Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:User pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:User page)

Proxying while blocked

This user[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's what this discussion is, well, discussing. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went and corrected the typo that "the user" indicated [2]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
XMcan, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:PROXYING doesn't state that at all. WP:PROXYING says, my emphasis,

Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) UNLESS they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.

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)[reply]

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 | tålk 13:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, Tewdar, Blueboar, and Primefac: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers Oh we definitely should wait. I'll ping you all when it's closed. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, Tewdar, Blueboar, Primefac, Bishonen, and Levivich: shall we try to come to a conclusion now? Doug Weller talk 13:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
I would just repeat what I said above. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like for this guideline to say something like

Users who are site-blocked or site-banned are encouraged to primarily use their talk pages for unblock requests or conversation leading toward such a request. Though blocked or banned users retain much of the wide latitude afforded to all users in their own user space, they may lose access to their user talk page if they violate policies (e.g., WP:PROXYING) or otherwise continue acting disruptively. This is especially true if they continue the behavior that led to the block or ban or if they try and direct others to edit on their behalf (see WP:PROXYING.)

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) striking and inserting 04:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The wording with Levivich's suggested change sounds good to me. TarnishedPathtalk 03:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So amended. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Wikipedia:Administrative action review/Archive 1#Indefinite TPA revocation for “proxying while blocked” –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Thanks all, nice to see this brought to a conclusion. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree as it is a recurring matter, this includes extended confirmed topics for those who are not extended confirmed. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But ARBPIA says user space is exempt. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite the sentence saying it? I took a cursory look but did not find it, perhaps I failed to see the nuances. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Kenneth Kho see [{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Selfstudier]] linking to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Why does ARPBIA allow userspace as an exception? and specifically [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#:~:text=ago) (UTC+0)-,Definition of the "area of conflict",discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content"),-Passed 6 to[ Doug Weller talk 15:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, WP:PIA clause 4(B) seemed to be in tension with WP:ECR clause A(1). I hope we will receive clarity on WP:BROADLY, the former is not excessively broad, while the latter could have precedent, depending on the original intent of WP:ECR in 2021 and 2023. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOINDEX

Are there any reasons why we should not require NOINDEX on all pages in userspace (not draftspace)? (I would also include article talk pages and archives.) If not, then it should happen automatically. If there are any reasons, let's discuss them. I have long done this for my user and user talk pages and of course all my subpages. If I've missed a subpage, it's an accident.

Our userspace page content is not part of the encyclopedia and is not intended to be "outward" facing. Userspace is our personal "desk" in the editorial back offices of the encyclopedia's publishing house. It should only contain stuff related to communication with other editors and helping editors improve the project. That includes personal notes, sandboxes, personal essays, and article development, IOW the stuff editors do.

By contrast, our articles are in the front office where the public comes to see what this place is all about. We are not a web host for stuff unrelated to these purposes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought everything in the user namespace was already automatically NOINDEXed (by a bot)… that’s what it says at WP:NOINDEX. Is that not happening? Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of others' user pages by new or unregistered users

I am way behind in the Help Desk archives but I discovered something new here. I decided to try it myself while logged out and although I got to the edit screen, I saw a big pink box saying I can't do the edit. I didn't know it was possible to not edit while not seeing "View source". I don't see anything on the user page guidelines that says this. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned under WP:UP#PROTECT. It's the result of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default, and uses an edit filter (803 (hist · log)) instead of protection. That way new users can still edit their own user page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't specify the situation I encountered. I find it hard to believe two random people would have protected their user page in this way. In fact, one of them was mine, and I know I haven't done it. Unless someone did it after vandalism.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The filter applies to all user pages not owned by the person editing it, when the person trying to edit is not confirmed. In other words, if you log out and try to edit any user page, the filter will prevent you publishing the edit. Technically it's not the same as protection, though the end result is broadly similar. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we include this information somehow in the description?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomer homepage

I saw a reference to this in the Teahouse archives but I don't know where it is covered. Apparently not on WP:UP. Based on the response to the question, I got the impression this would be a "user page" in the sense of user talk pages and user pages.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Logging in § Your user page and user talk page is the only thing I could find that indicates that a user/talk page is located in the top of every window. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the newcomer homepage be added to that information on that page?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Growth Team features#Newcomer homepage (and the section above it for why certain articles keep having extra links added by new editors). You can turn it on at the bottom of the User Profile tab in Preferences. NebY (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for something that explains the newcomer homepage to new editors.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages&oldid=1245518352"