This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was

1. No consensus to change existing userpage policy regarding off-topic content.
2. To allow users to state their religious and political beliefs on their userpages.

As seen Forum:SH Archive/Sensitive issues on user pages|here, there seems to be some contention over what is considered a violation of Wookieepedia:User page policy and WP:NOT, especially in relation to hot topics such as religion, politics and other thorny issues. This vote/discussion shall aim to clarify exactly how Wookieepedia shall deal with issues such as these on userpages.

Userpages in general

Option 1: If it's not Star Wars or Wookieepedia-related, it doesn't belong

This option would include prohibiting using your userpage for the following:

1. "Extensive discussion not related to Star Wars/Wookieepedia"
2. "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Star Wars/Wookieepedia"
3. "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Star Wars/Wookieepedia"
4. "A weblog relating your non-Wookieepedia activities".

Support

1. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. —Xwing328^(Talk) 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   I like this idea. You can still tell a little about yourself and stuff you do, but it won't take up entire pages. Jorrel Fraajic 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3. This is Wookieepedia, not a blog. Users could provide links to their blogs though. KEJ 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Ozzel 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Fnlayson 03:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Only a little on a page is fine, but too many times I see utter bullcrap that needs to go. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Chack Jadson 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Can the eye-soring userboxes go too? Sometimes I see userboxes that fill up the userpage with utter crap and have no point. --Redemption^Talk 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think I need more examples of what the other admins who'd be enforcing this think constitutes excessive or overly extensive non-Star Wars activities. Which other userpages would we have to shorten or delete? Which users have non-Star Wars content on their userpages which are still OK? —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• And you've just neatly summed up why this whole thing is a Bad Idea. -- Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And yet I agreed that a large portion of the user page that touched off the previous discussion should have been removed. —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As so. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think a policy can really decide this. Just like with the one page, we decided enough was enough. —Xwing328^(Talk) 00:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Option 2: Leave it as it is

Self-explanatory.

Support

1. Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. What the heck is "extensive"? What is "excessive"? What are our standards? How would this be enforced? How do we make sure enforcement is evenhanded? No, just let it be. Havac 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Cull Tremayne 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC) - Agree, although I think the userpage that brought this up was a whole different box of weasels.
4. Thanos6 07:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Per Havac and Silly Dan. The guidelines above are nice in theory, but in practice, I think there will be a lot of problems. The phrasing is very vague and subjective which would make enforcement a real problem. Besides, I don't really care what users have on their user page as long as they are not blatantly disregarding WP:NOT.–Sentry^Talk 07:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. GRACKLE SHIELD! -BaronGrackle 15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Per Sentry. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Are we all such Star Wars nerds that we have nothing to tell each other except things related to the SW Universe and this wiki? What is the point of a userpage then? Come up with a specific character or byte limit on size of random gibberish or fanfics, and I'll vote for some higher measure of control, but otherwise leave it alone. Wildyoda 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
9. I prefer the sort of thing I propose below. —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Per Sentry. We may also want to vote on a mandatory disclaimer (maybe even on every userpage) stating, as Silly Dan (I think) proposed: "The views expressed on Wookieepedians' user pages are the sole properties of the users and do not reflect the views of Wookieepedia or Wookieepedians at large." This way we don't have to decide what is and is not acceptable. Otherwise the admins will get all kinds of complaints. "He likes Spaceballs; I am offended"... Gonk 20:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

    I proposed no such thing, but now that you have it seems like a good idea to me. 8) —Silly Dan _(talk) 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Religious/political affiliations

Should users be allowed to state their political and/or religious beliefs on their userpages?

Yes

Under this option, users could briefly write about their religion/politics, but doing so at length may violate WP:NOT.

Support

1. Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Havac 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Cull Tremayne 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) - Boxes can't explain everything. Seriously, a paragraph or two of a description seems perfectly reasonable.
4. Restricting people to custom userboxes only is a bit much. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Too much Star Wars is also too bad as is too much politics and religion. Zainal 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
7. —Xwing328^(Talk) 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. BaronGrackle 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Wildyoda 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in custom userbox form only

Under this option, users can express their belief in the form of custom userboxes only.

Support

—Xwing328^(Talk) 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jorrel Fraajic 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Drawing a clear line. Fnlayson 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Chack Jadson 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, race, religion and politics have no place on this wiki

Self explanitory.

Support

1. I don't see the need to flag that stuff on this wiki. KEJ 20:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. First Amendment can kiss my ass. Here, it'll only cause trouble and flame wars. I'd rather see flame wars on something productive and of use here, not something that none of us has any power of. --Redemption^Talk 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
3. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I can see this getting out-of-hand too, but hopefully it won't ever come to that. —Xwing328^(Talk) 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• I can't belive it has come to this, but given that bigotry and hatred is apparently stronger than tolerance and sympathy with fellow SW-fans, all non-SW related religio-political stuff should be abolished from this wiki in articles and on user pages. KEJ 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• This whole thing has just been blown way out of proportion. We have a precedent set with the recent user page, let's just continue to deal with it on an "as-needed" basis. —Xwing328^(Talk) 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wonder if it's WP:NPA that needs amending more than the userpage policy or WP:NOT (the latter is more of a general document used for making more specific policies anyway) — we could clarify that it applies to identifiable people or groups of people who may or may not be editing here. (But when does it cross the line? Again, this is something admins will have to make judgements on, case-by-case, as needed.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Due to a recent string of User page edits, I have decided to remove my vote altogether. I don't want to have a part in something that restricts users one way or another. Sure, I don't really want to see user pages like the one, but if it means that we can have Darth Culator and Atarumaster88's pages back to normal, it's a price I'm willing anto pay. I didn't really want this to happen when I originally voted; I just expected hugely inappropriate things like racism and bigotry removed, not ranting about vandals and no signatures on talk pages. And I certainly did not want any users to feel "offended" by my voting. whew, that was ranting in and of itself... Jorrel Fraajic 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See Forum:WP:NOT is not.... (please stop deleting your userpages). —Silly Dan _(talk) 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, we can talk about userpage information being so others know what to ask you about Star Wars, such as "the fleet junkie userbox lets other people know they can ask me questions about SW ships and junk", but come on. Do you seriously believe that? You ask questions about specific topics on those topics' talkpages. People knowledgeable in those topics generally have those talkpages watched, and will respond. And, if you want to ask someone directly about a specific thing, which are you more likely to do? A search for everyone with that template? Or a scan of the speakers on its talk page? Userpages are for ourselves and for fun, even if we pretend they aren't. -BaronGrackle 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't finding those of like interests the purpose of some of the userpage templates (and their associated categories, if they have one)? StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I believe you are correct. I know I've used it before to surf around and look at userpages based on my interests. Jorrel Fraajic 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, then I am mistaken. -BaronGrackle 00:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, not completely... I mean, I do both, and I'm sure others do too. It's probably a mix of the two. Jorrel Fraajic 00:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if they're supposed to make it easier for users to find fellow wookieepedians with similar interests, surely this should not go beyond Star Wars. This is not the place for finding people with similar religious beliefs, political stances, ethnic background, or people who play a certain type of guitar, wear green hotpants, have coffee and bagels, do yoga, like pasta, don't like potato chips... etc. You see where I'm getting at? KEJ 09:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I understand exactly where you're going with it, and I totally agree. That's why I think it should be limited, at least category-wise. I'm assuming this doesn't affect non-categorized custom userboxes, right? Jorrel Fraajic 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
          • It could be interpreted as forbidding custom userboxes which only mention a user's race, religion, or politics, actually. —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Yeah, well, as I said, I don't see the need for those userboxes either. KEJ 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Well, if we're going all out: someone should probably do something about all those Zodiac userboxes. I mean, those all have "religious" significance of some sort- Greek mythology and all that. Someone could very easily be offended by that blatant nod to religions- they are actually templates, as opposed to custom boxes like the ones that are proposed to be removed. All in all, I think that this would do us more harm than good. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Expand Wookieepedia:Civility and Wookieepedia:No personal attacks instead?

Perhaps rather than change WP:NOT and the user page policy, we should add to WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Currently, those pages refer strictly to other Wookieepedia editors, but th sort of content most of us would want taken off userpages is content which could be interpreted as hostile towards identifiable ethnic, religious, or political groups who may or may not be editing or browsing here. For that matter, I could see it useful to extend this to identifiable fans or groups of fans, or to what other fansites call "Lucasfilm VIPs." (Of course, we'd be allowed to criticize the latter's work: "I didn't like Peter Cushing's performance" should be OK, but "Peter Cushing was history's greatest monster" shouldn't be.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm all for civility, and I don't want any of our users to attack people, but I really think that enforcement would both a pain and possibly generate a lot of ill will towards anyone (esp. admins) who had to enforce this, because it's usually not a big deal and is pretty subjective. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 16:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.