Wikivoyage talk:User page help

Archived discussions Wikivoyage talk:User page help/Archive 2004-2013

Something to worry about?

I noticed an IP editing someone's user page more than once and first suspected it to be somebody vandalizing somebody else's user page.

After looking at the:

• history of said user page,
• the contributions of the user the page belongs to,
• plus the two reprimands on his talk page

...I'm afraid all of his edits (both as IP and as a user) could be classified as promotion, something discouraged per Wikivoyage:User page help. However it is his own user page, not articles... Should we do something? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The entire page is arguably spam and certainly questionable, but we absolutely should not allow an IP to edit someone's user page without a clear explanation, so I have reverted IP edits to that user page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I had no idea what to do or say to the IP or to the user... :P ϒpsilon (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think in general we want to be fairly lenient with user pages and err on the side of being too permissive rather than judiciously policing user pages, but if someone has already been warned about self-promotion and continues then further scrutiny is probably warranted. Wikipedia has numerous examples about what they view as acceptable (note that they preface that with "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants"), and it might be useful to follow that example and make our guidelines more explicit than what is currently stated in the second paragraph of Wikivoyage:User page help#Brief introduction. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I doubt anyone affected by this is likely to read the guidelines anyway. If we are to be circumspect in the number of new rules we add, I think this would have to be a very low priority. Powers ^(talk) 19:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Powers is right on this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that problem users are unlikely to read or follow advice on our policy pages, so any clarification would be directed to people who patrol such things. At present our advice on the subject could be clearer, as evidenced by the question that started this thread. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We need to separate out two questions: (1) Is touting tolerated on user pages? Answer: No. Users can say who they are and what they do, but if they are clearly touting, their user pages need to be deleted for that reason, with an explanation in their user talk pages. (2) Are IP users or any other users allowed to edit other users' user pages, except to enforce policies that are clearly being violated? Answer: No. No-one but the user him-/herself should edit his/her user page, except when it is in violation of policies that need to be enforced. If the user forgot to log in, s/he should explain that, and then the edits to the user page should be permitted - again, unless they violated some important policy. That's my take on this discussion. Any disagreements with it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes; I believe users should be able to fix broken links on other users' pages (example: user links to a page called "Foo"; page is moved to "Foo, Bar" and "Foo" becomes a disambiguation page; we should be allowed to fix that link from "Foo" to "Foo, Bar"). Other than that, I agree. Powers ^(talk) 20:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I take your point, Powers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

My own itinerary

My wife and I are planning a world trip, and I wonder whether it would be appropriate to put the itinerary on my user page? If it were a little thing, I would just do it without bothering to ask, but we're thinking of a trip lasting many years, so I wonder if that is an appropriate use of the space. (Of course it is all text, no images, and I would link everything to Wikivoyage pages. It might even be helpful to someone other than my wife and me as a source of ideas.) Thanks for your help! Wyote (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You certainly can put that on your user page. If you have specific questions about any part of your itinerary, you could also post questions at Wikivoyage:Tourist Office. Happy trails! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The boundary between non-interference with userspace and the accuracy of our content

Swept in from the pub

Have a look at User:DAZ14LPA#No-Go's, which states that "I heard that if you speak English [in Quebec], you get dirty looks, unintentionally start a fight, or could get shot". Needless to say, this is patently and, I would say, offensively untrue. There are over a million Québécois who speak English natively, to say nothing of the millions more tourists who visit uneventfully each year from English-speaking regions of Canada, the U.S., and elsewhere in the Anglosphere, not to mention that gun violence (of any kind, let alone for reasons as innocuous as speaking the "wrong" language) is extremely rare in Canada.

I realize that the Wiki custom is to allow editors a little bit more leeway when it comes to their own userspace, and I also realize that some random editor's user page is going to see far less traffic than our actual Quebec destination article. However, we must also consider Wikivoyage's responsibility to ensure that the information we provide to our readers is as accurate as possible, and I think the chance, however unlikely, of someone reading that and being misled as to the safety of travelling in Quebec handily outweighs whatever value it may bring to this editor's userspace.

My initial inclination was to simply delete the passage, but on second thought, I figured it might be better to bring up the issue here.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not that worried about people getting wrong information from user pages, but this indeed seems it might need curating. As the user seems to be serious, I think one should point to this discussion on the user talk, tell the user he or she has got the wrong impression and ask them to reword such passages. Blatant passages can be removed and the removal explained afterwards, but I suppose that is not needed here. --LPfi (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd leave it. I think most readers will recognise from context — he or she craps on a long list of places, IMHO mostly for silly reasons — that he or she is just acting dumb & repeating hearsay. Pashley (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Either of Pashley's or LPfi's approach are better than charging in and changing it yourself. I personally wouldn't even bother bringing it up as it's obvious to anyone reading that it's someone's ill-informed opinion. On balance, Babel boxes which claim a level of English higher than a user is obviously capable of are more damaging, but I still wouldn't tell a user to "downgrade" themselves from e.g. en-4 to en-2. But if you feel you must tackle this person on Quebec, then leave them a message, explain your reasons etc. But if they refuse to change it, that's their prerogative. You should then drop the issue; it's not worth a fight.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!. It's best to leave userspace alone, and if people read misinformation outside of our "official" website content, it is their duty to recognize it and ignore it. After all, how would someone even find this user's content without specifically searching for his/her userspace, let alone assume said misinformation is more accurate than our mainspace article specifically dedicated to Quebec? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Though I've been unable to figure out where it was swept to, I remember a discussion in the pub about the trend in web traffic to Wikivoyage vis-à-vis COVID in which it was noted that the user page of long-inactive editor User:Nicholasjf21 had become one of the most-visited pages on the site for some reason. I'm not sure what that signifies, but I think it serves to complicate any arguments based on the obscurity of this user's userspace. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought we (being those who participated in that discussion) generally agreed that was due to an error in how page views were counted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You may well be right; I don't remember how that discussion resolved. At any rate, while I continue to think the idea of an editor trash-talking specific destinations is in poor taste and unbecoming a travel site (and doing so based on untrue information worse still), I don't see any point in forcing the issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the discussion. I think it was right to inform the user, as you have done, but at that point s/he ought to make the right decision on his/her own. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Note: actually I think I have the wrong discussion.

A couple of discussions about this user's User Page:User_talk:DAZ14LPA#Montreal, User_talk:Traveler100bot#Do_not_touch_my_page. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not pro-censorship, but I'm also opposed to Wikivoyage user pages being used to make false and offensive statements. They really shouldn't be used for anything beyond Wikivoyage business and whatever biographical information the user wants to share, but we really only need be concerned where the user crosses a line like this one. Wikipedia has a useful and reasonable policy on this that I think we should adopt. I will paraphrase some key points to illustrate what I mean:

• Wikivoyage is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikivoyager.
• A user page should not be used to post material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offence (e.g., pro-pedophilia advocacy). Wikivoyage is not a soapbox.

We have had an issue with one contributor who, after a long spell of contributing useful travel information, began editing articles to promote anti-Semitic and racist views. That person was banned from the site, appropriately. I don't think that we can trust in the judgement of all of our contributors.

In this case, the editor was notified five years ago that the statement about Quebec are blatantly false, and yet s/he has left the statement in place.

I suggest notifying the user that the statement is false and offensive and that it must be removed. If so/he fails to do so, it will be removed by an admin. Ground Zero (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is the contributor you're talking about, Ground Zero, but we still have a set of politically charged userpages about a made-up country from a user who is now banned. As long as we're talking about how to handle controversial userspace content, should we delete these? Given the userban for related issues and how extensive and irrelevant the pages are, I lean towards deleting them. I'm not sure how best to handle the Quebec issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

These have been deleted. Wikivoyage is not free web-hosting for personal stuff. Ground Zero (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I was referring to User:ArticCynda, who I think is a different person. But yes, why would we host these pages? Ground Zero (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It took me a moment to find it. We have our own policy on user pages, Wikivoyage:User page help, which says, in part,

"Remember that Wikivoyage is not a personal home page service or a vacation photo service. Overloaded User pages are considered a form of abuse. In addition, while it is OK to associate yourself with your company if you work for or run a business, user pages should not be used for advertising."

On that basis, we can delete made-up country pages. I think we should expand the "should not be used for advertising" to include "false statements, and statements that denigrate another user or identifiable group". Ground Zero (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Who decides what constitutes a "false statement"? It's not your intention, as stated, but that sounds like the excuse authoritarian regimes give for censorship of free speech to me. I fail to see any justification for intervening over a mild bit of userpage moaning, especially when links are being drawn with two users who systematically inserted hate-speech across Wikivoyage. These are two completely different things. Anyone who denigrates another user or who actually engages in hate speech, advocacy of paedophilia etc can already be sanctioned by existing policy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Btw, I support deleting the Libmod made up countries, which again are completely different to the situation which triggered this discussion. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Going behind my back to discuss a joke I made on my userpage without consulting is not okay. I will delete the passage, as is implied and close my account. Donny (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No one has been shot in Quebec for speaking English. You can google it. Free speech does not give anyone the right to spread false news. And Wikivoyage should not be a platform for false statements. It doesn't seem like anyone understands that it is a joke, so we won't treat it as one. Ground Zero (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I know that no one has been shot in Quebec for not speaking French, it was only a minor jab at the independence movement, but I have deleted the passage and will not edit anymore; it seems that is what you want. Donny (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: While existing policy allows us to sanctions users for such statements, under what policy can we delete them from user pages? If there is a policy, I'll be happy. This is really about clarifying that a Wikivoyage user page is not the property of the user. Ground Zero (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ground Zero:Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits, Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun, Wikivoyage:Child protection policy, through Revision deletion.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Those don't specifically mention user talk pages, and they don't address the comment in question in this discussion, so I think it would be helpful to clarify at Wikivoyage:User page help that user pages are not a place for false statements about a person, group or place. Ground Zero (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

They don't need to mention user pages, because any hate speech/paedophilia content is removed and usually rev del'd wherever it shows up in Wikivoyage, per those policies. But again, who defines a "false statement"? The truth police? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be the Wikivoyage Community, by a warm and friendly consensus, like everything else we do here. Not very truth police-y at all. Ground Zero (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Should I post User:Libertarianmoderate/Alex Nation and his other fictional destination userspace pages at vfd? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

The immediate issue has been resolved. @DAZ14LPA: has removed the comment from his user page. Thank you, Donny, for doing so, and for being reasonable about this. I'll bring up the broader issue at Wikivoyage:User page help at some point. Ground Zero (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for going behind my back to bring it up. Please, next time there is an issue, bring it up on my talk page instead.Donny (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see my response to your comment at User talk:AndreCarrotflower. Thanks, Ground Zero (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad this has been resolved, but yes, in the future I think it's best to bring these things up on the relevant user talk page before starting a discussion in the pub. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Granger, please see the related discussion at User talk:AndreCarrotflower#Why didn't you just talk to me?, specifically my comment timestamped 23:29, 13 May 2020. Taking the issue to the pub was not a first resort. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "first resort" was a comment five years ago in which you didn't specifically ask the user to remove the material. When you discovered the material had reappeared this year, it would have been more diplomatic to first leave a message on the user talk page asking the user to remove it, and only come to the pub if that was unsuccessful. The rest of us (including me) could also be more thoughtful about how to comment, remembering that, as ThunderingTyphoons! said, we're talking about a real person. With a big community-wide discussion after the issue hadn't come up for years, I think it's easy to see how this could feel like a sudden and unpleasant pile-on. Not trying to blame anyone, just offering a suggestion for the future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

On the face of it, I agree with you. And I'm generally of the opinion that we should normally avoid editing user pages except in cases of spam and vandalism and other extreme cases. Remarks that are merely untrue and perhaps stupid could be discussed on the user's talk page and nominated for deletion if no satisfactory solution is arrived at, but let's face it, this isn't a high-traffic wiki like Wikipedia, so a few dumb words in a dark corner are unlikely to have severe ill effects on the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal about offensive material on user pages

I've made a proposal to provide additional guidance on user pages about not using them to post offensive material here. Ground Zero (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional guidance on user pages

We have had occasional problems with users who are looking for a platform for diatribes against certain groups, including users who espouse racist or anti-Semitic views. While it is straightforward to handle this issue in articles, some users still seem to think that user pages "belong" to the user. We do try to disavow users of that notion with this advice:

"Remember that Wikivoyage is not a personal home page service or a vacation photo service. Overloaded User pages are considered a form of abuse. In addition, while it is OK to associate yourself with your company if you work for or run a business, user pages should not be used for advertising."

But that advice seems to limit the guidance to photos and advertising. I'd like to make it clear that a Wikivoyage user page isn't a place for spouting off offensive views by adding this text adapted from Wikipedia, which has dealt with this issue in the past:

"A user page should not be used to post material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offence. Wikivoyage is not a soapbox."

It would be up to the community to decide whether something is disreputable or offensive. Let's hope that this warning is enough to disarm the "free speech" argument. (They can say whatever they want elsewhere, but this is a travel guide, not a personal web page.) There are lots of other dark, scary places on the Internet where racists and anti-Semites can say whatever they want and will be applauded by like-minded cretins (not that I'm judging anyone). They don't have to use a travel guide for this purpose. Ground Zero (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is keeping the guideline strict enough. E.g. "bringing the project into disrepute" could be used to censor justified criticism. I do not think there is such a risk at the moment, but rules should be made to work also under pressure. --LPfi (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Would we actually use it that way though? If we can't trust the judgement of the Wikivoyage Community, then we have have nothing. I think this is preferable to trying to come up with a list of "prohibited topics", which in itself would be contentious. This is the wording used by Wikipedia, which has a longer history and a bigger group of people thinking about this. Here are details from that policy for clarification, although I don't know if we want to import the level of detail:

"Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).

"Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.

"Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."

Ground Zero (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we actually would use it in that way, but I can imagine a user justifying removal of such content with the wording (possibly in relation to a personal conflict about how some issue should be handled), causing unnecessary drama. An "unrelated to Wikivoyage" could help (but "causing widespread offence" should not be tolerated even if related to Wikivoyage). There may be other issues along the same lines. --LPfi (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We could clarify that individual users should not be making this determination:

"A user page should not be used to post material that is, in the opinion of the Wikivoyage community, likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offence. Wikivoyage is not a soapbox."

Is there anything that people would post related to Wikivoyage that would bring the project into disrepute? If there is an issue that has been decided by the community, and someone wants to keep banging on about it on their user page, is it needed? The records of the community debate would already exist on policy talk pages, so it's not like we'd be trying to bury the issue. (All of the discussion about ArticCynda is still available.) But should a user page be a platform for ongoing campaigning on an issue? Ground Zero (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible alternative:

User pages should be limited to either wiki-related content or other, non-controversial information a user decides to share. Violations of this policy should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through consensus established in the community. Content that is not deemed unacceptable should always be considered acceptable.

I think it's important to clarify that content should by default be deemed acceptable along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty." This would hopefully encourage free speech as long as it does not violate the guidelines.

We could additionally offer examples to make the distinction clear:

Examples of acceptable material: places visited, biographies (assuming they do not reveal personal information), user sandbox, travel articles not allowed in mainspace

Examples of unacceptable material: potentially harmful/damaging content unrelated to Wikivoyage, threats, or any other material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offence

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If we have to have a policy like this, then (a) I'm very glad that no-one is mentioning removing things which are "untrue" anymore, and (b) I mostly prefer the wording suggested by Selfie City to be combined with the "clarifications" offered by Ground Zero about negative information about other editors, mainly because it's more specific and therefore less likely to be abused in the future. I don't believe the current crop of admins and crats would abuse the notion of "offence", but we're not just writing policy for now; it needs to be future-proofed. I especially like "Content that is not deemed unacceptable should always be considered acceptable".

This with the exception that it is perfectly okay to reveal as much or as little personal information about yourself as you like. Most of us opt to keep things more private, but there aren't and shouldn't be any rules against revealing our own personal details. It's rather too late for some of us in that respect anyway.

As much as I appreciate the answer given by Ground Zero in the Pub ("It would be the Wikivoyage Community [who decides what's offensive etc], by a warm and friendly consensus, like everything else we do here.") I'd still want to understand how exactly that would work. Your answer basically describes the approach taken regarding the material which started this conversation, and as a community we pretty much cocked it up. So what exactly would the steps to take be, to minimise reasonable upset to the user concerned, and not appear that everyone is ganging up on someone and/or conspiring behind their back?

And I still think that this conflates relatively minor "offensive" material (suggesting speaking English in QC is somehow a crime) with the much more serious and wide-ranging bigotry espoused by two banned users; the former is free speech, albeit not supported by any evidence, some of the latter could have resulted in police action, or certainly it could in the UK. They're not even comparable. Regardless of whether it specifically says "we can remove offensive material from your userpage" or not, I do think we have always had the right to remove the sort of material the two banned users spouted, wherever it crops up in Wikivoyage. I also think that if a laundry list of grievances targeting another editor on someone's userpage were discovered, it could currently be removed per Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun, as that kind of behaviour falls foul of the first four bullets in the list under "Are you being a buzzkill?", as well, potentially, as Wikivoyage:No real world threats.

This, if I'm right, really means that the only times this new policy would come into play was in less straightforward, more nuanced cases like the one we were dealing with yesterday. And this being the case, it is better to write as specific and precise a policy as we can.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's start where this began. Donny's offensive comment wasn't suggesting that speaking English in Quebec is a crime, it was that you "could get shot". He removed it in 2015 after Andre complained, and then restored it in 2019. Clarifying that user pages are not an unrestricted free speech zone for bigots and wackos gives us the hook to hang out hats on in cases like these. I don't think we will have to use this except in rare cases, so I don't want to spend a whole lot of time developing a process or rules around this. I think it is covered by Wikivoyage:Consensus. In the event, Donny removed the offensive statement when asked. Other users might not be do quick to do so.

I'm okay with SelfieCity's wording. I find the "whats not unacceptable is acceptable" to be redundant and kind of confusing, but I can live with it. Ground Zero (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Being precise is a virtue, but being specific and wordy, and missing the goal, is less so – and the more precise one tries to be, the more details have to be exactly right. I prefer the shorter original wording, with the addition I suggested, if we need a policy change. I also think discussing user page content is making drama. I'd prefer to be able to remove threats and obvious bigotry on sight, explaining on the talk page immediately afterwards. If it is not obvious, I'd ask the user to change the text. Only if the issue isn't resolved in this way, it should be brought to the community. --LPfi (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What to do if you find offensive comments on a user page

LPfi's comment, following ThunderingTyphoons!'s question above, makes me think we should set out what to do if you find offensive comments on a user page. This guide doesn't provide direction in that regard. I don't think the answer is easy.

• If it is something very offensive, then we would want you to delete it immediately from the other person's user page:

potentially harmful/damaging content unrelated to Wikivoyage, threats, or any other material that is clearly going to bring the project into disrepute, or which is clearly to give widespread offence

• If it is something mildly offensive, then the best approach would be to ask the user to remove it from his/her user page and explain why. If s/he is unwilling, then you should post a note at WV:Requests for comment to solicit the views of other editors. If a consensus indicates that it is offensive and the user still refuses to remove it, then any editor could do so.

Advertising, possibly harmful/damaging content unrelated to Wikivoyage, threats, or any other material that could to bring the project into disrepute, or which could give offence

The problems will be found in between those two ends of the spectrum. User discretion is advised. Thoughts? Ground Zero (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think in the case of a minor offense, the best solution is to first go to the user talk page and discuss if the user is active (Donny didn't like content being immediately changed on his userpage either; his talk page demonstrates that).

I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!.

Policy should be like a Constitution; people are always challenging it and trying to find ways around it, so it needs to be clear and take every precaution to avoid becoming obsolete. More later. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, address a minor offence on the talk page is exactly what I suggested above. Ground Zero (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I misread. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Threats" should be in one category or the other, I think, unless you're referring to threats on a different scale from each other. But we need to be careful that this doesn't go too far. I agree with Ikan Kekek's post in the pub that the chances of someone finding such content is small.

Look at how long it took us to find the offensive content in LM's userspace. So while I think we should remove it when we find it, I don't see anything else we can do here. The chances of a user posting such content is unlikely, extremely unlikely, as quite a few of our regular users don't even have user pages, and those who have user pages don't include much more than a brief description and places traveled. Therefore, the whole scenario must be kept in perspective. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Good catch on threats. I've updated the text. Ground Zero (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

One thing I wish to say though is that I don't think people should be policing how much personal information people want to reveal on their user page. Revealing another user's personal information is a big no-no, you should be free to reveal as much personal information you want about yourself.

And as for truths, I think there's a bit of a grey line. IMO, obvious jokes should be allowed as long as they're not offensive, but I agree that we should not allow things like racist or anti-Semitic content, or blatantly offensive stuff like pornography and what not. The dog2 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with a ban on undue revelations of personal information, because how could you know it's really their personal information? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. But we should definitely give more leeway as to how much people want to post about themselves. Some people post photos of themselves on their user page, and I think they should be free to do so. The dog2 (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

[undent]I'd be ok with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

@LPfi, ThunderingTyphoons!, SelfieCity, The dog2, Ikan Kekek: Opinion seems to be split between my shorter version and SelfieCity's longer version. To try to get this moving, I've tried to commergeulate the two versions, and to add on the advice on what to do if you find had stuff on a user page. I think that should be on our Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits page, with a link from here. Here is the new proposal:

While Wikivoyage provides users considerable freedom to post want they want on their user pages, user pages should be limited to either Wikivoyage-related content or other, non-controversial personal information a user decides to share. (Users should consider the risks of sharing personal information before doing so.) A user page should not be used to post material that is likely to give widespread offence, or is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Wikivoyage is not a soapbox. Such comments will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through consensus established in the community.

Examples of acceptable material: places visited, biographies, user sandbox, travel articles not allowed in mainspace

Examples of unacceptable material: potentially harmful/damaging content unrelated to Wikivoyage, threats, or any other material that is is likely to give widespread offence, or that is likely to bring the project into disrepute.

To add to Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits, with a link from here:

User pages

While Wikivoyage provides users considerable freedom to post want they want on their user pages, if you find something that violates Wikivoyage:User page help:

• If it is something very offensive, then delete it immediately from the other person's user page. This includes:

Potentially harmful/damaging content unrelated to Wikivoyage, threats, or any other material that is clearly to give widespread offence or clearly going to bring the project into disrepute,

• If it is something mildly offensive, or if you have doubts about it, then ask the user to remove it from his/her user page and explain why. If s/he is unwilling, then you should post a note at WV:Requests for comment to solicit the views of other editors. If a consensus indicates that it is offensive and the user still refuses to remove it, then any editor could do so. This includes:

Advertising, possibly harmful/damaging content unrelated to Wikivoyage, or any other material that could give offence, or could to bring the project into disrepute.

I struggled with the wording "Content that is not deemed unacceptable should always be considered acceptable" because that seems to override the underlying idea that user pages should be for Wikivoyage-related content and personal information. I think we can get across the idea of leniency/not policing this by adding "While Wikivoyage provides users considerable freedom to post want they want on their user pages".

With respect to personal information, I have added "Users should consider the risks of sharing personal information before doing so." to alert users to risks -- it's not our job to protect them from themselves.

I hope that this closer to an acceptable solution. Ground Zero (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, though perhaps this could go on its own policy page. But for the time being, let's incorporate into our existing policy page that comes closest to the exact topic. I would remove "then we would want you to," which is unnecessary. Otherwise I think this is a good policy on this issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "we would want to you to" and "the best approach". It reads better now. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks good, but should we also explicitly mention that it must comply with Wikivoyage: Don't tout? Sure, we should also allow people to provide links to their blog, YouTube channel or business as part of their profile, but Wikivoyage cannot be used to advertise them. The dog2 (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There are wordings I do not like.

• Why "non-controversial personal information"? I understand we might want some restriction, but I think that is not the restriction we want (and grammar tweak: "or other" should be "and").
• Here is also the disrepute statement. I think users should be allowed to state their point regarding conflicts on Wikivoyage, which may cause disrepute especially if the critique is well-founded – cf the other site.
• In the former passage community consensus is required also in the cases where it is not on the latter. This makes it obvious that we should handle these things in only one place; either say nothing about interpretation and sanctions in the latter or leave all user page specific policy to it.
• The second passage repeats the same problems, and adds rules (or clarifications?) not there.

--LPfi (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Referencing Don't tout would be good. About disrepute: such content should be allowed when it concerns Wikivoyage (at least in most cases). Bringing disrepute by unrelated discussion can be forbidden, but stating one is homosexual, comunist, Christian or the like, which could cause disrepute or offence in some circles, should be allowed. --LPfi (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

("Controversial personal information"? --LPfi (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC))

Well, for obvious reasons, we can't be allowing people to post sexually explicit content on their user page. So that is an example of personal information we can't allow. And likewise, you can't be posting things like Nazi or white supremacist slogans. The dog2 (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't "Don't tout" covered by "advertising" not being acceptable?

Isn't "controversial personal information" covered by "widespread offence"?

For that matter, maybe bringing Wikivoyage into "disrepute" is covered by "widespread offence", if what we mean is pornography, pedophilia, discriminatory statements.... There would be no point in using "disrepute" against a user page if the dispute is well covered in talk pages, so I don't think that concern is valid. But maybe we can drop "disrepute" altogether. Ground Zero (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Posting pornography should be covered (of course). That is not personal information. I talked about stating that one is homosexual, useful information when cooperating about LGBT content. It could be causing offence and disrepute, widespread in some circles, but that's their problem. Telling one's political views is a more delicate question. Usually there is a clear distinction between telling one's position and posting propaganda or offending slogans, but there is probably a grey zone. --LPfi (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the community would agree that someone posting that they are gay, or Christian, or conservative, or vegan would cause widespread offence. Ground Zero (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘OK, I just didn't know if that was meant to be an addition or to replace the content already there. But anyway, I don't think everything needs to be discussed. For things that are very obviously offensive (eg. pornography, explicitly bigoted statements, threats, etc.), an admin should be able to just go in and delete the offending content. Discussion and consensus should be applied more to things that are not so obvious. The dog2 (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Good. That is what the proposal is intended to do. Ground Zero (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine. We can post it onto the page itself. The dog2 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3

This is what it would look like with the changes I have suggested above:

While Wikivoyage provides users considerable freedom to post what they want on their user pages, user pages should be limited to either Wikivoyage-related content or personal information that a user decides to share. (Users should consider the risks of sharing personal information before doing so.) A user page should not be used to post material that is likely to give widespread offence, as determined by the Wikivoyage community. Wikivoyage is not a soapbox. Such comments will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through consensus established in the community.

Examples of acceptable material: places visited, biographies, user sandbox, travel articles not allowed in mainspace

Examples of unacceptable material: potentially harmful/damaging content unrelated to Wikivoyage, threats, or any other material that is likely to give widespread offence.

To add to Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits, with a link from here:

User pages

While Wikivoyage provides users considerable freedom to post want they want on their user pages, if you find something that violates Wikivoyage:User page help:

• If it is something very offensive, then delete it immediately from the other person's user page. This includes:

Potentially harmful/damaging content unrelated to Wikivoyage, threats, or any other material that is clearly to give widespread offence,

• If it is something mildly offensive, or if you have doubts about it, then ask the user to remove it from his/her user page and explain why. If s/he is unwilling, then you should post a note at WV:Requests for comment to solicit the views of other editors. If a consensus indicates that it is offensive and the user still refuses to remove it, then any editor could do so. This includes:

Advertising, possibly harmful/damaging content unrelated to Wikivoyage, or any other material that could give offence.

I would like to add in "personal attacks on other contributors" as a grounds for immediate deletion. Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw a mention of advertising. That shouldn't be edited out of user pages. Instead, they should be deleted, with a touting warning put on that user's talk page, or if its obviously irrelevant spam, deleted with the user blocked indefinitely right away by an admin. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Should this be deleted outright or after consultation? Ground Zero (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

For very offensive stuff, we should probably just block the user outright. I can't imagine someone posting, say, the n-word, Nazi slogans or pornography on their user page being serious about wanting to contribute to a travel guide. People like that are at best just trolls. The dog2 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Touting & especially user pages that consist solely of advertising should be removed. A user who has made non-touty contributions elsewhere should get the benefit of the doubt; ask him or her to remove it. If a touty user page is the only thing the user posts or if he/she ignores a talk page requests, then nuke it.

A link to the user's employer, blog or personal web site is fine unless it is part of touting text; if it is, then delete the touting & keep the link. Pashley (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I delete user pages that are obvious ads right away. I should say, I think that other than in exceptional situations, we should maintain a hands-off policy on user pages, so I disagree with deleting only touting portions of a user page. I say, delete the page and give the user the opportunity to replace it with one that has no touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

So what do you say about blocking the user for things like threats and harassment on the user page? The last thing we want to do is waste out time with obvious trolls. The dog2 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with The dog2, but I think that's a different policy page, not Wikivoyage:User page help. Maybe we can sort out what to do with user pages first, and move on to the question of blocking users somewhere else. I think the approach would be the same whether it's on the user page, a talk page or elsewhere. Ground Zero (talk)

[undent]Of course. Who would disagree with that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any grounds for consensus here? I've tried three versions, but each seems to raise as many objections as the last. Should I just drop the idea, or is it worth continuing to work on this? I think it is worth clarifying this both for people who post on user pages, and those who find problems on them, even though it doesn't happen often. Ground Zero (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most of the proposed text above, but having just indefinitely blocked a spambot and summarily deleted what in this case was a spam user talk page but just as easily could have been their user page, there's no way I could support language suggesting we should waste time discussing what to do with promotional user pages, and I don't know why you'd suggest not deleting those on sight. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

See Pashley's point above. Where an otherwise constructive editor crosses a line and puts something mildly touty on their user page, do we delete on sight, or discuss the problem with them? Some people seem loath to invade the user page unless necessary. I would agree that if it's just touting by someone who has only come here to tout, we needn't waste time with them. I can adjust the wording to reflect that of this would move the proposal forward. Ground Zero (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine. We can post it onto the page itself. The dog2 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please adjust the wording, because I misunderstood the intention of that part, and ideally, the language should be clear on its own, without having to refer people to a specific post on this talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think an adjustment saying something along the line of "for touting and pages created to cause offence, see ..." would solve the issue. The advertising here would be, as said above, constructive editors being a little too enthusiastic about their day job, political stance or whatever. I'd also say: change "Such comments will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis ..." to "Comments in the grey zone will ...". --LPfi (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(And GZ: Your frustration is understandable, but the thing is we did not have a clear enough understanding of what grey zones – or black ones – there are. Different wordings touched different issues. I think it is not about us having different views on the issues themselves. --LPfi (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC))

I think it is important to keep the wording "case-by-case basis" which is easy to understand. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem with that, just that not every instance has to be discussed. --LPfi (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see your point now. I agree that it needs to be clarified that they can be evaluated by the community, if necessary, but that many minor offenses can be resolved without a consensus due to existing policy. (Such as Wikivoyage:Don’t tout, etc. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Proposal 3 is much improved in my opinion. But I still have some questions and doubts, and while I sympathise that this may cause frustration, I can only apologise and voice them anyway.

• The wording of your first italics bit is good. I'm absolutely fine with providing guidance to users on what should and shouldn't go in their user pages. I do think, however, that "(Users should consider the risks of sharing personal information before doing so.)" is kind of redundant and obvious; "...personal information that a user decides to share." is sufficient to get the point across, but if others disagree perhaps it could be revised to "...personal information that a user feels comfortable sharing."

The second lot of italics are slightly less straightforward for me.

• One reason for this is I'm not sure whom it addresses. Are we giving any user the right to edit any other user's page if they see something that they think is offensive? If so, what are they supposed to do when the user reverts them? Do they edit war in support of the policy, do they contact an administrator, do they do an Rfc? Or do we limit direct interference to administrators, who would at least have the power to stop an edit war in its tracks?
• There's still a problem with defining "offence", as it's subjective. One person's joke is another person's insult.
• One way to address both of these issues might be to say that any removal of content called "offensive" that is reverted (so one user thinks it's offensive and the other - possibly the author - disagrees) automatically goes to Rfc to solicit the community's opinion without any further edits or discussion among the two involved users. In theory at least, if something is obviously offensive, the bulk of the community will agree and swiftly reach a consensus.
• But I also still kind of think that anything not serious enough to warrant immediate deletion and sanctions against the offending user is also not serious enough for the wider community to spend valuable time discussing. Things which "might cause offence", or that are "possibly harmful /damaging" could easily as well just be left alone, as there could be more damage inflicted to the community by debating it than not (for instance, if the discussion gets heated because a substantial number of people are on both sides; or if it drags on for days on end and detracts from building a travel guide). A possible rule of thumb might be (1) if you are personally upset by something, you should edit it out if serious enough or discuss with the person on their talk page if not, but (2) if you just think that "hmm, someone (but not me) may be offended if they see this", you should think long and hard before taking any action beyond a quiet suggestion to the author on their talk page.

Any other thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.

People can't just decide that because someone's user page content is "offensive" in their subjective opinion, and that it should therefore be removed without any discussion whatsoever with the person who originally posted the material. People will take advantage of a guideline of that nature.

On the other hand, we all know that there have been users, throughout the history of the website, who've posted content that truly should be removed from the website (in userspace or elsewhere), and it's impossible to build a consensus quickly enough to revert their edits. The problem is finding the balance between removing all content that could remotely be considered offensive, and leaving all content on the website even if it is offensive. The best balance between these two, in my opinion, is to take the same good-faith approach to userspace editing that we should take to edits in mainspace (not that we do, unfortunately, and I'll admit I'm guilty of making unfair judgments of others' contributions myself). We should assume that a potentially offensive comment (vague terminology, which — perhaps — should be clarified in this policy) was made in good faith unless evidence is clearly to the contrary.

We have to remember that not everyone takes policy and applies it the way it should be applied. Even an administrator with a personal dislike of another user or issue might use this policy as an opportunity to penalize that person unfairly. Such a scenario is unlikely, but possible, so I think we must take it into account if we decide to make the above proposal actual policy.

Perhaps the proposal would be better as a guideline similar to Wikivoyage:Deny recognition? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the easiest way to get around this potential issue to to explicitly define what content warrants immediate deletion from the User Page. As I previously mentioned, I think most of us can agree that things like sexually explicit content, threats and racial slurs should warrant immediate deletion. I understand that people have different standards as to what constitutes "bigotry", so it has to be for things that are clear cut, like if someone uses the n-word, the k-word or things along those lines. And of course, we should include blatantly offensive stuff like Nazi or white supremacist slogans. That said, some leeway should be given. For instance, I'm a scientist and don't agree with this position, but a Biblical literalist editor should be free to declare on their user page that they don't believe in evolution. The dog2 (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue is always going to be one of degree. There won't be a clear dividing line that will be the same for everyone. The extreme cases of explicitly racist text are easy. Then it gets trickier. If someone has something deleted from their user page, they can appeal to the community, and there will be a discussion. If some sees something that is somewhat racist, I don't think leaving it alone is a good solution: if the user who posted it won't take it down, getting community input is the only solution. I don't see any way around this.

Do we want to put deletions from user pages in the hands of administrators to incorporate a level of control/accountability on the process? "If you see something offensive, post a message in the pub and let me admin handle it." Then it will be up to admins to decide between automatic deletion and consulting others, and face the consequence of losing admin rights of they abuse the power. Ground Zero (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that could work too. But we should define some guidelines as to what warrants immediate deletion without consultation. After all, different admins will also find different things offensive. The dog2 (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Let's try this:

While Wikivoyage provides users considerable freedom to post what they want on their user pages, user pages should be limited to either Wikivoyage-related content or personal information that a user decides to share. Wikivoyage is not a soapbox. Such comments will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through consensus established by the community.

Examples of acceptable material: places visited, autobiographies, user sandbox, travel articles not allowed in mainspace

Examples of unacceptable material: potentially harmful/damaging content unrelated to Wikivoyage, advertising, threats, personal attacks on other contributors, or any other material that is likely to give widespread offence, as determined by the Wikivoyage community.

To add to Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits, with a link from here:

User pages

While Wikivoyage provides users considerable freedom to post what they want on their user pages, if you find something that violates Wikivoyage:User page help, you can ask the user to remove it by posting a message on their talk page, or let the administrators know by posting a notice at WV:Requests for comment with a link to the user page, indicating what part of it is offensive.

If it is something is clearly unacceptable, then an administrator will delete it immediately from the user page.

If it is something where there is doubt about it being unacceptable, the administrator should exercise their discretion. They may ask the user to remove it from their user page and explain why. If the user is unwilling, then the administrator should post a note at WV:Requests for comment to solicit the views of other editors. If other editors agree that it is offensive and the user still refuses to remove it, then any administrator could do so.

Where any unacceptable material has been posted on a user page by someone whose activity on Wikivoyage has been limited to posting such material, an administrator may delete the unacceptable material from the user page.

Removing content from a user page is a serious matter that could drive contributors away from Wikivoyage. Administrators should exercise caution, and seek to resolve problems through discussion with the user if possible.

Users who believe that the content was removed inappropriately, may appeal to other editors for reconsideration by posting a note at WV:Requests for comment.

With regard to suggestions about having clear guidelines for what falls into each category, I'd love to see proposals for that. I think we could discuss those for weeks without getting to a resolution. I think that we have to trust administrators, and I have added some wording to let admins know that they should not delete precipitously. Ground Zero (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

For the first part, I think what constitutes unacceptable content should be established by the entire community, not just the admins. The dog2 (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. And in the second part – RFC is for soliciting the views of the entire community, not just administrators. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a meeting room for admins.... But it seems that you want admins to delete when it's clear, but if there's doubt, to consult the broader community. Is that correct? Ground Zero (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's reasonable. The dog2 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, more or less (delete in extreme/obvious cases, bring it up on the user talk page otherwise, consult the broader community as a backup). My point is that in the phrase "may appeal to other administrators by posting a note at WV:Requests for comment", I would replace "administrators" with "editors" (in addition to the change The dog2 suggested for the first part). —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have made edits to the above text to reflect these changes. Ground Zero (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think it looks good now. The dog2 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about this sentence: "Where any material has been posted on a user page by someone whose activity on Wikivoyage has been limited to posting such material, an administrator may delete any or all of the user's talk page." Is there a mistake in this sentence? If not, I don't understand the rationale for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is to address user:Ikan Kekek's comment above "there's no way I could support language suggesting we should waste time discussing what to do with promotional user pages, and I don't know why you'd suggest not deleting those on sight." If someone comes to Wikivoyage just to post ads for their furniture shop, and puts the same info on their user page, we don't need to discuss it. Just delete. If an otherwise constructive editor posts info about their furniture shop on their user page, we discuss it with them. Ground Zero (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I would suggest rephrasing it "If a user's only activity on Wikivoyage is to post advertising, an administrator may delete that advertising from their user page and user talk page." Would that work? The other phrasing is confusing and suggests, at least to me, an unfriendly welcome for a user who created a user page to introduce themselves before starting to edit articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to limit it to advertising. If they come here and only make mildly racist, sexist, anti-Semitic or homophobic comments on talk pages, and on their user page, I'm okay with immediate deletion. I'm okay with being unfriendly to someone who's not being constructive in the first place. I've posted so many friendly and helpful messages to editors who've posted inappropriate stuff, and then we never hear from them again. Let's save our energy for constructive editors. Ground Zero (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll point out though that besides obvious slurs, sometimes things like this may just come down to misunderstandings. For instance the Spanish word for the colour "black" is "negro", (eg. el gato negro; the black cat), so it is certainly possible for a native Spanish speaker to not know that the word is a racial slur in American English. Likewise, the Italian word for "bassoon" is "fagotto", and the German word, which was derived from the Italian word is "Fagot". Mistranslations are certainly possible for someone whose English level is more rudimentary, so we should certainly be forgiving in such situations. The dog2 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm ok with this proposed language. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Then how about this: "Where any material has been posted on a user page by someone whose activity on Wikivoyage has been limited to posting unacceptable material, an administrator may delete any or all of the user page."? (To be honest I think even that is a little harsh, for the reason The dog2 said, but I can live with it.) If a user creates a harmless user page (like "My name is A and I love travel!") before editing any articles, I don't want an administrator to delete their user page or user talk page on that basis. The current proposal makes it sound like a harmless user page or user talk page can be deleted on the basis that the user hasn't made any other contributions to Wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see your concern now. There was an "unacceptable" missing. I have added it in above. I don't think we mean to delete "I love travel", but rather "I love Al's Furniture in Omaha" or "I don't trust Dutch people". (Of course, I trust the Dutch. This is a reference to Michael Caine.) Ground Zero (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that resolves my main concern. The remaining issue is that the sentence first refers to "a user page" and then to "the user's talk page". If read literally, this means that unacceptable content on the user page justifies deletion of the user talk page, which is surely not the intention. Maybe something like "Where any unacceptable material has been posted on a user page by someone whose activity on Wikivoyage has been limited to posting such material, an administrator may delete any or all of the user's talk page." Or, if we want to be harsher, "Where any unacceptable material has been posted on a user or user talk page by someone whose activity on Wikivoyage has been limited to posting such material, an administrator may delete any or all of the user's talk page material." —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Also a good point. I think we can limit the deletion to unacceptable material, and have made that change above. Anything else? Ground Zero (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I made a couple of other minor corrections. Looks good to me now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the mark-up and will leave it for a couple of days before posting. I believe that there is consensus now. Ground Zero (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see user talk pages mentioned in proposal 4. Can content be deleted from them as well? The existing policy as I understand it is that we shouldn't edit others' comments. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Added, for clarity, with mark-up. Ground Zero (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm not sure policy should be applied to user talk pages and user pages in the same way. I would recommend applying the policy only to user pages first, and then discussing the addition of user talk pages, as this complicates the discussion beyond its original goal. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree on that front because, functionally, there's not much difference between a user talk page and any other type of talk page. Even if the guidelines for talk pages are similar, the potential differences, which we haven't properly considered, complicate this proposal. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (Outdent, by all means carry on the talk page discussion above) - Other than a stray "RfC from administrators", rather than wider community, I am finally happy with the wording. Thanks to Ground Zero for listening to everyone and putting in the majority of the legwork here. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's what I get paid the big bucks for. Not that I get paid for this....

I don't understand the concern about removing unacceptable content from use talk pages. If a comment is offensive on a user page, it's offensive on a talk page? If we won't accept advertising on a user page, why would we accept it on a user talk page? Leaving our user talk pages leaves a great big loophole to exploit. Ground Zero (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting leaving them, just addressing them separately. The reason that I see for this, is that any policy or guideline about user talk pages may as well apply to other talk pages, the Pub etc. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Using_talk_pages says, at the very bottom of the page,

"Off-topic rants on talk pages will usually be deleted."

Personally, I would use this to delete what we are calling "unacceptable material" here. I think that our wording provides clearer direction, and would be useful for dealing with talk pages, but for the sake of moving this forward, I'll remove user talk pages from the above. Ground Zero (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess that means we have consensus to include proposal four into policy? Though it wouldn't do any harm to wait for a few days in case anyone else has a comment to make. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What about the "decides to share" → "feels comfortable to share"? I think it is good to remind users about the problems of sharing too much, and it does not change anything material concerning the issue we are trying to solve. --LPfi (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

And: was it agreed that non-admins shouldn't be encouraged to give a note on the talk page (or remove obviously offensive material)? I think bringing something up on RfC feels too strong for something minor, or e.g. the "fagot" mentioned above, where a friendly note on the talk page should be enough. Normally only things that require admin tools are left to admins. --LPfi (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added some wording to give the non-admin discretion to decide. If it's something really bad, it's probably best to contact an admin for immediate removal. If it's questionable, the non-admin might handle it themselves, but if we spell out rules for every eventuality, this will be too long for anyone to read, so I've left it at their discretion. Ground Zero (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am happy with the proposal. One small point is in the "Examples of acceptable material" it would be better to say autobiographies than biographies. I don't think we want biographies of other people. AlasdairW (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Quite a few users have put biographies of some Bollywood or pop star on their user page (usually plagiarized). Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Ground Zero (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If you ask me, I think deletion of the unacceptable material should be restricted to admins, but any user should be free to bring it up on the user talk page for discussion. There are many new users who will be understanding and remove the material if you are reasonable and ask nicely, and there's not always a need to get an admin involved. The dog2 (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That is what the proposal says, so we're good. I'll leave this for comment by others who may not have seen it yet for a few more days, then post it. Thanks everyone. Ground Zero (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Done Ground Zero (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)