Wikipedia talk:User pages

likely to bring the project into disrepute
This should be removed. It's a hopelessly subjective standard, "disrepute" being entirely in the eye of the beholder, and entirely dependent on audience. What is "likely to bring the project in disrepute" amongst some people is likely to bolster the project among others. (And how likely is "likely"?) This language creates more problems than it solves, as it can be wielded by literally any side in any userpage conflict, but offers no meaningful, actionable, or usable guidance. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In context, that statement is a summary of what has been found removable in the past by MfD, much like WP:OUTCOMES for AfD. I agree that it itself would be problematic to enforce as policy, but as a summary of consensus, it should probably be refined rather than removed entirely. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , can you suggest alternate wording? Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything wrong with the existing wording. It falls under the heading of commonsense. It strikes me as similar to the old saying about pornography. "I can't define it, but I know when I see it." Has this ever been abused? Is there anything that would prevent a user from appealing to AN/I if they felt someone was being unreasonable in their interpretation of this? To be honest, I can't even remember it being invoked. But I think it's good thing to have on the books. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The language at WP:UPNOT is fine. It gives examples of unsuitable material ("disrepute") such as racist ideology and disruptive content, whether serious or trolling. As normal, rules focus on concepts rather than attempting to list every bad thing. As Ad Orientem noted, participants in a deletion discussion might recognize disrepute when seeing an example but would not be able to define it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328: I think WP:UPNOT already has better alternate wording, . (To save a click, the full sentence is: )
 * Similarly, WP:UP has a pretty good description of what kind of images should not be on a userpage, and I'd keep it all, except changing "likely to bring the project into disrepute" to "likely to give widespread offense" (and same everywhere else in WP:UP). Levivich (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think that there is an important distinction between the concepts of "offense" and "disrepute". The first is a personal reaction, and as we all know, some people are more prone to being offended than others, and even among people who are easily offended, they can be offended by very different things. Disrepute refers not to individual emotional reactions but rather to the reputational damage to Wikipedia as a whole. Twitter/X is a good example, I think. I am not easily offended by something like an individual tweet. I may be surprised, bemused, and unhappy that trolling and doxxing and racism and sexism and veiled (or not so veiled) threats are welcomed there, but I am not offended. I do think that Twitter/X has fallen deeper into disrepute in the Musk era, and I do not want lax monitoring to allow the same thing to happen to Wikipedia. Perhaps "disrepute" is almost an archaic term in 2024, but the new wording should not lose the reputational connotations. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think doxing, racism, sexism, and threats are things that are likely to give widespread offense (even if not to you), and I can't really think of an example of something that is likely to give widespread offense but not likely to bring the project into disrepute, which why I say "disrepute" is doing no work in the sentence, and why I don't think there needs to be a second category of prohibition in addition to "widespread offense". Levivich (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

False claims on user page
I am wondering what, if anything, can be done about an editor's user page which makes false claims of having made 100K edits and being a member of the Twenty Year society, despite the fact that the user in question has only been on Wikipedia since 2017 and has only made 3,500 edits. They have indirectly denied having previous accounts... Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Skyerise Is that still an issue? Doug Weller  talk 15:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * well, depends. The content of their user page is obviously and intentionally funny. Yet it also includes various templates and categories from the 20 YS etc. which still make the kind of claims above. And yet I've recently been told there is nothing we can do if an obviously not retired user posts a big retired from Wikipedia banner at the top of his user page. So do we even care about this? If current protocol is to just ignore such things, then I don't want to make waves. Skyerise (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t know protocol but often see retired templates on active users user or talk pages. Annoying but not worth saying anything I usually decide. Doug Weller  talk 18:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Proxying while blocked
This user is challenging someone telling them they should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them, saying that they cannot find anything preventing them from doing so. I think this needs to be made explicit. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, they're wrong, because WP:PROXYING (linked to by Novem in the first place) states it fairly clearly. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Primefac Thanks. I knew that was somewhere, but I think it needs to be added here as well. Probably under "Ownership and editing of user pages". Doug Weller  talk 14:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Might be useful; further interaction with them has shown even that fairly clear language can be reworded to suit very specific circumstances. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PROXYING does not [state] it fairly clearly. It doesn't state it at all. It does not say that blocked editors should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them. It says that editors [...] are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. It says nothing about what the blocked editor can or cannot do.  Tewdar   18:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Users are not allowed to be directed by blocked users to make edits. Therefore, a blocked user should not be directing editors to make edits. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this interpretation, and there's plenty of precedent to cite on revoking TPA for posting proxying requests. I still would support explicit mentions here and in the block and ban policies that it is inappropriate to post edit requests in violation of a block/ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This does not follow at all. Why not just add 'site-wide blocked users may only use their talk pages to request unblocks', to WP:BLOCK, if that's what you want?  Tewdar   18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what this discussion is, well, discussing. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I went and corrected the typo that "the user" indicated . Clearly, it was a net positive for the encyclopedia. Do you want to ban me for it? Go ahead. XMcan (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can’t believe so much time gets wasted on arguing when something is so simple, and you can just go ahead and make it better. XMcan (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , the discussion on that user's talk page is about their edits. This is about the next time this happens, and making sure our policies match up with what actually happens. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I believe this was a one-time occurrence. I don't have any reason to think this user will spend the rest of her life finding typos and directing us from her talk page solely to correct them. Do we need to fix problems that don't exist just because they may potentially exist? XMcan (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @XMcan I see on your talk page you were very unhappy about the user’s block. I presume that’s part at least of why you are here. But it’s a real issue that does exist, I’ve seen it quite a few times. There’s no reason to believe it won’t happen again. Doug Weller  talk 21:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record I was not referring to the "next time" for this particular user, I was referring to the next time that an admin says "you can't use your talk page except for unblocks" and is questioned on it. Primefac (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Primefac, I understood you and agree. We need wording that will deter disruptive editors from gaming the system. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PROXYING doesn't state that at all. WP:PROXYING says, my emphasis, That "unless" means that proxying is only prohibited if editors are not able to show the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. If they are able to do so (e.g., "fix obvious typo"), then editors are permitted to edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. I'm not sure that's what the community wants it to mean, but that's what it says. It has an inherent logical contradiction in its phrasing, which is that it is by definition impossible to have an independent reason to do something at the direction of somebody else. Either it's "at the direction" or it's "independent" but it can't be both at the same time. Teh community should probably vote on whether they do or do not want blocked/banned editors to point out obvious typos, BLPvios, etc., and then update the docs to say so clearly. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion about the proxying, but I must protest against turning Doug's query into a binary question between a) blocked users asking others to make edits, versus b) blocked users only being allowed to use their pages to request unblock, as for example Primefac does here. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't say anywhere that a blocked user may only use their page to request unblock, and I wish admins wouldn't keep bollocking or sanctioning people per the notion that we have that rule. I'm also completely against codifying it to be a rule. A block is a shock, and it's only too human to react to to that block with protests and venting. That should be tolerated, being as we are humans, up to a point. If it goes on and on, and/or becomes ugly w r t to the blocking admin or other individuals, I will eventually revoke tpa. That's my system, and I'm sticking to it. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC).
 * I wish admins wouldn't keep bollocking or sanctioning people per the notion that we have that rule - that's why I want to pursue this line of inquiry and potentially clarify things; I was wrong and have have changed my opinion, but there are still a large number of admins who likely have misread the policy (or conflated it with the BAN regulations). Primefac (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this needs to be handled on a case by case basis… because a LOT depends on what the blocked editor is asking others to do on his/her behalf. For example, I see nothing wrong with a blocked editor writing: “Prior to being blocked, I was about to shift my attention to cleaning up the awful grammar in article Y.  Could someone follow up on that?”  Such a request is not really a PROXY request.  The blocked editor is not “directing” the editing of others, just requesting normal editing.
 * On the other hand, if the blocked editor writes: “Since I have been blocked, and can not continue my righteous crusade, would someone please nominate NewsIdontlike.com for deprecation at RSP. Carry on the good fight!” That would be “directing” others, and a PROXY request. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the need to continue this is demonstrated by the XRV discussion involving me mentioned below. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, though I'd prefer to wait until the XRV is concluded. Maybe someone can ping us all again when it's over? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers Oh we definitely should wait. I'll ping you all when it's closed. Doug Weller  talk 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

shall we try to come to a conclusion now? Doug Weller talk 13:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller, I had this conversation on my watchlist but hadn't yet commented because I didn't think I needed to say what had already been said by numerous others. However is there some specific wording for any changes because I can't see it above? TarnishedPathtalk 13:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would just repeat what I said above. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like for this guideline to say something like
 * I think we should change WP:PROXYING to be more concrete about what's impermissible for the banned/blocked user, but that's a conversation for WT:BAN. If we can't agree to a change their, my proposal here would end at "led to the block or ban". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think about striking the last sentence and ending with "...if they violate policies (e.g. WP:PROXYING) or otherwise continue acting disruptively."? Levivich (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, although I would like to get something that hints at disruption of the type that led to the block being particularly risky. Maybe that's common sense enough that it can be left out or parked in an essay. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

XRV Notice
The “proxying while blocked” editor mentioned here subsequently had their talk page access revoked by the OP. In case anybody is interested, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding that TPA revocation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMcan (talk • contribs) 17:57, April 13, 2024 (UTC)
 * Convenience link: Administrative action review/Archive 1 – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Standpoint of the editor proxying

 * Question: It takes two to tango… and two to proxy. Is there any policy or guideline where we approach this issue from the stand point of the editor acting as the proxy (ie something outlining when it is appropriate to edit on someone else’s behalf vs when it is inappropriate to do so)? Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Blueboar. I think we actually have more policy/guideline for the proxy, since they at least get a line at WP:PROXYING. It's still unclear what is permissible, and I do think we should draw a clearer line. We have a total absence of policy/guideline for the ... I don't actually know what to call them ... proxymaster? That's part of what we're hoping to fix above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed addition to information on removing notices from own talk page
Currently it reads:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters.

I think it should say something like:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters. While it is a user's prerogative to remove material from their talk page, removal and ignorance of warnings may be taken into account by administrators when evaluating any sanctions to take.

(adding "While it is a user's prerogative to remove material from their talk page, removal and ignorance of warnings may be taken into account by administrators when evaluating any sanctions to take", for anyone who can't see the bolded portion above on their browser)

Thoughts? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Primefac (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I see a difference between someone simply archiving or removing stale notices, and a certain kind of belligerent removal-and-ignorance (often with questionable edit summaries) that certain users do who apparently don't like to be told what to do. I think it should say here you are free to remove it, but if you are doing it belligerently or simply ignore the notice, it can be considered as evidence of disruption. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the base assumption is that removal follows reading and awareness, then it doesn't really matter why (or how) the notices are removed; repeated disruption related to the original notices can still result in sanctions. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unclear. What does "taken into account" mean?  Is that a euphemism for "might give stronger punishments because you didn't leave the badge of shame on your talk page" (in which case, it ought to be more direct), or does it just mean "might notice that you've already been warned repeatedly about this" (in which case, it's redundant)?
 * DIYeditor, it feels like you want to punish people for being defiant. That may not be the most productive approach to humans, regardless of whether they're teenagers sassing their parents or editors saying something snarky about a warning.  If you'd like to read about a site that took a different approach, then I suggest https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-lonely-work-of-moderating-hacker-news  The relevant stuff starts about halfway through that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Paywalled. I often encounter users who have some kind of problem with rules and express it by deleting warnings with snarky edit summaries, very often completely valid warnings. I do imagine it is they rather than I who don't get along well in life. Still, never said I would make a good cop, or wikipedia admin, or moderator. At any rate, yes, I think editors who do this "oppositional-defiant" behavior should be punished more harshly than those who try to accommodate the processes here. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Got a problem with my user talk page
I can not get the text on my user talk page to show up except by clicking on 'About this page'. Is there anyone who can help me with this John Kryten (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the problem was that you didn’t give the text a header. I added one, and now it seems to work. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you My username is John Kryten though not John Krysten John Kryten (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops… sorry about that. I have corrected the header I added (feel free to further edit that header if you want it to say something else).  The important thing is that your userpage should now work, and that it shows the text you wanted. Happy editing! Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Happy editing John Kryten (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we be saying something about use of the talk page if topic banned from an area?
I think editors might not realise that "all pages" includes their talk page. I've just seen an editor telling someone else that they can say anything they want on their talk page, and as they are topic banned it would be nice to be able to quote this guideline. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)