Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

A request for comment on the indexing of userspace. Gigs (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the question?
Should User and User_talk namespaces be allowed to be indexed by search engines like Google?

Desired outcome
A consensus on whether the User and User_talk namespaces should be indexed by search engines.

Related discussions
This RFC merges several discussions:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Search_engine_indexing
 * Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not
 * Village_pump_(policy)


 * Feel free to add any relevant discussions you may be aware of, signing your addition

Statements
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Summary

 * Userspace pages should be indexed by default, with material the community disapproves of being removed (status quo)
 * Statements: Xeno, Kim Bruning, Beetstra, Ned Scott


 * Userspace pages should be noindexed by default, with optional indexing via INDEX tags
 * Statements: Gigs, Jennavecia, Stmrlbs, Peter jackson


 * Userspace pages should be noindexed by default, with user pages remaining indexed
 * Statements: BullRangifer


 * Userspace pages should be noindexed, without the option of indexing
 * Statements: Rd232


 * Other
 * Statements:
 * LtPowers (add disclaimer to userspace pages)
 * Davidwr (Wikimedia should tell Google to treat parts of Wikipedia as a blog, not as an encylopedia)
 * MZMcBride (just some generic thoughts for consideration)

Statement by Xeno
Google's purpose is to index the internet and provide a useful search tool. If we have content we don't want The Internet finding, we should remove it entirely, not hide it from Google - that's more like sweeping the problem under the rug.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) –xenotalk  18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) There is nothing wrong with being able to find Wikipedia editors in Google, the userpage is to inform people who they are.  If the information there is promotional, then it gets deleted, just as when information in mainspace gets deleted when it is promotional.  Should we hence also NOINDEX mainspace?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)   Skomorokh  19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) To much useful stuff in the userspace that needs to be easy to find to make no indexing viable.©Geni 20:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Agreed that if we don't want people to find it, it shouldn't exist on the site at all. As for things like BLP article drafts, it would make more sense to just have a requirement that they be noindexed individually. Who are we to decide that no one will ever have a valid reason to search userspace? Mr.Z-man 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Certainly obvious to me.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) It is not our job to second-guess what people are looking for. Noindex-ing individual user pages is fine, but not as a general rule. We are a free content project, including the behind-the-scenes stuff, and we should not put restrictions on reuse. I wouldn't mind marking non-encyclopedia pages more clearly, such as a different background color. --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Search tools are for searching.  R. Baley (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) JoshuaZ (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) -- Ned Scott 05:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) MER-C 08:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Yes, and usually it doesn't matter if someone can use google to find something in userspace, as long as it is clear that what they have found is not part of the encyclopedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Endorse Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 17)   Fei noh a   Talk, My master 22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Yes, but I'm more concerned about attempts by wikipedians to hide "internal business" from search engines a la Search engine indexing, the adoption of which would be a travesty. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gigs
The current practice at WP:MfD allows far too much leniency in user space to allow indexing: POV versions of articles (previously deleted, or never in mainspace), "pseudoarticles", often promotional, that have little to no chance of ever going into mainspace, and often what amount to personal home pages. Additionally, many people were under the incorrect impression that userspace was already not indexed. Therefore, I propose that user space should not be indexed by default, and should rather opt-in using INDEX tags. The list of user pages that are indexed could then be monitored.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Gigs (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  لenna  vecia  18:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Unomi (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  19:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Powers T 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9)  iride  scent  20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Blurpeace (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) -- &#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  ssn&#596;s&#305;p 21:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Hans Adler 00:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) stmrlbs | talk  02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Peter jackson (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Kevin (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) WP:NOTBLOG. Rd232 (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) --Cybercobra (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Yes, Google may be an index of the internet, but just as webmasters can opt out of having their sites or specific pages indexes, so too should Wikipedia opt out of Userpage indexing. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) This would create much less pressure to remove borderline userspace pages.--Aervanath (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Readers of Wikipedia have no need to find results of peoples user page or talk page via Google. If they really want to look up a person (highlu doubt it!), they may do so via Wikipedia (we can't hide the userpage after all!). Hence strong agree with Gigs.Calaka (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Perhaps we should be stricter with bad stuff in userspace, or expect it to be blanked when inactive for a long time, or allow users private space for their work, but until any of that happens, Gigs' idea is readily workable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Endorse, with a caveat that not everyone should have INDEX rights--see my comments below. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Yes, but preferrably __ INDEX__ should not work in user space at all, just as __ NOINDEX__ doesn't currently work in main space.  Amalthea  13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) --Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here  02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Slight preference to allow index'ing, but the main thing is noindexing all pages in user and user-talk space by default. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jennavecia
You don't have to open all of your closet doors when you have company over. Not every page on Wikipedia needs to be indexed. When readers do searches, they are surely not looking for pages in user space. Considering the purpose of Wikipedia user talk pages, there doesn't seem a valid reason we should want them showing up in Google. Additionally, user pages are for internal use. We have specific guidelines about what user pages should be used for, and they should not be of interest to anyone outside of Wikipedia. Considering the amount of personal information often contained on user pages, it's further reason they should not be indexed by default. Furthermore, user subpages can contain any number of things, including BLP drafts that have been userfied from the main space after failing to meet inclusion criteria, for whatever reason. We don't need such BLPs showing up in searches. Wikipeida is not known as a particularly reliable source based on its articles. Thus, why then would we want readers led to user subpage articles from Google? Default noindex for all user space pages.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  لenna  vecia  19:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  19:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Powers T 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  iride  scent  20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) The "Not Myspace" rule should apply to indexing - we would only distract from being an encyclopedia if we start equating non-encyclopedia content with encyclopedia content. I doubt Wikipedia needs people to use their User page as an easy to find home page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) --stmrlbs | talk  03:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)# ~
 * 9) Agree with the conclusion, but not the argument. I oppose optout systems on principle, but support free choice to opt in. Peter jackson (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) - Kevin (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) --JBC3 (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) -- &#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  ssn&#596;s&#305;p 21:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) --Cybercobra (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Well said --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Agree. If users want to bare thier souls, they should be able to opt in with a tag or template, but by default, this should not happen.  bahamut0013  words  deeds   05:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Exactly. The userpages are for internal use only.--Aervanath (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Agree. This should be about the encyclopaedia, not the drama, trash, drafts and opinions which surround its creation. Just because some other chatrooms and discussion forums can be and are searched by Google does not mean we should have that as well. More likely to bring WP into disrepute to those who clicked on userspace articles so indexed. Those who really want it know how to search WP already. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Yes, as long as users may opt-in for indexing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * # Except I actually don't think users should even be allowed to index their user pages. Tempshill (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)  Changing my vote to Rd232's below now that I see mandatory no-indexing is an option.  Tempshill (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, but preferrably __ INDEX__ should not work in user space at all, just as __ NOINDEX__ doesn't currently work in main space.  Amalthea  13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) –  Toon 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, and I don't agree that users should be able to opt-in. --LilHelpa (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, without the choice to opt in, on the likelihood the wrong people will use it. DGG (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MZMcBride
A few points to consider:
 * 1) Extreme views rarely work
 * 2) * Some people have called for indexing only the article namespace, which is a great idea until you consider things like files, categories, and portals. And, hey, is it really necessary to block Google from indexing "Assume good faith" or "Ignore all rules" when these ideas have permeated our culture?
 * 3) * Even when discussing only the user space, this isn't an all-or-none battle. More creative options might include removing user subpages from indexes, but leaving the root pages. (I've always found it a bit odd to see my sandboxes in search results, personally.)
 * 4) Local decisions are local
 * 5) * Even if it is decided to remove all User: pages from search engine indexes, it does not impact the other wikis and sites that contain similar content. In fact, it will push the "less important" content up in the results. (Meta user pages, Commons user pages, etc.)
 * 6) There's not an expectation of privacy on a public website
 * 7) * Some have tried to claim that users are posting material on their user pages and are (seemingly) surprised when the content reappears in search engine results. The English Wikipedia is one of the most indexed, crawled, and visited sites in the world. No user should ever think they can post information on a public website and expect it to stay private.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) MZMcBride (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Well said. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Quite.   Skomorokh  14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Have never understood the concern that if someone uses their real name we should then protect them from whatever Googlable information is found using the same. –xenotalk  14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) True -- though I can imagine cases where a user-chooseable "noindex" would be utile (such as pages used for compiling ArbCom evidence etc. which likely should only be available through WP directly) rather than automatically removing all subpages from indexing.  Collect (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9)   Fei noh a   Talk, My master 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Protonk (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer
I propose a middle of the road solution:


 * 1. Userpages remain INDEXed (as now) with the following condition:


 * Any content on the userpage that is deemed in violation of policy (depending on the policy) should either be totally removed, or moved to a subpage. (which is the current state of affairs)


 * 2. All user talk and subpages be NOINDEXed. (this is a change)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Brangifer (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  04:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC) for number 2 only. As userspace has a bigger leeway in terms of what is acceptable and what isn't, number 1 seems un-doable.
 * 3) Endorse #2 only, as I think  userpages should be NOINDEX'ed as well.

Statement by LtPowers
As I brought up on the talk page:

Might we be able to implement some sort of prominent disclaimer box on userspace pages that clearly states "This is NOT part of the encyclopedia; don't believe anything you read here" or something of that sort? This could apply only if we decide to index user pages, or even if we decide not to, since (as Gigs pointed out on the talk page) some sites mirror and index our user pages.

-- Powers T 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) If this becomes policy (indexing vs noindexing), shouldn't the Template:Userpage be made a default in all of userspace by a modification of the software? I'd think that would be a good thing.
 * 2) I support the use of this disclaimer, but do not support the descision to index user pages 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) --stmrlbs | talk  18:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I support the use of a disclaimer, regardless of whether the User space is indexed or not (I am for NOINDEX as the default) because of mirroring.  I also agree that the only way to do this is with some kind of wikipedia software implementation where it would automatically be done for any user page since there are currently  registered users.  That is not counting the IPs that edit.  An optional "the editors can do this on their own" implementation isn't going to work with over 9 million editors.  --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  18:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Good idea no matter what. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Endorse. We already have userpage and usertalk, both of which I've recently posted on my pages.  Any basepages in the User: or User talk: namespaces could then automatically be rendered by the software as including those templates, as appropriate. I would also recommend the creation of a template, usersubpage, which would automatically be added to subpages in those namespaces.--Aervanath (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes. And agree with Aervanath. Rd232 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse. -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Stmrlbs
I will state again what I added to the main statement with some added comments - my proposal is basically the same as Gigs, but with more detail as to the reasons why I think User Pages should not be indexed:

When people google for information, the results from the user pages are intermingled with the results from the Main space, or main articles. To the average user on the internet, all results from Wikipedia will be assumed to be results from the "encyclopedia" - this is especially true of User articles that have similar structure to a regular Wikipedia Main article. These User articles can be anything.. they can be very biased, or selling something - they can be anything because they are not governed by the same rules as the articles on Main Space. But, to a person just googling, they see "wikipedia" and will assume this is an encyclopedic entry put out by Wikipedia. This does not do anything to help Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable resource.

The other problem with indexing User pages is that because these User pages are on Wikipedia, they get "prime" ranking along with wikipedia, based not on their own content, but based on the importance of Wikipedia in general. In essence, this gives User pages a "free ride" on Wikipedia's back to the first page of Google results. This invites abuse - top ranking on Google is a hot hot commodity.

Wikipedia has a real problem with keeping spam out. Allowing Google to index User Pages where users can do their own thing invites pages promoting/selling all kinds of things.. people put their resumes on Wikipedia, promote their favorite companies, issues, whatever - and why not? Why bother with a blog when you can get top ranking with a Wikipedia User page? This is only because Wikipedia allows indexing of User pages. Take a look at Template listing of User pages that have a high probability of spam/personal use. Here is an example of a resume found with one of these searches. Even with the addition of NOFOLLOW to external links, this does not prevent click thru of the existing external links in User pages once people find User pages through Google (and other search engines).

If Wikipedia did not allow indexing of User pages, there would be no incentive for using the User pages for spam or other promotional reasons, because these pages would no longer appear in Google. In addition, there would be no need to police the User space. Who has the # time to do this? The effort to keep spam off Wikipedia should be concentrated on the Main space. It is a waste of time to spend so much time monitoring User space when it would take 5 minutes to change the robots.txt file to not allow indexing of User Space.

The problem with Automatic indexing of User pages and saying that Users can put on their pages to take them out of Google, is because the Users that are abusing Wikipedia to get high ranking in google are not going to be the users that put. It is like letting the fox guard the henhouse.

Therefore, I propose (as others have) to make NOINDEX the default for User pages. If a User page needs to be in google for whatever reason, then allow a user to use. This would allow monitoring of those User pages that are in Google. This will also allow Users freedom to do what they want with their user pages without compromising Wikipedia in Google.

--<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Right on the money. -- <span style="color:#996600;font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">&#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  <font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">ssn&#596;s&#305;p 05:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with the conclusion but not the argument. Peter jackson (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) This is the statement that I meant to write but didn't have time for. In response to Kim Bruning: The reward argument also makes sense, but under the present proposal nobody will complain if a serious contributor adds the INDEX template to their user page. The point of this proposal is to minimise the danger of accidental exposure, e.g. when a real name account gets a nasty block message on their user page, and deny plausible deniability to spammers. If a user space POV fork has the INDEX tag it's much easier to draw a conclusion about the motivation. Hans Adler 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  لenna  vecia  14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC) With the caveat that I think that NOINDEXing the userspace does not excuse us from dilligent patrolling of that userspace.  We still should not allow spam anywhere.
 * 6) Agree totally. Sorry, but I really don't buy that "reward" argument. You can see just how little "recognition" is a motivator here, by looking at just how few people edit under their own names. – iride  scent  22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorse: quite persuavively written.--Aervanath (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC).  As per Jclemens, if the INDEX tag is limited to say, editors eligible to vote in arbcom elections, I'd be happy. [User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Preventing abuse and our reputation trump "we have nothing to hide" (which Jennavecia took care of nicely with her closet door analogy). HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Endorse -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  20:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Sort of if the INDEX tag is limited to a smaller group than autoconfirmed users.  I'd be OK with limiting it to a higher threshold but short of administrators, like was proposed with flagged revisions, because we must maintain the cost as "too high" to attract most spammers.  Making people do a thousand edits over a month or more would serve that purpose just fine. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Partial endorsement on condition that userpage indexing be limited to experienced users, for example 10,000 edits. We can assume that an editor who has invested that much effort here is relatively safe. The thought of receiving the right to have one's userpage indexed can be a motivator to achieve that high degree of investment in this project. It becomes a reward, and should be noted with a banner or button that is automatically sent to the user when the edit counter reaches the magic number. Wikimedia corp. really should do more to reward editors for their achievements. Right now it happens totally on private initiative in a hit or miss manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Yes, but preferrably __ INDEX__ should not work in user space at all, just as __ NOINDEX__ doesn't currently work in main space.  Amalthea  13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 17)  with a preference for not having it work for anyone at all. DGG (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Peter jackson
Wikipedia is not a reliable source: it says so itself, so it must be true. Readers should be positively discouraged from regarding it as such. The argument that user pages shoould not be indexed because they're not reliable is invalid. I'd claim that the material in my own user space, consisting mostly of quotations from scholarly sources, is actually more reliable than a lot of articles. I don't see why it shouldn't be indexed. However, I'm opposed to optout systems on principle, as a tax on apathy, so I support changing the default but allowing people to opt in.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) (agree with the analysis, disagree with the conclusion) JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kim Bruning
People who contribute to wikipedia obtain reputation as their reward. This reputation spills over into things like google results. This proposal will deny this form of reward, and chase away many skilled contributors.

Like many open source and open content projects, Wikipedia doesn't provide a monetary reward to the majority of its contributors. However, the GFDL and CC-BY licenses both reward people by requiring that their names are attached to their work, and thus reward reputation.

A user page is part of the semantics that provide the reward portion of our open content licensing.

While we don't actually earn Whuffies here, and no one quite lives the life of Manfred Macx (except maybe User:Jimbo Wales?), I've found that on-line reputation does actually help a lot in the real world too. In my own case, it has gotten me support or jobs I otherwise would not have had access to, and (since the jobs are all wiki-related) it allows me to gain experience and do things that help wikipedia directly, or at least indirectly.

While I'm sure most folks here don't care one whit about whether their fellow wikipedians or wikimedians starve or not in these financially harrowing times :-P; I'm pretty sure that you'll be less happy if certain folks who are maintaining and creating support infrastructure for wikipedia stop doing so, and instead start a promising career as burger-flip-engineers.

So in summary: By removing indexing from user pages, you are denying reputation to people. Some people who rely on that reputation to support wikipedia will have more trouble doing so in future. Please at least allow people to have their own user pages indexed.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --Spot on. Antandrus  (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak agreement. I'm not convinced that people would stop working if they couldn't have their pages be indexed but the basic point is valid. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Totally. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Indeed a weak argument, as it is the same argument for those who are here to promote themselves.  But basic point is valid.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7)   Fei noh a   Talk, My master 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Agreed - Assume good faith is one of our principles.  Rules should be for valuable good faith editors (the vast majority) first, for crooks and spammers second.  Thank you Kim, for assuming we are the former, not the latter.  And the very licenses we use guarantee credit for contributions. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Beetstra
MASSIVE WP:BEANS warning!

The search Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:INDEX counts at this moment 11 entries in userspace (soon to be 12, and more to come).

Purely as an example, say that User:XXXXX now has promotional material on their userpage, and User:YYYYY now does not have promotional material on their userpage. Our smart spammer XXXXX has however added INDEX to his userpage (so he can be found by Google!), and smart user YYYYY has added it, but has not added promotional material .. yet. So in a first scan we remove the index of the first (but leave it on the second, no inappropriate information, right?). However, in a later go, he could turn it into promotional material.

Now we have only 11 .. what if we have 5000 .. or 99.708 (less than one procent of the current registered users, and then they may have numerous subpages ...). Scan them all on a regular basis? Yes, the ones with a clearly promotional username are easy to be found (but some good accounts have a COI-username), but others have a seemingly normal name but are only here to promote.

In other words, noindexing has absolutely no effect, setting up a proper system to remove and delete promotional material (and not userfying promotional material but ask for a rewrite from scratch) would help much more. Do we really believe that spammers will not be able to circumvent this (and do they have to? Do all search engines follow Google's example of not following noindexed pages; what about creating a non-indexed userpage and saying on other webpages 'find our free webpage on Wikipedia!'; or wait until your page gets mirrored on a site that does not noindex)? I would suggest that the people who do spend some time following our wikiproject on spam, seeing how inventive (indexing is easy) and persistent (do something harmless or good now, come back in 2 months or 2 years, or simple readd and readd and readd until someone gets enough of it) spammers (SEO's) can be (it's their job to sell).

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 22:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Spammers could also use __INDEX__ directly, and it would be even harder to track.
 * 3) Yes, we create a new problem. And the people we have to chase have greater exposure all the while, the other chaff being thrown aside to ensure only the spammy stuff gets out there. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  07:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) True. MER-C 09:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, but solveable.  Only allow userspace of users meeting certain contribution thresholds to opt in for INDEX.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rd232
A lot of the problems arising from NOINDEXing by default and allowing optional INDEXing can be solved very simply: NOINDEX userspace pages by default, and leave it at that. Tweak the software so that __INDEX__ doesn't apply to userspace. Justification: userspace isn't properly part of Wikipedia, and isn't (and can't be and to a large extent shouldn't be) systematically monitored for inappropriate content, and shouldn't benefit from Wikipedia's pagerank (WP:NOTBLOG etc). It will prevent spam and prevent drafts appearing in searches, etc.

Most examples of useful userspace pages that the community can agree should be indexed can either be accommodated within Wikipedia namespace, or don't really need to be indexed in order to provide their benefit (and to the extent that they do - WP:NOTBLOG!). Sure, a few pages may suffer, but no solution is perfect, and this solution certainly is simple and easy to grasp. Furthermore, it is what very many editors and readers expect already to be the case. It just makes sense. The previous reason for not doing this was basically about the failings of Wikipedia internal search, which I think has now been addressed to most people's satisfaction.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Rd232 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorsed, if opt-in becomes a problem, we have the option to never index anything in userspace. Gigs (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  18:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)  ditto what Gigs said.
 * 4)  لenna  vecia  22:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  iride  scent  22:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) - Kevin (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Very sensible --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) -- <span style="color:#996600;font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">&#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  <font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">ssn&#596;s&#305;p 21:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) --Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Exactly.--Aervanath (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Endorse; userspace is not encyclopedic.   Nu&beta;i&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;ch  Talk/contrib 09:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Endorse.  My preferred solution.  The indexing of user pages, now that everyone has been alerted, will be exploited by SEO companies and Wikipedia will inadvertently become a web hosting service; we editors can't be expected to police a hundred thousand user pages; that's not why we are here.  We are here to work on an encyclopedia.  Tempshill (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) snigbrook (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 17)  Amalthea  13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) LilHelpa (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott
We need to stop treating Wikipedia as an island. Myself and tons of other users work on multiple wiki sites, both within WikiMedia and outside, working both to import and export content. Hiding user pages and other non-content pages from Google hinders these kinds of cross-project collaborations. User pages also contain notes about editors who are renamed (non-controversial renames, of course, for proper attribution or if someone needs to contact the original author, etc), additional licensing information, areas of editing interest, and more; information that is being sought after outside of Wikipedia. Excluding user pages from Google neglects one of the reasons we have them in the first place: to find other editors for various reasons that pertain to improving Wikipedia.

edit: some clarification as requested. I'm a bit distracted at the moment, so pardon the cut and paste -- Ned Scott 07:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC) :

''Hi, this may be a valid issue, but I think you need to provide more information on how noindexing would cause those problems. Aren't these wiki sites using database dumps? Excluding userpages from those dumps doesn't seem to be an option, and certainly isn't affected by noindexing. And Wikipedia search will still be available for manual searches by users of those sites. Disembrangler (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)''
 * Some use database dumps, some export individual files using special:export, some just copy and paste then attribute via template or by copy/pasting the edit history to the talk page. Using Wikipedia search doesn't help the guy who's hunting down information that might have come from Wikipedia or not, but doesn't know ahead of time.


 * For example, lets say you are looking for the author of a userscript that you're using that just got broken on your wiki. Searching the name of that script will most likely lead you to their user page of the wiki they're most active on. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Ned Scott 05:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) This solution gives some (small) losses, and the gains are far from being total (as with the nofollow on external links, spamming still pays, also having your promotional page here will still pay).  Thé solution to remove the gain of having spammy external links here is to delete them, as is with promotional pages.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) This is far from the most important reason to keep userspace indexed, but significant nonetheless.  <font face="Goudy Old Style"> Skomorokh  13:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Antandrus  (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 21:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) -- Brangifer (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Could it be consistent with default NOINDEX for relative new users, default INDEX for experienced users?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I've come across users with >1500 and >99% of edits to their userpage. MER-C 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There's some big stuff in userspace! [].   --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)   Fei noh a   Talk, My master 23:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support the idea, but I have real trouble seeing the worth of userspace. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Davidwr
The Wikimedia Foundation should let Google and other search engines know that "quality" in different name-spaces may be different and should be treated as such. Specifically, certain parts of Wikipedia should be treated more like a blog than an encylopedia. Google may choose to modify its pagerank algorithm accordingly so non-article pages don't get good pagerank. This statement is independent of whether or not some, most, none, or all of user: and user_talk: space is indexed. (As a side note, and not part of this statement, search engines should realize that within article spaces, high-traffic, high-number-of-quality-inbound-link articles should be "ranked" higher than low-traffic, low-number-of-quality-inbound-link articles.) davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) -- Brangifer (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC) for a site as big as wikipedia, this should be done regardless of what decision is made here.  So, my endorsement is more for reevaluating what I assume Wikipedia already has in place (sitemap, as opposed to robots.txt)
 * 5) Good plan!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree, coming from a site that appears so consistently among the top results in their engine, Google should be willing to listen to this proposal.  Powers T 13:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7)  لenna  vecia  02:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Indeed. MER-C 07:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9)  Amalthea  13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
As near as I can figure, we are basically all positing that Internet users are too dumb or ignorant to figure out that pages starting with "User" are not actually part of the encyclopedia. And the solutions are all aimed at making material (euther all of userspace or some subset thereof) unavailable to outsiders. There is another way of approaching this -- simply educate those browsing that Userspace is not subject to the same constraints as are the actual encyclopedia articles. This can be done by forcing a "This is not an actual encyclopedia article" as a disclaimer at the top of every userpage, and, better still, by actually asking search engines to mark the pages found as "User Article" in their listings (technically I think this would only require that those words automatically precede the name of any such article as the "article title" in HTML?) Collect (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "ignorance" added Collect (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Endorse but it's ignorance not dumbness at play. I would go so far as to clearly label all non-article pages as such, at least for non-logged-in users. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse. However, it does not take away that the promotion may still work.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Check we have access to research resources. Ask the usability team at http://usability.wikimedia.org ?

Statement by user:Irbisgreif
Something that would give noindexing more teeth: for certain types of noindexed page (user pages, subpages, and talk pages) a simple captcha should be required to view the page if you are editing as an IP. This would push spiders away from those pages without hurting anonymous (human) users.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Irbisgreif (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by $USER
Add your statement, leave one copy of the section at the bottom.

Users who endorse this summary:

Collaborative Position Statements
''Designed to be edited collaboratively, by everyone who supports the position. New positions may be added freely, but please avoid unnecessary proliferation.''

Noindexing userspace, without optional indexing
Userspace contains many things which do not deserve the attention of the wider world. These include
 * (A) content which absolutely shouldn't exist on Wikipedia: spam and other violations of WP:NOTWEBHOST leaching off Wikipedia's high page rank.
 * (B) material which would not survive in article space for a variety of reasons, and possibly shouldn't be in userspace either (eg WP:BLP violations, or a deliberate maintenance of a povfork), but the material may well be in a grey area.
 * (C) various drafts and working material which are genuinely useful and should stay there - but which shouldn't necessarily appear in search engines either, or at least not rank very high.

Policing the large and growing userspace is difficult and time-consuming, and can only grow more so as more users join, and especially as more users join whose primary purpose isn't the creation of an encyclopedia, but instead the promotion of various external products, companies, websites, etc.

Noindexing is a somewhat accepted principle: user talk has been noindexed for over 6 months on English Wikipedia, and a variety of other parts of userspace are noindexed on some other language Wikipedias (German, Danish, Hebrew).

Pros
 * Solves the spam problem - spam may be still be created, but it no longer has any effect (i.e. it becomes just junk, rather than spam) - which has an obvious deterrent effect too.
 * Similarly solves the problem of various other content appearing externally which shouldn't
 * Requires no new bureaucracy or system of policing (just one software setting to change)

Cons
 * Mirrors which download userspace may still reflect spam and other unwanted material: existing efforts to police userspace must be maintained, since spam/junk will be reflected in some places (albeit generally with much lower page rankings than Wikipedia)
 * Some collateral damage - some useful userspace content may not be found via external search engines anymore (unless it's mirrored, which can't be relied on)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
Extended discussion should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Proposals
Based on the statements above and the lack of consensus for a more sweeping change, the following concrete proposals were formed.

Proposal 1: Make User: namespace NOINDEX, excluding it from search engines.

 * Support Gigs (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 23:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- <span style="color:#996600;font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">&#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  <font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">ssn&#596;s&#305;p 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support--very strong support actually. The discussions there are public,but not intended for other than internal purposes of running the encyclopedia DGG (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Kevin (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - and agreeing with DGG Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Now that Wikipedia's search engine is good enough for looking for userspace spam, I don't particularly care one way or the other. MER-C 09:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, per before, for all the POV forks, opinion pieces, and OR we explicitly allow in user space make it impossible to monitor them as we should, and to get rid of the ones that need be deleted. As a result, they often end up as top results in search engines . Amalthea  10:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those policies you listed only apply to ARTICLES and not USER PAGES.  Fei noh a   Talk, My master 15:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that's what I said. Amalthea  16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, well I must have misinterpreted what you wrote then. Thank you for clarifying.  Fei noh a   Talk, My master 18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, but don't be so sure that it is going to work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per comments above, DGG, et al. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose to much usefull stuf in the user namespace.©Geni 14:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - based on statements and concerns I stated previously, including the fact that indexing would only encourage Wikipedia becoming a myspace/home page and distract from it being an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support لenna  vecia  14:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Calaka (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see no problem in principle with allowing people to search these pages from a search engine. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Clean, simple solution to userpage spam which harms the encyclopedia not one whit. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support' no valid reason for indexing any user page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about makeing it posible to find stuff when you can't remeber exactly where it is?©Geni 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a lot of good stuff in user space.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. snigbrook (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It doesn't affect the site that much and we are told not to concern ourself with site performance issues.  Fei noh a   Talk, My master 17:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This proposal has nothing to do with performance. It is about user space content and whether we want this non-encyclopedic content with little oversight to appear in Google. Gigs (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Hans Adler 17:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. There is useful stuff there, and it does by no means solve the problem (it may make it smaller, but it is not totally gone).  It still needs to be deleted, and that is a much better solution.  Moreover, as my example on the talk shows, the google algorithm is much better than the internal algorithm, showing that when you do look for things, the internal engine is likely not sufficient.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (adapted --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Support. Wikipedia's internal search engine is more than adequate for searching userspace, and there is no valid reason I can think of for any page in userspace to be indexed by an external search engine, especially if such pages are indexed at the same level as (or higher than) mainspace articles. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · <small style=font-weight:normal>Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's search engine, however has been at times disabled by the devs, if this proposal is passed and the devs decide they need to disable the search engine... since user pages won't be indexed by a search engine... they will become almost impossible to find.  Fei noh a   Talk, My master 01:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. notblog, notwebhost, and I support being able to opt in with __INDEX__ if it really is that important Unomi (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTWEBHOST --Cybercobra (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 19:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. No reason for these to be on Google.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Law type!  snype? 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. --JBC3 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Per Stmrlbs in the archived discussion. Less important, but of note, also, that WP's footprint upon internet searches is an issue. Relevant to both the internal and external issues is the sheer number of users. Anarchangel (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: let's keep the non-encyclopedic stuff out of the public spotlight.  bahamut0013  words deeds   05:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose; optin. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support Allowing indexing is a recipe for user namespace soapboxing.LeadSongDog <font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support with the proviso that it should be opt-in. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose Unecessary, unhelpful and reduces transparency unecessarily. We don't do any harm by keeping them out. In any event, if we do this we should certainly allow people to opt in to have their userpages indexed. This will have the added advantage that it will give a signal to possible spam by looking at who has done so. If they are clearly promotional pages then we know. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * support as per the original RFC statements that i endorsed 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support User space is not encyclopedic. WP:NOTBLOG, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOT.  Nu&beta;i&alpha;&tau;&epsilon;ch  Talk/contrib 00:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and user pages are not part of it. -- Taku (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong-over-my-dead-body-oppose Google helps people find relevant content. Far more often than not, when someone reaches a userpage from a search it is intentional and isn't a violation of any of our policies or guidelines. Promotional userpages are easily dealt with via existing methods, and we've been far better than we have been in the past about dealing with them in a timely manner. Indexing userpages also allows for far greater open transparency, a fundamental value here at Wikipedia. Indexing is also important for those who are working on transwiking/cross collaboration with non Wikimedia-wikis. Internal search does not help people who are collaborating across multiple Wikis, and might not know which wiki to search from. They often need to find authors of content or technical experts, as well as willing volunteers to bring content both out of Wikipedia and into it.  Google is meant to find all of these things in addition to encyclopedic content. Google is not an educational-only search tool for one type of content. And no matter how good our internal search has gotten, it will never hold a candle to Google. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons given above and in the prior RFC, but provisionally: it should allow opt-in for indexing, see reasons in proposal 4 and 5, with a way to enforce this using the patrol feature. Cenarium (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we should clean up our mess, not hide it. Transparency is important, and spam should be simply deleted. Kusma (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is a move towards anonymising editors and their contributions. Not what the Wikipedia is about and contrary to the spirit (at least) of all copyleft licenses. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Craig Hicks (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not our job to second-guess what people are looking for. Noindex-ing individual user pages is fine, but not as a general rule. We are a free content project, including the behind-the-scenes stuff, and we should not put restrictions on reuse. I wouldn't mind marking non-encyclopedia pages more clearly, such as a different background color. User essays are especially likely to be searched for. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Garion96 (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Irbisgreif (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.Sjö (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Will decrease spamming on user pages.
 * Support. I've been focusing on speedy deletions for advertising and promotion in userspace, and I've had lots to do, every day.  I've become convinced that no matter how careful I am, no matter where I draw the line, there's no way to avoid losing some good potential contributors when I delete, and no way to avoid giving some readers the impression that we have no quality control over gratuitous promotionalism and advertising when I don't delete.  The only fix is to noindex.  I could live with either allowing or disallowing opt-in indexing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Though I don't think that this will 'solve' any spam problems. NOFOLLOW didn't solve EL spamming. Protonk (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Mak e User_talk: namespace NOINDEX, excluding it from search engines.

 * Please note this is the status quo, i.e. user talk is currently not indexed with opt-in available. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Gigs (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Moot (is already the case) --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (adapted --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I should note that this change was done without any discussion and doesn't reflect any real consensus on Wikipedia. It is far from moot, because what we decide here dictates that setting. -- Ned Scott 03:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In case this is a re-vote for that decision. Support. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Support  –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC) switch to "Oppose" (or rather, would like to see them re-indexed), per Ned Scott's rationale which I hadn't previously considered. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  16:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- <span style="color:#996600;font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">&#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  <font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">ssn&#596;s&#305;p 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support--even stronger support actually. The discussions there are public,but not intended for other than internal purposes of running the encyclopedia. Most of what is there is of very temporary interest indeed at the Wikipedia search engine does it well enough.  DGG (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Kevin (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - and again I would like to reinforce what DGG has said about this. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. MER-C 09:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Amalthea  10:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per comments above, DGG, et al. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Opppose To much important wikipedia history in the user:talk namespace is badly indexed within wikipiedia.©Geni 14:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - based on statements and concerns I stated previously, including the fact that indexing would only encourage Wikipedia becoming a myspace/home page and distract from it being an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. لenna  vecia  14:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Calaka (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see no problem in principle with allowing people to search these pages from a search engine. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support For the same reasons as I support proposal 1: clean, simple solution to userspace spam that does no harm to tne encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support same as above - userspace should not be indexed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Antandrus (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. snigbrook (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I believe this is the status quo, and it certainly makes sense. Hans Adler 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Same as above, WP's search is more than good enough. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · <small style=font-weight:normal>Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Actual discussions can be enlightening Unomi (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support User talk is completely irrelevant to anyone looking for encyclopedia info. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: no reason these should be on Google, either.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Law type!  snype? 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. --JBC3 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Per Stmrlbs in the archived discussion. Less important, but of note, also, that WP's footprint upon internet searches is an issue. Relevant to both the internal and external issues is the sheer number of users. Anarchangel (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: let's keep the non-encyclopedic stuff out of the public spotlight.  bahamut0013  words deeds   05:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: this is the only forum left for blocked users; if they want it publicized by optin, & if Google or whoever want to include it, then I don't think Wikipedia should barricade communication between the 2. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support: if only to avoid soapboxing —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs)
 * Support No obvious reason why it should be indexed. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per DGG 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty much the rational as my comments for user pages, with some slight changes: Google helps people find relevant content. Far more often than not, when someone reaches a userpage from a search it is intentional and isn't a violation of any of our policies or guidelines. Promotional and/or inappropriate userpages are easily dealt with via existing methods, and we've been far better than we have been in the past about dealing with them in a timely manner. Indexing userpages also allows for far greater open transparency, a fundamental value here at Wikipedia. No one should ever be posting something on Wikipedia that they consider private or that they don't want the world to know. Even with comments, when you click "save page" you've not only posted it, you've given everyone in the world to do just about whatever they want with it, even make a profit.  So why on earth would anyone think that what is said on Wikipedia stays on Wikipedia?  Indexing is also important for those who are working on transwiking/cross collaboration with non Wikimedia-wikis. Internal search does not help people who are collaborating across multiple Wikis, and might not know which wiki to search from. They often need to find authors of content or technical experts, as well as willing volunteers to bring content both out of Wikipedia and into it.  Google is meant to find all of these things in addition to encyclopedic content. Google is not an educational-only search tool for one type of content. And no matter how good our internal search has gotten, it will never hold a candle to Google (This is especially true for discussions!) -- Ned Scott 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Google ain't the only search engine out there. eg. Bing_(search_engine). Why force people to use a particular engine? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Irbisgreif (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I think the status quo is perfect.  --Bobak (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.Sjö (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Will decrease spamming om user talk pages.
 * Support. Same reason as in Proposal #1. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Make User/Subpages NOINDEX, excluding them from search engines.

 * Support Gigs (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- <span style="color:#996600;font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">&#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  <font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">ssn&#596;s&#305;p 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support--the strongest of all, because this is where peopler keep rejected articles. What's the point of deleting them if they remain indexable? DGG (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Kevin (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - as DGG suggests, this can be used as a way around AfDs and again, these are not intended to be part of our encyclopedic content. Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral per my comment in 1. MER-C 09:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, as an extension of #1. . Amalthea  10:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per comments above; too much of an incentive to harbor POV forks and userfied *bad* content. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose Again to much useful stuff in them.©Geni 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - based on statements and concerns I stated previously, including the fact that indexing would only encourage Wikipedia becoming a myspace/home page and distract from it being an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. لenna  vecia  14:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edward321 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Calaka (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see no problem in principle with allowing people to search these pages from a search engine. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The best option, it removes the incentive to spam in userspace entirely, as 1 or 2 alone will simply force spammers into the index'ed space. Also has some BLP benefits, and lets us prioritize speedy patrolling on mainspace, like it should be. Jclemens (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per above; absolutely no valid reason to index these pages. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's useful stuff in user subpages, and it ain't the end of the world if Google finds it. Antandrus  (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. snigbrook (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Hans Adler 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, there still is useful stuff there, and it does not solve the problem (it may make it smaller, but it is not gone at all), it is only a less incentive to remove the rubbish that still needs to be removed. Moreover, google algorithm is stronger than the internal search engine (see talkpage), so you may not find things in userspace when you are explicitly looking for them.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (adapted --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Support. Same as above, with more emphasis on my concern regarding spamming search results with deleted content, POV forks, outright spam, etc. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · <small style=font-weight:normal>Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia's Google-juice should not be abused for promotional purposes. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support but why isn't there a same proposal for User talk/subpages to match this User/subpages one? - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: I think that the User talk/subpages should be NOINDEXed, as well.--Aervanath (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Law type!  snype? 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Per DGG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. --JBC3 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Per Stmrlbs in the archived discussion. Less important, but of note, also, that WP's footprint upon internet searches is an issue. Relevant to both the internal and external issues is the sheer number of users. Anarchangel (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: let's keep the non-encyclopedic stuff out of the public spotlight.  bahamut0013  words deeds   05:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose; optin. Peter jackson (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: deter/devalue soapboxing —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs)
 * Support: popular place for work in progress articles, so obvious value in not including in google searches. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support strongly, per DGG 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the number of useful and relevant essays, subprojects, userscripts, technical tools, and other such subpages commonly found in userspace far outnumber any problematic pages. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Spam WILL be posted to Wikipedia regardless of whether the pages are indexed or not. And not indexing these pages is saying that ALL USER PAGES = SPAM!  Fei noh a   Talk, My master 07:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If spam is posted on WP userspace when it's noindexed, it will have no effect. That's kind of the point. Rd232 talk 11:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Unomi (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This is the only one of these proposals I actually support. Subpages contain experimental and other material that should not be delivered out of context. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose User essays, for example. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Irbisgreif (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Sjö (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) This is where people keep "work in progress" and deleted articles, i.e. stuff that isn't (yet) fit to be published.
 * Support. Same reason as in Proposal #1. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Allow users to opt-in to bypass the NOINDEX, with a template or with __INDEX__

 * Support --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 23:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC) - conditional.  I think at the very least, the user should have to document why they want their User page indexed.
 * Support --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support if above NOINDEXING proposals carry, else moot. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- <span style="color:#996600;font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">&#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  <font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">ssn&#596;s&#305;p 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Family Size Max Strength Oppose - there is no demonstrated need to index anything on external search engines (Wikipedia search is fine now), and optional indexing either (a) makes indexing happen by the backdoor or (b) requires vast effort to (probably unsuccessfully) police it. Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is letting people use the very high grank our articles get for self-publicity. DGG (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose would give spammers a target - Kevin (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've seen such pages clearly used for self-publicity, & I agree spamming could be a problem - why should it be necessary in any case? Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. MER-C 09:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. Unmaintainable and unsupervisable. Amalthea  10:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support subject to development of easy maintenance and supervision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support assuming there's a way of controlling this, per SmokeyJoe. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional support if it's possible to disable __INDEX__ and restrict the use to a template, which may be monitored. The creation of a simple guideline for what is appropriate to be indexed would make it fairly simple to enforce. لenna  vecia  14:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edward321 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OpposeCalaka (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - If any of proposals 1, 2 & 3 pass, there should be an option so users can continue to allow these pages to be searched for normally. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm OK with wikiproject space being indexable, but not individual userspace. It should never have been indexed in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support if any of the above proposals pass. Too much useful stuff by long-term contributors; we're throwing out not just one baby, but an entire nursery, with the bathwater. Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose shouldn't be index, and shouldn't be allowed; only encourages WP:USER violations
 * Oppose. "Please, come use our bandwidth and ride our Google-rank coattails for your conspiracy theories and business ventures!" I don't think so. Powers T 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Some users have pages for which indexing makes sense. I think it's not a big problem if this feature is abused, since we can deal with the situation: For a user who adds an INDEX tag to a pseudo-article it's much less plausible to deny that they are using user space for spamming than with the status quo. Hans Adler 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Where there is a user-controlled mechanism for opting out of noindexing userspace, there is potential for massive abuse, and such potential won't be lost on those with a specific objective in mind. If any such mechanism is to be provided, it should be in the form of a MediaWiki page where specific requests must be made and reviewed by the community. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · <small style=font-weight:normal>Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Cybercobra (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose for most of the oppose reasons already stated before me. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 19:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: WP:NOTWEBHOST, yadda yadda yadda; anything which HAS to be on Google can be put on another website.--Aervanath (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Law type!  snype? 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per DGG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --JBC3 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Stmrlbs in the archived discussion, and DGG above. Anarchangel (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: if a userpage is being abused for self-promotion, then we take it to MfD. But some editors are quite proud of thier contributions and should be able to show that to the world if they so choose.  bahamut0013  words deeds   05:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.  Brangifer (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Why do we need more WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, and WP:WEBHOST? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs)
 * Strong support - I'd like to opt in myself and as long as these pages can be adequately policed for userspace compliance, I don't see the problem. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * support JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * conditional support per stmrlbs and smokey joe 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Regulars at MfD will know that we easily take care of promo userpages. They are rarely a problem, at least in context to other issues on the site. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support We need exemptions for wmf officials, for public relationship reasons, and to a lesser extent other high-ranking positions. I don't see strong reasons to disallow users in good-standing from indexing their userpage either. Of course it's easy to monitor the template use, but not so easy for the INDEX magic word, because the search can't manage "_", I made a bug request for that. See also in proposal 5, a way to enforce that by only allowing opt-in for indexing for pages marked as patrolled. Cenarium (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We should be able to do this with some kind of database report, anyway. Cenarium (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, if above proposals pass. Everybody should have the right to decide the future of their page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, of course. No reason to be paranoid and assuming bad faith. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Irbisgreif (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sjö (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) This can and will be used by those who want to promote themselves or their agenda.

Proposal 5: If there is consensus for opt-in indexing, should there be a threshold for usage, like autoconfirmation.

 * Comment: Probably not automagically enforceable without changes to the software. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Manual confirmation and/or automatic (if feasible) -- <span style="color:#996600;font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">&#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  <font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">ssn&#596;s&#305;p 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - threshold for usage: admin - because there is just that little justification for externally indexing anything in userspace and that much potential for abuse. Moot though as would require a software change not likely to happen on any useful timescale. Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral a specialized user right for this won't ever be implemented. Amalthea  10:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, if automagically enforced and readily internally indexed to monitor and weed out gamers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per extension of my comments in previous section. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. This is mostly only in spirit, as I agree with Amalthea in that this will never be implemented into the software. However, were it possible, the best option would be administrative indexing only. لenna  vecia  14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edward321 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As I don't like the idea of "noindexing" in the first place, requiring a threshold to opt out would be ill advised in my opinion. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support although I agree with those that note the difficulty (technically and politically) of implementing such a solution. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, required if Proposal 4 passes. The exact nature of the authorization can be decided later. Powers T 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support by principle. Unomi (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, as with LtPowers. I would say this is something that would have to be requested from an admin, because you'd need a good reason to do it.--Aervanath (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Law type!  snype? 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal not understood. --JBC3 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Only to get as close as possible to preventing opting-in altogether. A far better idea would be to allow pages to be listed on an approval basis only. This would allow the community to decide which pages are most useful, and the time taken up would be spent including useful pages rather than excluding the vast majority of useless ones. Anarchangel (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Would keep MfD from getting clogged with spam adverts in userspace.  bahamut0013  words deeds   05:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not too keen on the idea of indexing as a reward for contributions - the more important issue is policing compliance for all indexed pages with the userspace policies (and possible refinign the policies iro indexing userpages) AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support with a later RFC determining exactly how 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose slippery slope to force noindexing on users when indexing is not reasonably harmful. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Maybe in this way: only userpages with __INDEX__ marked as patrolled are actually indexed. Pages created by admins and autoreviewers are automatically patrolled at creation, and it should be possible to allow admins, maybe reviewers if enabled in the future, to mark a page as patrolled in userspace, indefinitely. A request page for patrolling could be created. It will prevent spammers et al from bypassing the system. Cenarium (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support If we really allow optin indexing, we definitely need some minimum control Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Irbisgreif (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Sjö (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC) But a better solution would be to allow pages to be indexed after approval by admins only (and make it possible for that approval to be withdrawn).

====Proposal 6: Include a mandatory and obvious warning on all user and user_talk pages and subpages, such as a different background or a textual warning that informs the reader they are not looking at an encyclopedia article.====


 * Support I think this would be good no matter how the above is settled. A change in background color also might suffice.  Gigs (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC) support regardless of whether User Pages are indexed or not.
 * Colour change, no (can be overriden), but a message above it (separated from the rest), yes. (Not sure how this propagates if the page gets mirrored, though).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, no matter the outcome of other proposals. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support only if the corresponding proposals of #1, #2, and #3 don't pass. Otherwise, I think this is overkill. -- <span style="color:#996600;font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">&#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  <font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">ssn&#596;s&#305;p 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support should be explored how this can be done without pissing people off too much. Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support seems sensible - Kevin (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support should be implemented no matter what happens. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Clarity is always nice. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this doesn't really seem necessary to me, especially since they all say "user" right there at the top. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a different background. A slighly yellow one. Or at least there is if you use a real skin.©Geni 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I use monobook, the site's default and most popular skin, and there is no yellow background anywhere. There is a slight difference between articles space and other pages with a light blue tint. It's not immediately noticeable. لenna  vecia  14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I use classic the one true skin.©Geni 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support more distinct change in color and/or message at the top, regardless of how the rest goes. لenna  vecia  14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support:As opposed to some users doing this now manually.Calaka (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edward321 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Collect (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support We can all agree to this, I expect, whether or not these pages end up being excluded from searches. Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as one of the original suggesters. Powers T 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. snigbrook (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. There is already at least one template (Userpage) that users can use to mark pages in their userspace as separate from encyclopedic content. I would support seeing or similar implemented in the software to automatically insert it on all pages in userspace. No opinion on background color, though. 「 ダイノ ガイ  千？！ 」? · <small style=font-weight:normal>Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Unomi (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as orthogonal to other proposals. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support in parallel with the above proposals. :) --Aervanath (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Law type!  snype? 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – blurpeace <sup style="color:black; font-family:georgia;">(talk)  20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --JBC3 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Conditional opposition Oppose implementation if user pages are restricted from searches, as a waste of resources. However, should any of Proposals 1-3 fail, I would support it. Per Dinoguy, there already exists such a distinguishing mark, and few appear to know that it exists let alone use it, so it would have to be mandatory. However, see the preceding proposal, where such changes are not considered to be implementable.
 * Conditional Support: only if consensus is against not indexing userspace. Otherwise, it would be kinda redundant, and users can always choose to add template:userpage.  bahamut0013  words deeds   05:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.  Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: readers should not be encouraged to regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, which it isn't (it says so itself, so it must be true). Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support Excellent idea - never fancied adding the templace myself because I think it looks ugly when browsing internally but definitely useful for mirrors and search machines. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose Peter's comment is relavnt. Moreover, our responsibility isn't to idiots. If someone can't tell that a page isn't a userpage then I really don't know what more we can do. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * weak oppose I'm not against some kind of notice, but I get the feeling that what is being proposed here might be overkill. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ned, important to keep in mind that the exact nature of the notice is not yet determined, and would be open for discussion. Gigs (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support a different background color. No more annoying warning text please. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Irbisgreif (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Sjö (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Support if the proposals to no-index fails.
 * Absolutely not We don't need annoying warning texts or more templates that will be ignored. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 7: Open a dialog with search engine providers to tell them that User and User_talk should be ranked lower.

 * Neutral I'm not sure how effective this would be. Gigs (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC) regardless of User Page default indexing decision.
 * Strong support --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per gigs. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support only if the corresponding proposals of #1, #2, and #3 don't pass. Otherwise, I think this is overkill. -- <span style="color:#996600;font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">&#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  <font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">ssn&#596;s&#305;p 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * neutral - (a) who's going to ask and (b) who's going to listen? Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No We should not be in a dialog with them, as long as they subscribe to the nofollow conventions of the web. the burden for letting the appropriate pages be marked to be followed is ours. I think it a very poor precedent to start negotiating with google unless they violate ethical norms, DGG (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as probably pointless, and moot if #1 - #3 pass - Kevin (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose strongly agree (again!) with DGG Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, in addition to above supported proposals. It is unrealistic to expect search engines to respect absolutely our _noindex_ requests.  If I search for something only to be found in userspace, it won't suit google to pretend it doesn't know where it is.   Search engines will continue to source results from other engines.  The _noindex_ amounts, in a way, to censorship, and the web responds to censorship by routing around it.  to Providing information is always a good thing.  At the moment, google seems confused by the different namespaces.  Can't hurt.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - This seems like it would be the most effective solution, and the one most likely to fix the problem long term. After all, the pages should be searchable, but giving them the same ranking as a Wikipedia Article is not a good idea.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Google are hardly going to negotiate their indexing practices with a third party.©Geni 14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. Only if 1-3 fail. I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation in the least that Google would hear and consider a request from Wikipedia. Would they do it? No idea, but to say they wouldn't even consider it is a little presumptuous of their business practices. لenna  vecia  14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Search-engine (de?-)optimization is not our business. Making sure that libelous, promotional, or copyvio content is not even subject to search engine indexing is our job, which can be best accomplished by some combination of the above countermeasures, augmenting existing administrative tool usage. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. It can't hurt to try. Powers T 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hans Adler 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, if the above proposals fall through. Otherwise, I agree with DGG.--Aervanath (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Time killer. Law type!  snype? 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --JBC3 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pick your battles. We may need Google et al's support for something that we can't deal with ourselves, at a later time. Re a comment about censorship: non-cooperation (in this case, with promotion) is not censorship. Anarchangel (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support: only if consensus is against not indexing userspace. Google knows that Wikipedia is usually within the top three results of any given search, so they may lend an ear if we make a polite request.  bahamut0013  words deeds   05:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose in this form: it's not Wikipedia's business to tell Google & co what to do. Peter jackson (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not our place to tell Google how to do their job. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose Perg DGG and Andrew. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * unnecessary I'm sure the people at Google are smart enough to figure this out on their own. No offense to the bright minds at Wikipedia, but I don't see much use in us giving Google advice about search. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, but don't they already do this? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Irbisgreif (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sjö (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC) We do our thing, let them do theirs.
 * Oppose Per DGG. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Item 8: If we do noindex user pages, at least ensure that there is some way in which attribution data is still indexed.

 * No point to attribution if no-one can find it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Attribution has always been handled through page history, which isn't indexed for some very good reasons. Gigs (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - attribution can certainly found from where it's relevant (via the History tab), which provides a link to the user page (where users can provide more info if they want). It does not need to be indexed. In any case, in the context of this discussion, it's a giant red herring - user pages aren't a suitable medium for publishing attribution separate from the articles (if that's even a desirable objective). Rd232 talk 09:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- in many cases, a mere username is 1) ambiguous (how many Kim Bruning's are there in the world? -- more than one, I bet) 2) opaque (lots of people have usernames that are only used on wikipedia, which defeats the purpose of attribution, but provide greater information about themselves or their qualities/qualifications on their user page); I've long felt that, to provide fully correct and complete attribution, a local copy of the revision (as of the date of their contribution) of the user page of each user who contributed to a copied article really ought to be included, rather than just their user name -- and a tool should be written to facilitate this.  NOINDEXING userpages would interfere with this, if a third-party archiving service (like WebCite) is used. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Confused by proposal -- What attribution data is indexed on userpages? Irbisgreif (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)