repeatedly removing other people's comments may be considered a form of vandalism.

  • Support
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) If the wording is changed to "may, in extreme cases, be considered a form of vandalism.
  2. Carnildo 20:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Calton | Talk 04:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) If it's a "real" Wikiproject (or pretending to be one), then no one "owns" it.
  4. ugen64 22:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose. Userspace is for rough drafts and working things out; apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- Seth Ilys 02:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Owners of WikiProjects that are being operated out of userspace should be encouraged to move them to project space when the project reaches critical mass. Kelly Martin 03:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. A "real" wikiproject in the Wikipedia: space can be created if this is a problem. Disk space is cheap. --iMb~Meow 03:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Who determines what is and what is not a WikiProject? People are already allowed to make good faith edits, though in editing userspace they may risk annoying the user. However if the user is doing something that solicits contributions he cannot legitimately complain if he gets them. This is commonsense, not need for a rule. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. A user should be able to remove anything they want to remove from their user space, no matter what. Agree with other opposing comments above. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. This would effectively swallow up all user space into just another form of talk page, or worse, sandbox. Why have user-defined spaces at all if it's going to be a free-for-all? The user designation would continue to imply ownership or responsibility when it would mean nothing but. Postdlf 18:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Instruction creepism Klonimus 07:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Move to the Wikipedia: namespace

[edit]

Proposal 3-B: any wikiproject in userspace must, if any admin so requests, be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace.

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) Not at the request of a single admin. Suggest 3 as a minimum.
  2. JYolkowski // talk 17:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Things like this should be done with "the consensus of the Wikipedia community". If, for example, three admins agree, that might be a good gauge of whether there would be consensus, but, like everything else, we should strive for consensus. Having said that, why do we even need this proposal? If people feel that something should be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace (note that I've changed this to "the Wikipedia namespace" from "mainspace") or any other namespace, they can just do it, hopefully after discussion.
  3. Taco Deposit Agree with JYolkowski that it should be re-worded "the consensus of the Wikipedia community". Admins have no special authority.
  4. Oppose. Admins aren't particularly special; apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Owners of WikiProjects that are being operated out of userspace should be encouraged to move them to project space when the project reaches critical mass. No editor, administrator or otherwise, has the authority to give orders to another editor. Kelly Martin 03:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. That idea of mandating that user pages be placed in common space is bizarre, no matter who decides. --iMb~Meow 03:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Who determines what is a WikiProject? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Of course, there's nothing wrong with encouraging users to make this kind of move, but this proposal sounds overlording and extreme. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. If someone really likes the text in a user space page, no one can stop you from copying and pasting it elsewhere. Outside parties forcing it to be moved is unnecessary and unreasonable, particularly just on the request of one admin. Postdlf 18:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
  1. Oppose Resepct Userspace. Klonimus 07:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Must be NPOV

[edit]

Proposal 3-C: any wikiproject, even in userspace, must be NPOV. If there is substantial reason to think that any particular project is not, this should be addressed on WP:RFC.

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) Even regular Wikiprojects have some POV element: they consider that the subject in question is worthy of inclusion, deserve wider coverage, and should be covered in ways more or less broadly outlined by the project. Suggest rewording to: should be open to multiple POVs.
  2. Oppose. Dudes, NPOV applies to articles. We should be able to speak candidly everywhere else; apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 03:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. User and talk pages really need to allow non-neutral POV. These are places to work out what ultimately goes into article space, and they also serve as a sort of safety valve for the article space. --iMb~Meow 03:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. NPOV applies only to articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Ditto. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  8. JYolkowski // talk 17:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) I think I see what the creator of this was trying to say but it needs major rewording.
  9. Oppose. Strongly. Postdlf 18:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Issues need to be discussed in order to form a consensus. And it's hard to imagine a meaningful discussion that doesn't involve NPOV statements. MK2 06:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Userspace is for experimentation. Klonimus 07:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Must be constructive

[edit]

Proposal 3-D: any wikiproject, even in userspace, must be constructive towards improvement of Wikipedia. If there is substantial reason to think that any particular project is not, this should be addressed on WP:VFD.

  • Support
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Thryduulf 16:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. JYolkowski // talk 17:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC), but I'm not sure whether VFD is the proper forum for resolving such questions.
  4. Rje 18:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC). Although I agree that VfD is probably not the place to discuss such problems.
  5. User space is not free web hosting. User pages that edge into blatant self-promotion or other wholly un-Wikirelated content should be restrained by outside consensus. Postdlf 18:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose. This will just drive disruptors further underground and make them harder to montior; apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Projects which are contrary to the improvement of Wikipedia will, in almost every conceivable case, be disruptive of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 03:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. No way. Wikipedia implicitly endorses frivolity outside the article space (WP:FUN, WP:BJAODN etc.) and there is no call for user space being an exception. --iMb~Meow 03:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Redundant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Don't agree with the "even in userspace" part, and who gets to define constructive? Further, I will posit that sometimes destructive activity helps the Wikipedia become a better encyclopedia. It just seems to me that whenever "non-approved speech" is drowned out, "free speech" loses its meaning, and we start to lose the context of what even makes ideas constructive. Sometimes in "destructive" speech, we see the seeds of constructive ideas. Besides, truly destructive activity always gets squelched one way or another by the sheer force of Wikipedian consensus. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • "Wikipedia implicitly endorses frivolity outside the article space (WP:FUN, WP:BJAODN etc." - iMb. As I understand this proposal, it has nothing to do with frivolity. If a page is about frivolity it isn't a wikiproject, if it is a wikiproject it shouldn't be about frivolity. Thryduulf 10:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom matter

[edit]

Proposal 3-E: if a wikiproject refuses to become NPOV, or project members persist in removing or ignoring good faith contributions of others, or the nature of the project is detractive from Wikipedia, the WP:ArbCom should examine it and decide whether the project should continue.

  • Support
  1. JYolkowski // talk 17:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) as the last step in dispute resolution obviously.
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose. Who decides what's productive and what's not? You want to burden the ArbCom with more stuff? Apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. The ArbCom can decide for itself what matters it wants to hear. Kelly Martin 03:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Useless. IRC, external message boards, etc. can all be used to the same end. Banning such projects from using Wikipedia for discussion is not going to prevent organized groups from editing in any way, shape or form.--iMb~Meow 03:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Apart from all the other flaws, only ArbCom, Jimbo, the editors of Wikipedia, and the board decide what Arbcom should and shouldn't examine. It isn't bound a priori to take on any class case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Same as above. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary, dumb. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Will vote if and when the NPOV question is resolved. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Templates

[edit]
  1. Meta:Template "In MediaWiki, a template is a page which can be inserted into another page via a process called transclusion."

(note that something can be a template even if it isn't in template namespace)

While the vast majority of templates reside in template space, some users keep short pages in their userspace for quick transclusion elsewhere - usually on talk pages, or vote pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Some people feel that this usage of templates should be discouraged, because (unless it's subst'ed) it increases server load, and is a too-easy target for vandalism.

Applicable policies

  1. Wikipedia:Template namespace "In order to create a new custom message, simply create a page in the Template namespace"
  2. Wikipedia:Template namespace "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace;"
  3. WP:UP#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space "Other users may edit pages in your user space"
  4. WP:Wikiquette "Don't ignore questions."

Allow outsider edits

[edit]

Proposal 4-A: if a template is in userspace, it must still allow good faith edits and comments from anyone. Ignoring or removing comments that you disagree with is a breach of civility; repeatedly removing other people's edits can be considered a form of vandalism.

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. User space is for the user, unless it violates a handful of policies about user space. The 3RR should not apply in one's own user space; repeatedly reverting someone else's user space should be seen as vandalism. --SPUI (talk) 13:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think the 3RR should still apply, but I agree that user space is primarily for the user, not for the general community to be making major edits that the "owner" disagrees with. JYolkowski // talk 17:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Rje 18:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC), unless the template is offensive.
  4. Carnildo 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. I'm not even sure what this proposl means, the wording is so convoluted. Apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. In addition, this proposal is incomprehensible. Kelly Martin 03:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  8. User space is user space. Sheesh. --iMb~Meow 03:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. All editors should continue to feel free to make good faith edits as and when necessary. No need for more rules. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Articles shouldn't include templates from the user space anyway. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary, dumb. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Agree with Grm wnr's comment below. This proposal is unnecessary. Postdlf 18:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • If a userspace template annoys you, remove/edit the inclusion, not the template. -- grm_wnr Esc 10:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move to mainspace

[edit]

Proposal 4-B: any template in userspace must, if any admin so requests, be moved to template space.

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. No, most of these are for personal use by their creators, there's no use in cluttering the main namespace with such templates. Mgm|(talk) 13:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. SPUI (talk) 17:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carnildo 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Taco Deposit Admins have no special authority.
  6. Seth Ilys 02:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC). What makes admins so darn special?
  7. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. No editor, administrator or otherwise, has the authority to give orders to another editor. Kelly Martin 03:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Again with forcing user pages to be moved into common space? No. --iMb~Meow 04:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. See no sense in this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Bad idea. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary, just plain stupid. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment

Delete per TFD

[edit]

Proposal 4-C: any template may be nominated for WP:TFD (iff with sufficient reason), regardless of which namespace it resides in.

  • Support
  1. Thryduulf 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rje 18:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carnildo 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Running a userspace template through VfD can be quite disruptive.
  • Oppose
  1. JYolkowski // talk 17:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Since user templates are mainly for the use of their owner, I feel they should fall under the "Inappropriate user page..." part of the deletion policy and put on VFD.
  2. Do we need another rule to prescribe what's common sense already? -- Seth Ilys 02:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 03:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Redundant. There is no existing bar on TfDing a user template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. So if I don't like any user page I can say it's a template (since any user page can be used as a template) and toss it up onto TfD? What a terrible idea! --iMb~Meow 04:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Bad idea. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary, redundant. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • I think the intention of this is that it applies to pages that are being used as templates, not pages that could be so used. Thryduulf 10:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This should state that this applies to pages that are not in the template: namespace only if they are normally used as a template by transclusion or substitution. Thryduulf 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Subst'ing

[edit]

Proposal 4-D: personal templates used for discussion or voting must always be subst'ed, and may be changed to a subst by any editor if not already so.

  • Support
  1. JYolkowski // talk 17:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Can you give a good reason why we need a rule for this? -- Seth Ilys 02:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. No good reason for this rule exists. It can be argued that a user who uses templates in such a manner may be precluded from altering those templates in such a manner that would be disruptive of Wikipedia, but the proposed rule goes beyond that. Kelly Martin 03:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Far too expansive to be good or practical, as worded. --iMb~Meow 04:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. If you see user template that annoys you, subst it yourself. Why do you need a rule for this? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary, terrible idea. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting

[edit]

Propsal 4-E: personal templates, with the exception of custom signatures, must not be used on voting pages. Any votes cast by template do not count and may be struck through by any editor. Anyone striking out a vote in this manner must make a signed comment stating why they have struck through the vote.

  • Support
  1. Thryduulf 17:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Carnildo 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) I don't think this goes far enough, though. Template signatures are evil and should not be used on voting pages, or anywhere else.
  3. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) If you're too lazy to type, don't vote.
  • Oppose
  1. Apply common sense over legalism. -- Seth Ilys 02:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Template signatures disrupt Wikipedia. Creating a technical reason for striking out a vote puts form over function and defeats the purpose of votes on Wikipedia, which is to build consensus. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy; Wikipedia is not an experiment in bureaucracy. Kelly Martin 03:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nice sentiment, terrible approach. In this poll alone, we have many voltes that consist of ~~~~ and no supporting comments. How are these any more meaningful than template votes? --iMb~Meow 04:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. We should continue with the current commonsense policy, which is that people using templates on deletion pages are taken out and shot. Or something like that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. VfD voters don't even have to explain themselves, let alone have new and original content every time. I don't see how the means by which someone votes affects the validity. Postdlf 18:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • I might agree to this only if this is applied to templates used systematically by a faction, but if it's really just an individual's template, it seems somewhat harmless to me. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

[edit]

Edit wars occasionally occur anywhere, including in user space. There has been some debate recently about reverting userspace, in particular whether it should be limited as per the Three Revert Rule.

3RR other userspace

[edit]

Proposal 5-A: The three revert rule applies to reverting other people's userspace.

  • Support
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. SPUI (talk) 13:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Thryduulf 17:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. JYolkowski // talk 13:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. ugen64 22:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Sean Curtin 23:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC) This should be made explicit by WP:3RR, and shouldn't require piggybacking onto a different policy. -Sean Curtin 23:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Any user who repeatedly reverts another user's user space is either disrupting Wikipedia or reverting vandalism. One is already prohibited; the other is general maintenance. Kelly Martin 03:41, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Redundant with WP:3RR --iMb~Meow 04:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not entirely, no. WP:3RR doesn't spell out whether it applies your own or others' user space, which results in long debates at WP:AN/3RR. JYolkowski // talk 13:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. WP:3RR applies where an administrator says it does. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  5. I may want another user to revert a page in my space more than three times, if he's protecting it from vandalism. Or I may consider only one revert of my page to be vandalism, if it's removing content I put there. The 3RR simply doesn't make sense in user space, because the user is under no obligation to come to consensus there with anyone and can tolerate as little or as much outside input as he likes. Postdlf 18:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • 3RR should apply anywhere outside of one's own userspace. Not sure if the current 3RR covers this or not. I'll defer to knowledgeable authorities on this. :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • there have been a number of significant conflicts over this. What ever descission is reached should cut both ways. Either the 3RR applies to both sides on users pages or it applies to neitherGeni 15:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR own userspace

[edit]

Proposal 5-B: The three revert rule applies to reverting your own userspace.

  • Support
  1. This is a 3RR violation, but the admin investigating the violation should take into account the fact that this is one's own namespace. JYolkowski // talk 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) More or less implacably. If the earlier policies are passed, I see no need for this.
  2. SPUI (talk) 17:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. No way. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Dude, it's your own userpage. Can't we use some common sense? -- Seth Ilys 02:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. This rule would prevent a user from exercising control over their own userspace. Kelly Martin 03:42, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Redundant with WP:3RR --iMb~Meow 04:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • See my comments in 5A above. JYolkowski // talk 13:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. WP:3RR applies where an administrator says it does. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • See my comments in 5A above. JYolkowski // talk 13:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose strongly. A user should be able to revert in their own user space as much as they see fit. Hopefully, of course, they will seek help from an admin to block destructive editors rather than just reverting ad infinitum. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. This is silly. Postdlf 18:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment

Adminship

[edit]

Certain people without a userpage have recently been nominated for adminship. Some people feel that an admin should use the user page to present a face to the community, and thus oppose a candidate who does not.

Applicable policies:

  1. WP:UP#What can I have on my user page "A good start is to add a little information about yourself, possibly including contact information"
  2. WP:RFA#Rules "Administrators (...) are held to higher standards, because they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia."

Nominations

[edit]

Proposal 6-A: having a meaningful userpage is a prerequisite to being nominated for adminship.

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) Weakly.
  2. Pcb21| Pete 11:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC). Petty instruction creep.
  3. Radiant_* 12:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mgm|(talk) 13:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) Edits and communications of admins are more important to determine their worth.
  5. SPUI (talk) 13:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Phils 17:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. JYolkowski // talk 17:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC). I wouldn't support anyone who didn't, but I don't think we need instruction creep here.
  8. Rje 18:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Carnildo 21:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Instruction creep.
  10. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Bishonen | talk 02:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Classic instruction creep, please see comment below.
  12. Seth Ilys 02:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC). Common sense, instruction creep. You know the drill.
  13. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. An editor who wishes to become an admin should conduct herself appropriately, but no rule is required to tell an administrator this. Nor should the community be arbitrarily restricted in who it decides to elevate to administrator status. Kelly Martin 03:43, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Silly. --iMb~Meow 04:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. --Calton | Talk 04:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. It's a wiki. Users can take presence or absence of a userpage into account, or alternatively they can create a userpage for the candidate. Wouldn't that be nice! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  18. This is one of about 5 proposals on this page with sane arguments for opposition. ugen64 22:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. GREATLY oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • What would we need a policy or a prerequisite for? Anybody who thinks the userpage is essential is obviously going to vote object to the RAF of someone without a userpage. Thus a de facto rule will operate and also be responsive to community opinion. It'll change if and when that opinion changes, smoothly and in timely fashion, without any need for the fuss and mess of changing official policy. Isn't that just fine? --Bishonen | talk 02:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I halfway support, in that I think that this should be strongly encouraged of admins. Transparency is a good thing, and user pages, esp. for admins, should be used as a vehicle for this. Sounds like an evaluation guideline, but not a hard rule. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Existing admins

[edit]

Proposal 6-B: all admins should ensure they have a meaningful userpage.

  • Support
  1. ugen64 22:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) Ditto.
  2. Pcb21| Pete 11:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC). Petty instruction creep.
  3. Mgm|(talk) 13:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) Admin's actions in community should be more important.
  4. SPUI (talk) 17:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:08, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC). It would be impossible to define "meaningful". Plus, I don't see the benefit of this policy.
  6. Rje 18:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Meaningful to whom? For what? Who decides? What haircut are admins required to have? -- Seth Ilys 02:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Bishonen | talk 02:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC). It would be impossible not only to define "meaningful", per Ezhiki above, but also to define "should". (Not completely happy about "ensure" either, come to think of it.)
  10. Oppose. User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. The only special obligation of the administrator is not to abuse their administrative abilities so as to disrupt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 03:43, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Even sillier. --iMb~Meow 04:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, though I would be happier if all admins were required to be contactable by email. That would be a handy rule. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. Sean Curtin 23:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC) Define "meaningful".
  • Comment

Copyrights

[edit]

Copyright violations in userspace are equally inappropriate as copyright violations in the main name space.

Applicable policies

  1. Wikipedia:Copyright problems
[edit]

Proposal 7-A: Copyright violations in userspace are to be treated through the existing copyright problem mechanism: Wikipedia:Copyright problems

  • Support
  1. Thryduulf 17:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. SPUI (talk) 17:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Rje 18:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Confirm that existing policy applies in userspace as well. Radiant_* 12:41, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:49, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  7. No harm in making this explicit by restating this. Postdlf 18:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. ugen64 22:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. MK2 06:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Entirely redundant with existing policy. --iMb~Meow 04:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Concur with IMeowbot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, m:instruction creep, unnecessary, utterly redundant. silsor 16:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • I suspect this is just making explicit what has been hapening all along, but I feel it is important to make it clear that a copyright violation in userspace is still a copyright violation. Thryduulf 17:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A copyvio is a copyvio is a copyvio, no matter where. This already *is* a rule, we don't need to add it again. -- Seth Ilys 02:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User space can have anything the user wants to put in it as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia. Copyvios disrupt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 03:44, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

One simple userspace policy proposal

[edit]

This is an attempt to difuse the mess that the above its in.
Proposal 8: All existing wikipedia policies apply equally to userspace*, but in general they are less rigidly enforced.

*except where individual policies explictly say otherwise.

Support

  1. Thryduulf 08:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Can lead to too much confusion methinks. Too broad. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 14:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Instruction creepism. Oldak Quill 18:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

  1. Oppose. Wording is crappy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree that the above is a huge mess, but I think the way of fixing that would be to just ditch this entire proposal and start over (with a bit more discussion up front, maybe). JYolkowski // talk 00:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I really don't know. That all seems pretty confusing. What's the point? Moomintrollmania 09:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Simple Userspace Proposal on the Talk page

[edit]

I posted an anti-policy, or YASUP, Yet Another Simple Userspace Proposal, on the Talk page a while back, with a straw poll, in case anybody'd like to contribute there. It goes: "These policies also apply in userspace, but there, the principle Wikipedia:Don't be a dick trumps all other policies". It's a very concise policy with a 30,000-word preamble. ;-) --Bishonen | talk 15:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userspace_policy_proposal&oldid=1167212105"