Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Tarc/Editnotice

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was snow keep and, furthermore, this appears to have been a bad faith nomination. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Tarc/Editnotice


This page pops up in the interface whenever someone tries to edit User talk:Tarc. As a general user talk page, it's not appropriate that the first thing people see is an image of a middle finger. It's also not appropriate to be telling IP users that they are wasting their time leaving him a message. I raised this at ANI, but was directed here. FWIW, the user claims the image is intended in a humorous way and is thus harmless, and the message to IPs is fully justified as 99.9% of them are either socks or vandals. Cracker92 (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Considering how IP trolls follow you and love you, I have to question if he's wrong to have prevented their access in this case, and I have to ask why you were going there. After all, your post to others who pointed out your misbehavior over at ANI have received inappropriate messages from you.  I contest this nomination as being made in bad faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not a huge fan of this notice, but I think it's a case of "while I don't agree with what you say, I'll defend your right to say it". The factor that makes this okay for me its being limited to userspace, and the fact that it instructs people on what he does and doesn't want to see on his talk page. Wikipedia editors are given a good deal of latitude over their user talk pages, such that if they get a comment they don't like, for any reason, they can remove it. Therefore letting people know what will likely be removed before they bother posting doesn't seem like a bad thing. I'm not a big fan of anyone who pre-judges IP editors, but in userspace there's not much that can be done about it. It would actually be worse if he let IP editors post and then spoke uncivilly to them -- that would create problems, so preventing it beforehand is probably good. The middle finger itself can be interpreted in a bunch of different ways, and though again I'm not a fan and I think this does say something about the demeanor of the editor, I don't see it as rule-breaking per se.  Equazcion  ( talk )  23:35, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Obviously I wish to keep my own page, but beyond that, this is a bad-faith sockpuppet who is holding a grudge for my opposition to his position regarding the Malleus Arb discussion here, and because a clerk redacted part of his entry when I asked one to evaluate it. As for the page itself, I find a cartoony middle finger to be rather amusing, personally.  The bit about IPs being unwelcome is that the overwhelming majority of them who come to my talk page are there to either vandalize or to comment who logged out of their real account.  I invite all to look at the logs of my talk page and my main user page (and history) to see how much revdeleting/oversighting and reverting has had to be done over the years, along with stretches of semi-protection.  My disdain for IP users is justifiable.  Honestly, just dismiss this silliness and caution "Cracker92", whoever he really is, that boomerangs can throw you for a curve. Tarc (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Advice: Just as constructive criticism, if other editors take offense to what your page says, you should edit it. In my opinion, I do not agree with the statement made on that page regarding IP editors, but you are entitled to keep it, as stated above. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I was in the middle of an edit conflict when this was at ANI, but suffice it to say that Equazcion and I are of a like mind here. There is no policy that says that editors can't have opinions, and because this page breaches no policies, to delete it would be to censor, and we do have a policy that says we will not do this.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  23:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not because I approve of the content, but because this is a frivolous and retaliatory nomination. Proposer is pissed off about a high-pitched ANI case in which he was opposed by Tarc. Also sorta agree with Equazcion; I might not share the Tarc's opinion and the way he chose to express it, but, in its place, it probably does more good than harm, and I can see the humor in it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The nominator has now been blocked indefinitely by User:Ched Davis.  Equazcion  ( talk )  00:07, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * User has been unblocked per an agreement. Please refer to the block log . Thank you. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. While the bulk of the notice is fine, if a bit strong-minded, I think the admonition that IPs may not post on Tarc's talk may be a bit problematic. We generally disallow editors from doing the "I don't accept comments from other users" thing on their talk - if you're editing Wikipedia, you're expected to be willing to discuss your edits. Obviously, socks, nemeses, and abuse accounts are excepted from this, but I'm not comfortable seeing someone say "hey, if you're an IP, I'm not willing to discuss with you." If that bit is changed or removed, though, I see no reason Tarc shouldn't be allowed to keep the rest of this edit notice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't on his talk page, however, it was on a sub page that you could only find (as far as I can tell) by combing his contribs. And I disagree with you a bit on this.  It is difficult for me to tell him who has to talk to, or to censor his opinion about talking to IPs as that statement is actually pretty neutrally worded.  If he said "If you are a Canadian, don't post here." then I would agree as it being inflammatory but IPs are pretty broad based and not a nationality, race, gender or religion. I don't like it, but this is the same logic that many, many people use when requesting, and getting, semi-protection on their talk pages, and in this case, vandalism was the cause.  But again, this isn't even a talk page.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note, this is an edit notice, which means it shows up at the top of the page when anyone edits his talk page (ie. leaves a comment).  Equazcion  ( talk )  00:25, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well not exactly buried; it is an EditNotice, which pops up whenever you come edit the talk page. To Fluffernutter, really, how is it much different from admins who permanently semi their own talk pages?  They are prevented from commenting at those pages absolutely, mine is just a verbal shoo'ing. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I don't use those, so I stand corrected on that point. Doesn't change my other points, however.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  02:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the past few comments, especially the notation that you can semi-protect your user talkpage… if you do not wish for IP editors to post to your user talkpage, you can request semi-protection, and, therefore, eliminate the need to say “You're not welcome here!”, which needlessly engages in the risk of offending other editors. Semi-protection is a more powerful and more peaceful way to do it, rather than yelling at others and expecting them to listen. This applies especially to disruptive IPs, who will only be *more* likely to make disruptive posts in response to such a message. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC), last modified 00:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. I guess my response to the question of how it differs from an indef semi is twofold. First, I sort of assumed that anyone with a long-term semi on their user talk would have a sub-page intended for IP/non-confirmed comments. I know I've seen some of these around, and if it's not actually the case that that's a standard, I guess my response would be "it's not different; I don't particularly approve of either of those, maybe we should change that?." Second, though, is the sense that "You! Yes, you! I am hereby assuming that you are an account owner editing logged out, and I will be treating you as such!" is a bit different, approach-wise, than a basic "You're not autoconfirmed and cannot edit this page." There's an extra quantity of bad faith in your "comment using your account" thing that's not there in a semi notice, I think. Certainly it could be way worse than it is, but I would still be happier if you'd soften it up somehow. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, WP:UPROT only states that "should ideally have an unprotected user talk subpage linked", but it doesn't require that the subpage exist. That said - I agree that the one sentence is my only concern with the edit notice.  At the least, it should be rephrased to be less confrontational. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tarc. Someone snow this pig, since Cracker's now been blocked and has an SPI going. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - disruptive filing by questionable editor. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the messages to IPs contained in the edit notice reflects poorly on its author, but he is entitled to his opinion and there is no policy driven reason to delete it, so Keep. Monty  845  02:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Basically harmless, and reflective of Wiki-reality. Nomination appears to be an attempt at retribution by editor who admits abusing using multiple accounts but won't reveal past account names. Recommend a CU take a look, and report whether the previous account names were disruptive or not (if not, those names can be keep private). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Virtually harmless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lets you know what to expect. You can chose to ignore it.  You're alerted to  the possible outcome.  I think the "no IPs" message is misguided, and overall it's not to my taste, but so what?--Shirt58 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am quite shocked at the responses here. I feel sorry for anyone who might see that edit notice, where their only experience of Wikipedia so far is an introduction to WP:5P. I wonder if it would make any difference if the image was real colour or even animated, and maybe had a soundtrack too. I wonder if there is even a limit as to how offensive it could be, before someone would eventually draw the line. What if it was a basic FUCK YOU message, rather than a picture representation of that sentiment? Truly dismayed, I really am, especially as there's actually admins listed in here voting keep. And the IP message is even more of a clear cut violation to me - imagine not even having registered, and finding yourself needing to talk with Tarc? What possible reason would there be for you to stick around and maybe eventually register then? Someone mentions Wikipedia reality above - well, the current reality is declining participation. Does the endorsement of this edit notice's basic sentiment affect that in a good way, or a bad way? Is it worth reducing the editor base to sub-critical levels, just to allow those who are left, freedom of expression? Cracker92 (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read through this in it's entirety, then re-read it then look at your comment and if you cannot see how your comment makes no sense on here then repeat until you see how the comment makes no sense. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.