Wikipedia talk:Userspace policy proposal

Discussion, of course, welcome. I should point out that by intention, several of the proposals are weaker or stronger versions of one another, so that people can pick the desired level of policy. I do not yet have a strong opinion towards strictness or leniency, but the question has come up often enough that I felt a global policy poll was in order. Radiant_* 10:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I for one would appreciate some examples of the problems you are trying to solve. There is potential for a lot of instruction creep here so I want to know it is going to be useful. Pcb21| Pete 11:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Note though (and this is very important) that I am not claiming that all incidents discussed below are wrong - my point is that they are subject of regular lengthy debates, and that the controversy should be cleared up either way. A clear consensus either way would be useful for preventing future lengthy debates. Radiant_* 12:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Deleted material
 * 2) *WP:AN/I under the heading "Using a deleted page"
 * 3) *WP:AN/I under the heading "Everyking's user space" and "Everyking's user space, part 2"
 * 4) Offensive pages
 * 5) *WP:AN/I under the heading "Use of User pages"
 * 6) *There has been talk of a 'hit list' kept by another user.
 * 7) Wikiprojects
 * 8) *Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects. There are five projects mentioned that are considered by some to be inappropriate; three of those reside in userspace, and seem to be controversial mainly for that reason.
 * 9) Templates
 * 10) *Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines
 * 11) *WP:TFD under the heading "User:Dr_Zen/keepschools"
 * 12) *Votes for deletion/Dr Zen/keepschools
 * 13) *There have been a number of similar templates recently used on VfD
 * 14) Three Revert Rule
 * 15) *Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive17
 * 16) ** has there been a descission yet on if the 3RR applies to the user namespace?G eni 20:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) ** Netoholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ANetoholic) has been blocked for reverting on the wikipedia namespace, so that'd be a yes. BrokenSegue 22:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) ** true but if you dig through the arcives of AN/I and AN/3RR you find people repeatedly arguing that the 3RR does not apply to pages in the user namespaceGeni 22:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Adminship
 * 20) *Requests_for_adminship/Uncle_G - most people who opposed Uncle G as an admin disagreed with him having no userpage; this argument was later cited by some people in Requests_for_adminship/SamuraiClinton

Thanks Radiant, that helps a lot. Pcb21| Pete 12:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two more related links: JYolkowski // talk 01:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2 - recreation of deleted content in userspace
 * Requests for comment/GRider - user templates for voting, editing in another user's userspace

Edit conflicts not resolving
I've had to revote on a few items because my edit was "reverted" by someone else's vote. Someone else had it happen and complained on my talk page. This seems to be a serious problem. I even submitted a vote for one, then waited a bit, hit edit, no vote, and voted again, and no edit conflict. Maybe it's related to the database copies not syncing properly. --SPUI (talk) 22:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you tried Bugzilla? Or ask at AN, they might know. Radiant_* 07:17, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Time to scrap this?
As in I belive it is. This set of votes is a fine example of the dangers of good intentions. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:33, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but only because people are misunderstanding it. Most people oppose the proposals here on grounds that they are redundant with existing policy. And of course they are. But the point is that many people claim that existing policy does not apply in userspace, since it is, well, userspace. The idea behind the poll is to 1)reaffirm that the policy nevertheless does apply, or 2)amend the policy to make clear that it does not apply. In other words, clean up the controversy. Radiant_* 08:03, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe some of the proposals need to be reworded to make that clear? JYolkowski // talk 15:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably. Feel free to reword for clarity anything you think unclear. Radiant_* 17:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do we need so many microproposals when all that is really required is to state, clearly and simply, that "These policies also apply in user space"? All these little micropolicies just encourage rule-lawyering and stupid, petty arguments.  I would support, as policy, this statement: "A user may put whatever information in their user space that they believe to be useful, interesting, or helpful; but all Wikipedia policies related to user conduct (including vandalism, copyright, and personal attacks) apply to all content on Wikipedia no matter where it may be located."  (Of course, we pretty much have that already; editors who refuse to acknowledge this need to be slapped around.)  I think that covers just about everything the mess of microproposals under consideration is seeking to reach.  Remember, Wikipedia is not an experiment in bureaucracy.  It seems to me that the real problem here is that there are a handful of problem editors who are not following existing policy.  So enforce the existing policy against them; that's why we have it.  Kelly Martin 17:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC); revised 17:33, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct. What is causing confusion is the fact that a number of people (vocal minority?) think that existing policy does not apply in userspace. I have put in a final proposal to reflect that, and it's the only one I'll consider voting for. Now I shall step back from this process and hope consensus reveals itself somewhere. Radiant_* 17:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

What is midely ammusing is that if anyone tried to inforce current policy someone would probably try to get them under WP:POINTGeni 17:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alternative proposal (antipolicy)
"These policies also apply in user space" wouldn't be new, it's what we have now, only it's not a live policy. Why would restating it cause it to revive? The reason it's fallen into disuse is that people don't like it, and the reason for that is that it goes against courtesy and against the culture that has developed on the site. The userspace is full of things—mostly harmless—that don't need to be whacked with the full might of the public-space stick. A single concrete example: there's a Nihilartikel in my space, User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder. In the April Hoax discussion on the mailing list a month ago, ETPH was mentioned repeatedly as something that might make a good April 1 hoax on the Main Page. Some users were dead against wikipedia "fooling" its readers, though, and Jimbo suggested having a non-fooling joke page instead, linked from the real Main Page and clearly labelled "Our joke page". The ETPH contributors, who would have been happy for the page to be used as a hoax, unanimously agreed they didn't want it used for an offical "joke" page (in fact, a great battle cry of "Lame!" went up). I wrote to the mailing list saying I knew policy was that anybody could use "my" page for anything, such as make it part of an official joke page, but I asked them as a courtesy to not do that. And there seemed to be (mostly silent) total unanimity on the list about doing so. Mav wrote that "morally it would be very rude for somebody to use the text in a way you didn't want since it is clearly marked as being in your userspace". Snowspinner was the single exception—he wanted to hit me the full might of official policy ("I'm not sure what to point out - no article ownership or the GFDL"). Replies to Snowspinner e. g. "Or good manners and common courtesy.  Let's Be Nice; it's his personal joke", Tom Haws. Jimbo asked—not told—me to let the article be used, for instance [here], but assured me explicitly (on IRC) that nobody would use my subpage against my wishes, because, well, we don't do that. So: if only one person of those reading the mailing list thought I should be told that "no article ownership" and the GFDL applied to my subpage, I would hardly call the rest a "vocal minority". And if Jimbo also thinks the userspace should be privileged in this way, maybe he should be consulted before the userspace is steamrollered into full conformity with the public parts of Wikipedia?

I propose we do the opposite: that the present informal arrangement, with its culture of special courtesy ruling "ownership" of the userspace, be not only kept but also formalized as policy, namely: "These policies also apply in userspace, but there, the principle Don't be a dick trumps all other policies". Please sign below if you endorse this policy for the userspace. Please edit my proposal if you have a better way of wording it while keeping the spirit.
 * 1) --Bishonen | talk 22:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --sannse (talk) 22:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) I wouldn't want to formally formalize this, but informally, it seems an ideal formalisation or our informal formalities
 * 3) --Snowspinner 00:10, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) Anything that is the opposite of the hellhole of subsections the original proposal is wins my support.
 * 4) --cesarb 01:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) But I think it should be either a guideline or a semi-policy, not a policy.
 * 5) --Eloquently put, in need of no editing, and fully requiring my support. In fact, can Wikipedia:Don't be a dick become our collective slogan? Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:36, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) --What they said. Theo  (Talk) 14:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Sounds good. The only question is how one deals with users who violate WP:DICK (which is very rare; the only example I can think of right now is the infamous 'hit list' or list of enemies one user seems to keep). User:Radiant (not logged in) 13:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Radiant_* 14:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Would anyone object if I changed "These policies" to "All user conduct policies"? Ideally I would like it to say "All user conduct policies (including a, b, c, ...)" but that might get a bit verbose.  JYolkowski // talk 12:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Go on, BE BOLD! But not verbose. --Theo (Talk) 14:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is a damned sight better than being verbose, but not bold! Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:22, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that several people have said they support this already I'm going to give them a chance to respond first. JYolkowski // talk 16:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't endorse this because it implies that enforcing policy takes precedence over not being a dick, outside of userspace. As far as I'm concerned, Don't be a dick is the highest of all policies, everywhere, and I can't endorse something that contradicts that.  Kelly Martin 16:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * While I think that's a wonderful idea, I don't think consensus agrees. In fact I don't even think that WP:DICK is policy. Radiant_* 14:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Relevant page
Hey folks. The relevant page here should be User page. It currently has a lot of good information, advice, and guidelines, but it's a sprawling mess. The community consensus is clear and has plenty of precedent: we generally respect peoples' user space, but people are still expected to use some common sense there, and the final say on what's acceptable still rests with the community. Instead of debating "policy proposals", we should spend some time making User page cleaner and easier to read. Isomorphic 16:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I concur. User:Radiant (not logged in)
 * Yes, more discussion and editing, less voting. BrokenSegue 20:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)