UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/User Page Guidelines

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

As a note - yeah, this is as reactionary as all hell. I don't care at this point.

Very recent events have shown some serious problems with the laisse faire attitude we've had towards User Pages. Perhaps due to previous precedent from Wikipedia, we've made the general statement that a person's user page is their own, and they're allowed to do anything they want (mostly). It is, perhaps, time we rethought this stance on user pages as a rule.

My belief is that, in general, User pages should be exempt from such things as content-restrictions that we normally place on the main namespace. In other words, pages that would be clearly off-topic in the main namespace should be given more latitude in the User namespace. I believe that, most likely, this was the primary intention of the laisse faire position, but that this stance has become more general.

As a plausible draft, I believe that these should be the basic tenets of a new set of User Page guidelines

  • User Pages, not being part of the article namespace, do not need to be wholly on-topic - users may use their Userspace for the storage of pages not generally acceptable in the main namespace.
  • Users have a certain modicum of "control" over their user page - Contributions made by others in a user's userspace may be dismissed outright, with no reason being required. In effect, Users retain an absolute right of veto over what is added to their page by others. This includes comments left by others on the User's Talk page, thus a user continues to retain the right to do whatever they wish to their user talk page, including wholesale wiping of comments, and archiving at whatever interval they desire.
    • An exception to this rule would be Vandal warnings - While it would be stupid to have a warning on a user's user or user talk page for the entirety of their lives on the wiki, Users do not have unilateral rights to wipe a warning by a sysop from their page, and choosing to consistently wipe sysop warnings as they are given (within about a week, I think is a reasonable guideline) should be construed as bad faith edits.
    • A further exception would be that Impersonation of others would still be considered bad faith, although I'd make note that Impersonation should only be prosecuted on the wishes of the Impersonated individual.
  • Edits to a User's userspace that specifically insult or denigrate others should be considered bad faith, even if the user themself added those comments to their own space. In fact, I'd go so far as to state that any insulting behaviour should be considered bad faith. I certainly cannot forsee any situation where the denigration of others would be a perfectly good-faith edit.

I note that I have quite explicitly not stated that anything in this list is a bannable offense, merely that certain types of edits are highly likely to be in bad faith.

I am not generally a fan of throwing extra rules into the system, because often they're not really needed. But I think that identifying the general philosophy of what we want on User pages is a good thing. I think the above can be distilled into a single quote:

Your Userspace is yours to do as you wish, but do as you wish in good faith.

--Odd Starter


Voting Section

For

  1. McArrowni 15:14, 25 June 2006 (BST) Makes sense. I'm not too worried about the wording, myself.
  2. --TheBerts 02:54, 26 June 2006 (BST) I am basing my vote on Vista's comments on the discussion page.
  3. --The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:42, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  4. --Labine50 MHG|MalTel 23:08, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Jorge 20:25, 27 June 2006 (BST)
  6. (Delta flyer 21:52, 27 June 2006 (BST))
  7. Darth Sensitive talkW! 16:30, 28 June 2006 (BST) Increase civility on the wiki, even if it's only a little at a time.
  8. Conndrakamod T 13:55, 29 June 2006 (BST) A Must.
  9. Paradox244 talk 10:39, 29 June 2006 (EST)
  10. Dr Snow 10:58, 29 June 2006 (EST)
  11. David Malfisto 19:12, 29 June 2006 (BST) Meh. The arguement against is pretty thin.
  12. BlakeMP 14:41, 29 June 2006 (CST) I'm always in favor of increased online civility.
  13. Thom Solo 02:40, 30 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Carfan7 19:11, 1 July 2006 (BST)
  15. --CarryTheRedFlag 10:17, 2 July 2006 (BST)
  16. --Galendinwen 12:31, 3 July 2006 (EST)
  17. Lesser Mook 21:32, 4 July 2006 (BST) Only because I'm a pansy.
  18. Youronlyfriend 10:25, 6 July 2006 (BST)
  19. GoNINzo 18:36, 6 July 2006 (BST)
  20. Toejam 19:45, 6 July 2006 (BST)

Against

  1. Xoid - See talk page for reasoning. 09:55, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Cyberbob240 09:57, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Rogue 17:58, 25 June 2006 (BST) Who has the right to judge what is bad taste?
  4. Zod Rhombus- Bad faith edits are how the whole vandal banning system works. This is a good start, but needs more thought/discussion. 20:03, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Gage 20:12, 25 June 2006 (BST) - I am a big advocate of free speech, and I hate the wording on the "insulting behavior"
  6. Karlsbad 23:11, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Scinfaxi 01:28, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Spraycan Willy MalTel·T 01:40, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  9. DarkStar2374383 Talk | LDY | LOE 02:10, 26 June 2006 (BST) - I think a user page is there so that people can see what the User is like, Including their opinions.
  10. ERNesbitt MalTel·Talk 04:23, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  11. TTHSK 07:23, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  12. 'STER-Talk-ModP! 08:34, 26 June 2006 (BST) - What, so basically, just what we have now, but you can't delete warnings quickly (which are irrelevant wince we have vandal data) and you can't insult people? No. Unnecessary.
  13. Nuke Texas 16:52 26th June 2006 (GMT)
  14. John Hawke 21:54, 26 June 2006 (BST) The first section of this proposal suggests giving users complete control over their user pages, and the next section suggests placing restrictions on that control. It seems kind of self-defeating and doesn't really make much sense.
  15. Bob Hammero 05:06, 27 June 2006 (BST) - I have already stated my objections to this policy.
  16. Raskham 06:15, 27 June 2006 (BST)
  17. --Aiden H 4H 10:09, 27 June 2006 (BST) I agree with DarkStar's statement.
  18. Niilomaan 15:10, 27 June 2006 (BST) - We should have the right say our opinions about both noobs AND France.
  19. Zacronos 18:47, 27 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Kripcat - I.U.S.S 05:34, 28 June 2006 (BST)
  21. JennyD'Arc 08:08, 28 June 2006 (BST) - 'good faith' and 'bad faith' as well as 'insulting' need to be defined clearly and objectively, otherwise the problem will turn into a 'report war'.
  22. --ErynSMA 00:58, 29 June 2006 (BST) I must agree for the same reasons other users have previously stated in terms of what is defined as good faith/bad faith. Essentially, someone could take one group disparaging another, especially in the case of long-running group feuds, as being bad faith, even if it isn't innapropriate in the context.
  23. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 08:09, 29 June 2006 (BST) Amazing was an exceptional case, and it's never a good idea to base a general rule on an exception. As others have noted, if somebody has an opinion you don't care for, there're almost always better ways of dealing with that than criminalizing said opinion.
  24. Spudd talk RAF 10:34, 29 June 2006 (BST) For the same reasons. What is construed as 'insulting'?
  25. Pillsy 15:41, 29 June 2006 (BST) - I just don't agree with people having the right to dictate what a user can have on their page.
  26. Zapeta 01:29, 30 June 2006 (BST)
  27. Headless Gunner 12:46, 30 June 2006 (CST) - I'm all about expressing yourself, your feelings, and the way you play the game (within reason). There's going to be immaturity occasionally.
  28. Cwissball 17:02, 30 June 2006 (BST)
  29. RCG Tiburon W! 03:00, 1 July 2006 (BST) You heard what's been said.
  30. --Vykos CMS-Meta 12:54, 2 July 2006 (BST) - If the Votes FOR will be more I predict even more wiki drama on the long run.
  31. Ron Burgundy 23:55, 2 July 2006 (BST) Is that Wikipendence thing in bad faith?
  32. --Marza 22:27, 2 July 2006 (PST) Bad Idea that will lead to all sorts of abuse.
  33. --Lightman 12:09, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  34. -Dog Deever TNec 02:39, 4 July 2006 (BST) For many of the above reasons. It would be a dull place without some of the craziness on the User Talk pages!
  35. --Fusilliban 09:56, 4 July 2006 (BST) I'm in favor of good faith as a guiding principle, but I don't think that this wiki is prepared to enforce it as a rule.
  36. EMAG TRESNI 13:57, 4 July 2006 (BST) I'm am strongly opposed to censorship of any kind. Who has the right to tell someone something they write is 'offensive'? What is and isn't offensive differs among people.
  37. Jester Nightbreed 18:21, 4 July 2006 (CST) I happen to believe free speech is free speech. I've seen some things that are offensive, sure, but I learned to just look away if I didn't like what they were saying. Actions are different of course, but words are words.
  38. Jego 22:33, 5 July 2006 (GMT) The user pages should be left up to the users to decide what is right and wrong, someone elses opinion taking control over it is a breach of free speach. Live and let live and we'll all get on fine, we can always just ignore the bad eggs.
  39. Rabbi Bob 00:25, 6 July 2006 (BST) I've found User Pages somewhat instrumental in figuring out some of the cross-relationships (both good and bad) amongst many of the wiki members. Removing the ability to post an open perspective would be disadvantageous to shed light on many of the things that transpire both in and out of the game.
  40. Bango Skank 04:56, 6 July 2006 (BST) - Some of your points are good, but it gets a bit muddy around the definition of good/bad faith edits imho.
  41. Mstcrow5429 23:26, 7 July 2006 (BST) - Agree with above.
  42. --Kwyjibo1047 09:37, 8 July 2006 (BST) This just falls under free speech.
  43. --Quingawaga 15:02, 9 July 2006 (BST) I support the policy's idea, but I can't vote for the actual policy...too many potential problems.

Abstain

  1. Mia Kristos 20:59, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Abi79 AB 11:05, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Andrew McM W! 14:44, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Nubis 16:50, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  5. V2Blast TP! 18:47, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Zydd 1:51 AM, 27 June 2006 (PST)
  7. Snikers 18:45, 27 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Elliothatman 21:26, 29 June 2006 (BST) - Rather loosely defined and could be misused. I don't buy the "free speech", I feel it's a bit problematic to equate posting whatever you want on an opt-in wiki for a game, with freedom of expression in the real world.
  9. --Mike Sharp 20:02, 3 July 2006 (BST)
  10. --The Siath 03:24, 10 August 2006 (BST) I really don't feel as tho I have been a member long enough to 'fully understand' the issue that this is attempting to fix, that and the fix is not worded in such a way as to be clear cut on the issues it mentions.
    This vote is invalid. Protect this page already! --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 03:29, 10 August 2006 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements