UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/User Page Guidelines

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

I cannot agree more that the policies surrounding user pages need to change. But a couple of comments:

• Vandal warnings should be allowed to be archived, potentially under the one-week minimum for not removing the warnings. There's no reason that users should be forced to display the warning if they intend to archive it, since the warnings aren't meant as punishment. While I assume you intended this, you didn't say so specifically.

• I'm going to be picky and say that we have to define what exactly we mean by "insult or denigrate" and "insulting behaviour".

Xoid has on his user page "Nuke the n00bs. Or France." While I doubt he's serious, this could be interpreted as insulting or denigrating.

I use a template on my user page which states "Yuo fayl Englesh? That's unpossablle!" Again, someone could take that as insulting or denigrating.

You yourself have on your user page "They say this cat is a bad mother- shut 'cho mouth!" The same argument could be made.

The problem with being specific is it doesn't allow room for interpretation. But, if we aren't specific about what we mean, I almost guarantee that the people who inspired this policy discussion will try to show that almost every user page on this wiki is insulting or denigrating.

–Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:42, 5 June 2006 (BST)

This policy whould in not be harsher than what we have on the general wiki. And how many people have been warned for offensive behavior there? this changes not the basic rules of conduct on this wiki, this simply changes the exclusion of user pages of that rule to the inclusion of user pages in that rule. --Vista 21:19, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Which I think should be done. But what happens if page after page is suddenly listed as "violating the rule"? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:42, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Let them come up with such a list, because then we can point out the differences between a They say this cat is a bad mother- shut 'cho mouth! and what they put up. The first could be said anywhere on this wiki without any problems, same as xoids' nuke the noobs... or france template. accusing people of raping underage boys would not be allowed anywhere else on this wiki. I challenge them to put up such a list. They'll see that nobody crosses the line as they do, and it'll serf as instant juristicion what we will and will not allow. In the end it'll only help us formulate a better policy--Vista 08:48, 6 June 2006 (BST)

Fair enough. I trust your judgement on this one. (Can I just say that I find it more than slightly ironic that some people are using my {{NoMoreDrama}} template?) –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:52, 6 June 2006 (BST)

Drama is always the other people doing it.--Vista 21:39, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Read my template; it's actually a pro-wiki parody of Amazing's {{NoWiki}}. I have no problem with newbies (who are willing to learn), only with n00bs (Who are ignorant and blissfully so. Those users are generally irredeemable). Nuking France is just an obsession of mine. Since they nuked island atolls with people on 'em (or near them), I believe it is only fair that they get nuked in turn. The bastards are still completely unapologetic about it. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 10:07, 6 June 2006 (BST)

Right, I wasn't seriously saying I had a problem with your page, just that someone else could in theory. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 21:06, 7 June 2006 (BST)

Odd are you going to open voting on this? the discussion seems pretty dead.--Vista 16:39, 9 June 2006 (BST)

"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." — No. Way. If I am not allowed to say what I wish, as long as it is within the bounds of good taste, then this is obviously going too far. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:57, 25 June 2006 (BST)

If I understand this correctly, this basically states that insulting edits are bad faith. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I would say that there's been a pretty big problem with bad faith edits recently, and I am completely for anything that might cut down on some of the infighting going on here. I believe that there needs to be some sort of consensus about what's "too far" though. Darth Sensitive ^{talk • W!} 22:14, 25 June 2006 (BST)

You don't it basically makes that userpages are considered as normal pages concerning the language you can use there. So the normal rules in effect on the wiki now would be in effect for user pages. but only concerning the language --Vista 23:44, 25 June 2006 (BST)

My feeling is that a user should maintain the right to wipe/edit archive ANY content from their User space as they may wish. I would consider the impersonation of another person to be a bad faith edit which should be held up with the rules already in place. Additional rules should not be required for this to be considered Vandalism. I would like to hear some other viewpoints as to how close one can come without crossing this line. Would a user 'Paintcan Willy' set up as some sort of parody of my character with no specific use of my actual name, but potentially somewhat misleading, be vandalism or impersonation? Depending on the actual content I would either be flattered or enraged. Thanks for opening this discussion. –Spraycan Willy ^MalTel·T 01:54, 26 June 2006 (BST)

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Like Willy said... "depending on the actual content...". If someone finds something offensive or insulting enough, it is within their right to speak up and say so. If they don't, then it's their own damn fault. They also have the free option of not viewing those pages... If they keep going there expecting to see the insults magically disappear, and still don't speak up, it's their own damn fault. I don't view web pages, listen to radio programs, etc. that I find offensive; I realize that some people may find them hilarious, like Howard Stern for example. Now, if Howard Stern came to my house and started insulting me on my lawn, I'd have the duty to speak up or I'd have to be forced to accept it. If someone speaks up and says, "I find that very offensive/degrading/etc." Then the user has the options of: discussing it rationally, editing or removing the offending content, or blowing up and starting a nasty flame war and vandalizing everything associated with the other user. Only one of those should be punishable under the "bad faith" rules. I don't see why on my user page, I shouldn't be able to post Xoid's a pompous asshole. if that is my opinion. (It's not... it's just an example). If Xoid finds it offensive, he can rationally discuss it with me, or he can ignore my page. (Or; given the circumstances, he can nuke/ban me to hell) ERNesbitt^P·T·MalTel 04:19, 26 June 2006 (BST)

You got that right! I'm not a pompous asshole, in way shape or form. I'm a pompous arsehole. (I couldn't nuke you, no access to weapons grade plutonium unfortunately. Unfortunately, banning you would be likely to get me impeached, Monika Lewinsky style a misconduct case. :-p ) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:46, 10 July 2006 (BST)