Forum:CT:Restricting use of user pages

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Restricting use of user pages


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 Wookieepedia:User page and profile policy adopted: discuss changes on its talk page. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In the past couple of weeks, we've had three Senate Hall threads (Forum:User page fanon, Forum:User page fanon: Thread, and Forum: This is a problem) where regular users have criticized the tendency of some other users to work entirely on user pages — in most cases, by writing biographies of their fanfiction personae which would be better off as articles on the fanon wiki, though other people have criticized [Redacted by administration]|galleries like this one.

A lot of users have suggested that some sort of policy be instituted restricting this sort of thing. On the one hand, restricting user page use, especially fanon and image use, could be helpful in many ways:

  • It might lessen the tendency for new users to come online, assume this is all about roleplaying and fan fiction, and add fanon to the main article space.
  • It would ensure that we don't have a repetition of previous WOTM nomination battles, where users tried to get awarded solely for their userpages, and were soundly ridiculed for it.
  • Sending more people to the fanon wiki could help that community grow and improve.
  • Some users think that it would clean up the wiki by getting rid of situations where someone floods Recent Changes by making 38 successive edits to their userpage. I doubt this would happen: if that sort of user were making constructive edits to actual articles, they would still have trouble finding the preview button. 8)
  • It would cut down on complaints about other users "stealing" code from other user pages, warring over their userbox "collections", and other foolishness.
  • Flashy userpages attract vandals. Darth Cow's page has been vandalised a few times by people who I don't think he had anything to do with.

On the other hand, there are some major pitfalls:

  • Jack Nebulax, Jasca Ducato, and several other users have balanced an imaginary bio with productive article edits. Why stop them?
  • User:Kwenn/UnWookieepedia|Kwenn's UnWookieepedia and similar subpages can be said to serve a useful, community-building purpose. I'd hate to see it booted.
  • The Forum:TC:List of sexual references in Star Wars/4th nomination|List of sexual references and the List of references to Earth in Star Wars|Earth references page started out as user subpages created just for fun, and have since been moved to the main namespace as actual articles.
  • Despite what some may think about wasting space in the database, we've been repeatedly told by wikia staffers not to worry about this.
  • We don't want to get a widespread reputation as an unfriendly site full of ban-happy administrators deleting and reverting everything in sight. It's unavoidable that some people, usually banned vandals or POV-pushers, will think of us that way, but we don't want everyone in the fandom to think this.
  • To ensure fairness, a user page policy would have to be followed by absolutely all Wookieepedians, from bureaucrats and sysops on down to the latest newbies. Any exceptions to a rule, where frequent constructive contributors would be allowed more leeway, would be tough to enforce (who says which users are good enough to merit an elaborate userpage?) and result in charges of favoritism.

All the same, we do need to stem the tide somewhat. I'm tired of moving and deleting stuff that belongs on the fanon wiki, and I feel sorry for the kids who come on here and post fanfic that none of us will pay any attention to. So I'll put an outlined policy below, and let people argue over it. Is it too harsh? Not harsh enough? Both? —Silly Dan (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy (June 22, Silly Dan)

  • User page fanon must be restricted to either the main user page or a single subpage. Not a user page and a subpage, and not a series of subpages. If you can't contain your imagination, you can use interwiki links to the fanon wiki or something like that.
  • User pages must comply with the User image policy.
    • We must decide what our user image policy is. 8)
  • User subpages not containing fan fiction may be kept, subject to the user image policy and some usefulness to the project (like a personal sandbox, a to do list, a contributions page, a toolbox linking to maintenance tasks and useful templates, or a fun page for community building.)
    • Anything that would be better off on, say, Livejournal or Myspace, should be left off.
  • User pages must not be put in categories which would cause them to be mistaken for "real" articles. Likewise, using Template:Title to make the userpage appear to be a "real" article would be bad.
  • Users violating this policy will be reminded of the relevant sections of WP:NOT, and of the existence of the fanon wiki. It is very important that people be warned and redirected in a polite manner: after all, this is "their space" which we would be criticizing.
  • Users in violation of these rules may be blocked according to the blocking policy we're establishing for registered users who post fanon. They may also have their user pages edited, deleted, or protected from further edits.

Comments

  • Sounds good to me, but I'm most interested in what the Image proposal will become. Cutch 04:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds quite balance to me. Darth Kevinmhk 04:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • What about "My Collection" lists? Is it allowed under the proposed policy? Darth Kevinmhk 04:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the June 22 policy. -Finlayson 04:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm comfortable with this. -- SFH 04:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should have like a disclaimer on the Main Page, and show them the Fanon Wiki. Fatguy2006 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the policy, but I think it would be better to outlaw fanon from the main userpage and restrict it to that single subpage. That way, we could avoid confusion and users would be encouraged to use their page properly: "to give some information about yourself, and to help organize your contributions to Wookieepedia" – as stated in WP:NOT.--Sentry [Talk] 00:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Some people may only want to give info on an imaginary persona (while still editing regular articles): in those cases, I'd rather not force them to have a nearly blank user page and a subpage. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good policy to me. I'm ready to end this problem. And I also think a new notice on the main page would be good. -- Ozzel 03:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds mostly good, but a few issues: First, the line "Anything that would be better off on, say, Livejournal or Myspace, should be left off" is going to be misinterpreted by both sides of future discussions. This should be either left out or more clearly defined, with examples and so forth- exactly what kinds of content are we talking about here? Second of all, I agree that fanon should be cleared from main userpages, but I don't understand the issue with it on subpages. Wikia doesn't have space issues, so the problem must be new users emulating fanon. Easy fix- just make a nice, shiny new red template for user fanon subpages that clearly spells out why it shouldn't be brought onto the main wiki. --Thetoastman 08:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I made a test template that could be used for that purpose: User:Sentry/Template:fanonBio|Template:fanonBio.
      Feel free to edit it however you wish... --Sentry [Talk] 22:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think this proposal is solid as long as we require pages containing fanon to be clearly tagged with Sentry's template. RMF 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Ha! The template looks great! Darth Kevinmhk 02:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Alrighty, the template is now in the main namespace and is ready to be used. Just add {{tl|fanon user page}} to the top of the page.--Sentry [Talk] 04:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
          • This policy sounds good, but like Theto said, there needs to be clear cut examples shown, to avoid misinterpretation, i agree that there are to many people using Wiki simply for there own UserPage, if not Userpage+SubUserPages. Jedi Dude 15:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should allow userpage fanon on any page. it is, after all, their page. I agree however that we shoudln't just allow people to edit their user page and just thier user page. As noted above, people like myself and Jack Nebulax balance what we do, if somebody does that then why ban them. It shows creativity among other things. I put forward a vote to ban people who just edit their userpages and do not contribute useful information to the wiki. Jasca Ducato 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Instead of that, we should give users like that a certain time period to show that they will contribute instead of just editting their userpage. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree with making that a policy: I, for one, have registered a username and created a minimalist userpage on several wikis which I only lurk on. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this policy is acceptable, provided that the users are only blocked if they continue reposting violating content if it was deleted. - Sikon [Talk] 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Threatening users with a ban just because they start with a userpage before working on articles is a bit draconian. We should only do so if they put up too many fanon or completely off-topic subpages, violate our image use policy once we get it, or can't stop posting fanon to the main article space. (We should also create a "the preview button is your friend" talk page template.) —Silly Dan (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • There's two options available over here. As for a ban, i take it we've reached a concensus. We leae a message if they edit it too many times, if the continue to do so we ban them for a while (to be decideded later), if they then carry on then we'll ban them longer. Jasca Ducato 09:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Before we end this Consensus track, I think we should discuss exactly how this policy should be enforced. For instance, will the "fanon user page" template be voluntary or mandatory? I don't think that I would feel comfortable with adding it to another person's page without their consent, but the template is fairly prointless unless it is widely used...--Sentry [Talk] 23:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps some sort of prominent notice should be mandatory, but that specific template needn't be. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Uh... then what sort of prominent notice Template would you consider important enought to be mandatory? --Sentry [Talk] 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the parameters brought forth by Silly Dan, as long as my own pages are not affected and there are plenty of them, though they mostly serve a purpose. As for clear cut examples, why not link directly to Mike Kazz or Sato Stars? -- Riffsyphon1024 11:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • My thoughts:
  1. The problem with the template is that while some users may voluntarily put it on their page, there are going to be some that won't, and us going in and putting it there for them violates their space.
  2. I think the "Anything better suited for Livejournal or MySpace" stipulation needs to be further defined. Right now, it's too vague and may become a point of contention later on.
  3. Putting a link to the fanon wiki on the main page (or otherwise publicizing the fanon wiki) would be beneficial to both communities.
  4. We need to define whether the fanon is allowed on either the main userpage or one subpage. Currently, there are some userpages that have a fanon bio on the main page and several subpages of stuff like their fanon bio character's ship or the details of their lightsaber. When this policy gets fully implemented, how are we going to deal with all those extra subpages? Are we going to tell them to post it over at the fanon wiki and link to it here with interwiki links? StarNeptuneTalk to me! 12:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Very late response to StarNeptune:
  1. There's also {{fanonend}} and {{fanonstart}}. That doesn't answer your question, I know.
  2. I think I meant to say that a personal blog isn't welcome, and would be better off on LJ. Not sure what else to add there to "inappropriate use" which wouldn't also be covered by "not an image gallery" and "not a blog", though I know for a fact there must be something I missed.
  3. On the one hand, the fanon wiki needs more reasonable users to keep it from becoming a mess. On the other hand, the fanon wiki is a bit of a mess that may scare away reasonable users. That doesn't answer the question either.
  4. We seem to be split on "only one subpage" or "only the main page": I don't see the need to restrict it that much. I think "only one page, which may be your main page or a subpage" would be OK. Extra pages could be deleted, but with a warning first. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Proposed policy

Please see Wookieepedia:User page and profile policy for a draft policy page. It still needs work, however. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


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