SmashWiki talk:User pages/Archive 2

Re-proposal

I've turned this back into a proposed policy so it can be discussed here (instead of OT's talk page) and hopefully implemented. It was only listed as failed because Shadowcrest did so for no apparent reason, so I cleaned it up a small bit and opened it back up. Toomai Glittershine 00:00, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I closed it because nobody that I could see, including myself, supported the majority of the policy. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by opening a policy with a ton of irrelevant and potentially stupid restrictions to resolve a single point. Shadowcrest 00:11, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

But the part in question that is disagreed with has been changed. Anon 03:04, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

No it hasn't. The only content that has changed in over a year is something that was decided a long time ago. Shadowcrest 03:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

If I were to remove the restrictive points, would it be a better policy on the whole? Toomai Glittershine 03:06, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the reason it failed was because the section about talk pages had once stated that comments could be removed from talk pages at will, but it appears that section has been changed. Anon 03:07, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Tbh most of this stuff is trash, I wouldn't implement basically all of it bar a few parts. Shadowcrest 03:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can understand that. How about now? I did some snipping and general tweaks. Toomai Glittershine 14:51, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

The policy as a whole is pretty good, your re-write is pretty well done. I'd have no problems adopting the policy. However, I still feel like it doesn't resolve the ownership issue; to me, the reason it was ok for OT to remove himself as the comment on DP's page sort of spoke for OT. It implied to me that the feeling was mutual, and therefore he was justified in removing a comment that suggested he feels something he doesn't. If, however, DP had written that he feels like OT has poor arguing skills, since that is DP's opinion and not OT's, it wouldn't have been justified to remove it. That to me is the important distinction here, and I don't see how a policy can officially codify that. Shadowcrest 16:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to codify, but there probably is a way. I agree with the distinction being that for the statement to be true (being friends), by the normal definition of "friends", it must be true on both sides. It was not true on both sides and therefore could be considered a falsehood. On the other hand, a statement of opinion ("I think X isn't too good at Y") does not need two sides to agree, since opinions are naturally one-sided. That being said, I think the problem is actually the definition of "friend"; people can argue that in the context of friend lists on user pages the term means "I believe I am friends with these people, whether they consider me their friends or not". Toomai Glittershine 18:33, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Still, it's better to have a policy on User pages than to not have one. This is like an entirely new policy, so it should be reopened. Mr. Anon teh awsome 19:10, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

What about something like "users are only permitted to remove content from others' user pages in the event that the content contains false or libelous information about them." The word "friend", if presented objectively, as in "Danny is my friend", conveys false information in the event that Danny does not consider himself friends with me. This is because when the word is used objectively, it's presented as a truth that must be upheld by both parties - me and Danny. However, "I consider Danny a friend" doesn't convey false information, as I show that it's of my own opinion that Danny is a friend. While the opinion might be silly, it's still just an opinion. Likewise, "Don't talk to Danny, he's a careless user" could be considered libelous while "I wouldn't talk to Danny, I believe he's a careless user" would be acceptable. "That noob Danny leaked the new tier list to everyone" could be libelous (especially if he didn't), while "I think Danny leaked the new tier list to everyone, what a noob" would be acceptable. So basically, I believe most things that are prefixed with "I think" are in the clear, with exceptions like "I think Danny rapes small children in his spare time". Is this sounding okay? Mako Shark (talk) 19:33, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Also, obviously a rule like that isn't completely clean-cut, and there are grey areas between what is acceptable and what isn't. But something like the above is hopefully an okay start. It might be a good idea to advise that when people are unsure, they always ask the other user first as a precaution. Mako Shark (talk) 19:38, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say, this policy looks good and I support implementing it since we do need a policy regarding userpages. However, I don't agree that users should be allowed to post something about another user that said user disagrees with, even if it is an "opinion" of the user. If user X were to post that they consider user Y to be a good friend, though user Y disagrees with it, it is within Y's right to choose not to be affiliated with user X and therefore have the right to remove mentioning of them self from user X's userpage. Likewise, a user shouldn't be allowed to post any negative comments about other users, even if it is an "opinion". While DP may post how he thinks my arguments "suck", I would clearly disagree and allowing DP to post such comments would cause unnecessary conflict. As the old saying goes "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all", which I would apply to the policy. Allowing users to post their negative opinion of another user on their userpage can cause unnecessary conflict that gets in the way of work on the Wiki. Would allowing a user to post an opinion that doesn't need to be posted at all really be worth causing massive talk page disputes about it that clog the activity feed? So in conclusion, if someone is going to post something about another user, the other user is within their full right to remove it without notice or "permission", as any user should have more control over their affiliations then another user posting an unnecessary comment of their opinion on it. Likewise, I strongly believe in not allowing users to post negative comments of other users, regardless of whether it written to be an opinion or not. We are a Wiki, not a place to post how much you despise someone, and the Wiki shouldn't need to be dragged into any Wiki drama that allowing users to post negative opinions about other users causes. There is simply nothing good to come out of allowing users to post negative comments about other users and a whole lot of shit that it can bring.Omega Tyrant 23:56, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, people putting incorrect information on their userpage may give new users wrong idea of how things are on the wiki, and is misinforming. Sir Anon the great 00:45, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

+1 OT. Do it to prevent the Doc incident again.--MegaTron1XD 01:22, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Omega Tyrant said, but I also think it should be required to at least leave a message on the talk page of the user's user page you edit explaining what you edited and why. DP99 (CTE) 01:40, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Summary DP. If you fail to notice it, then you should really check your user page history.--MegaTron1XD 01:41, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

There are some users, like me, who are not on a whole lot. I may not be on here while someone is editing my user page and I may not notice, then a couple weeks later I notice that something weird is going on with my user page, then I have to check all the histories of all my subpages to see whats messed up. It's a mess, and it would be easier if the user who was making edits to my user page just gave me a message. DP99 (CTE) 01:49, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have it so that a message pops up on your screen when someone edits your userpage, kinda like the one that appears when you have a new message on your talk page? Mr. Anon teh awsome 04:38, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually UNDERSTAND wiki? We can not do anything but disable blogs. That's just about it. We can not customize wiki like that Anon. Learn wiki and understand it. If they are that worried about it, simply check it everytime they log in. It is extremely trivial to request wiki to do that just because some users are too lazy to simply check their userpage history.--MegaTron1XD 04:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

While I see where OT is coming from, and I agree that good things rarely come from negative comments, I do not believe that a written rule should be made that prohibits the personal expression of non-coarse criticism or negative opinions of other users. While libelous statements and flat insults directed at or about other users obviously shouldn't be tolerated, I believe that opinions, even negative ones, are legitimate and can, on occasion, actually be helpful. As long as criticism isn't too harsh, it can help people learn from their mistakes.

• "Danny has been editing that Sonic article for ages and his edits aren't even substantial, I think he should take a break."
• "If you want to work on a joint project with someone, I wouldn't recommend working with Anna, I don't think she cares about the wiki enough."
• "I think Arthur's really immature, if he doesn't have anything useful to say, he should keep quiet."

The above could either be taken critically and offensively or as advice. Maybe Danny disagrees and believes his edits are substantial, maybe Anna believes she does care about the wiki, maybe Arthur believes his comments are useful; regardless, those are just opinions that anyone, including the people involved, can take or leave. Now, if the people above didn't like what the other user said about them, they could ask for the offending content to be removed (as per common courtesy), or flat out remove it. There is not, and should not be a rule against the removal of any information concerning yourself when you see it on someone else's user page, as it's a violation of privacy and freedom. That stated, I do believe that contacting them first in the interest of politeness should be encouraged. Furthermore, while I believe that there should be no rule against the removal of personal content from another user's page, I believe that likewise, there should be no rule instating it. To do either would be a violation of freedom. We are not in kindergarten; we are allowed to have critical opinions, and we do not need rules in place to stop us from hurting each others' feelings. We are all mature enough to be capable of dealing with each other in a grown up fashion; we are all capable of showing common courtesy and not making a huge fuss when handling user page issues. Grow up and keep this wiki a free place. Shark (talk) 07:46, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong, good things don't rarely come from negative comments about other users, they never do. I would have to say, all three of your examples are unacceptable to post on your userpage. Time to dissect and show you how they are.

• "Danny has been editing that Sonic article for ages and his edits aren't even substantial, I think he should take a break."

Who are you to say Danny's Sonic edits aren't substantial? If a user is showing a good faith effort and aren't starting edit wars, you should never discourage them from editing. If Danny sees that on your userpage, he may grow discouraged and stop editing the Sonic article altogether. Even if Danny's edits weren't substantial, if they weren't reverted or had to be revised, they were constructive, and with these constructive edits stopping, it hurts the Wiki. So there goes your first example as being acceptable.

• "If you want to work on a joint project with someone, I wouldn't recommend working with Anna, I don't think she cares about the wiki enough."

Again, who are you to say someone else doesn't care about Wiki when the other person can care more than you do? What if a new user named Michael comes and sees your comment about Anna? Say Michael just made an entire revision of an article, adding substantial information he found, but doesn't have the greatest of writing skills. Anna on the other hand, is a terrific writer, and would make a great partner for a joint project. However, with Michael seeing your comment, despite noticing Anna writing skills, becomes discouraged from asking Anna for help and then the article is kept from becoming a potential featured article. So with that, the progress of the Wiki is hurt and this example becomes unacceptable.

• "I think Arthur's really immature, if he doesn't have anything useful to say, he should keep quiet."

Like before, who are you to state whether or not someone has something useful to say? If Arthur sees your comment, he can become discouraged from taking part in discussions from Wiki matters. And while he may usually have something to say that doesn't help, he may actually have a good point to bring up about why a certain user shouldn't become admin during a RfA. But since he doesn't state this point, this user who is supported by many of the Wiki becomes admin and ends ups harming the Wiki. So like the rest, this example can end up hurting the Wiki while bringing nothing good and you should never discouraged another user from stating their opinion on something if they're not an obvious troll.

While you claim this to be "advice", why can't you discuss Danny's Sonic edits with him in private instead of posting your negative opinion of him for the entire Wiki to see? If you posted that about Danny, Danny shouldn't have to bring up a whole talk page discussion out of "politeness" (when you weren't very polite in the first place for posting the unnecessary comment) that can cause other users to jump in, clog the activity feed, and ultimately disrupt the Wiki all for a simple stupid opinion that didn't need to be posted at all. So you see, it would be more simple and efficient to simply not allow negative comments or opinions of other users to be posted on userpages. As said before, they bring absolutely nothing good and cause shit storms that unnecessarily disrupt the Wiki. Also, you're not correct about the Wiki being a "free place", it is an encyclopedia documenting Smash Bros. While you can claim people can "grow up", people are going to get offended from people posting stupid crap about them, it is going to cause unnecessary Wiki disputes, and disrupt the progress of the Wiki. I suggest you read SW:NOT, the Wiki is not your own little free place to do whatever you want, we have policies for a reason. If negative comments about other users is going to cause shit storms while not bringing anything good, the Wiki shouldn't have to tolerate them so users have "freedom". You're right about this not being Kindergarten, but if that is so, you can be mature enough to not openly state your negative opinion of another user when you don't need to. A Wiki works best when in harmony and while two users don't need to like each other, they don't need to let it cause unnecessary crap on the Wiki and disrupt those trying to work on it. Omega Tyrant 11:24, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

How about this then?

Negative comments or opinions about other users are highly discouraged. Comments such as "I don't like X" or "I don't think X is very good at Y" tend to cause animosity and disruption, neither of which are helpful to the wiki. If you choose to have comments such as this on your userpage, you should remove them if the user in question requests it. On the other hand, the user in question is not entitled to remove such comments without having asked the userpage's owner to remove it first (and having allowed a day or two to respond).

This allows people to put up such comments (not allowing them to do so at all is a bit too restrictive for my liking), but they do have to get rid of them if the guy it's about doesn't want it there. It also says "you can do this, but you really shouldn't, because you'll probably have to take it down anyway". It also stops people from just removing the comments themselves; if you don't like a user and he just removes your opinion of such from your userpage, that's going to cause a lot more trouble than him asking you to do it. Toomai Glittershine 14:26, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with the whole asking thing. Posting on someone's talk page asking them to remove an unnecessary negative comment/opinion of them brings unnecessary attention to something that doesn't need it and can just end up causing large disputes that multiple users get involved in. While it is true removing the comment from the userpage without "permission" can cause even more trouble, that will only happen if the user gets the idea that they could post the negative comment in the first place, since it is not restricted and just discouraged. A simple restriction on this would give a user nothing to fuss about should a negative comment of theirs gets removed by another user without "permission". The restriction would allow the process of getting rid of the unnecessary negative comment/opinion of another user to be handled as efficiently and quickly as possible, and the greatest chance of the Wiki avoiding any wiki drama that could occur, lest the user who posted the negative comment/opinion on their userpage wants to get banned for causing disruption over it. We would just be restricting users from posting unnecessary negative comments/opinions of other users (which were posted with ill intent in the first place) that adds nothing but negativity to the user, the user's userpage, and even to the Wiki community itself. A simple restriction on this would still allow users to do almost anything they want to their userpage, bar those unneeded negative comments/opinions of other users, and the Wiki would still be far from over controlling. Omega Tyrant 15:16, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

You have valid points, but I'm not sure they apply. If you have a problem with an opinion on a user page and you ask the guy to remove it, you can point to this policy and say "I'd like you to remove your opinion about X because this policy says I'm allowed to tell you to do so". If the user refuses or doesn't reply, then the policy states that the user the comment's about is now allowed to remove it himself, and if the userpage's owner puts it back up he is now in violation of this policy (which is the intent but may not be clearly spelled out as of this moment). I do not see how there is a dispute to be had if a policy like this is in place; the only dispute I can think of would be one involving the user's claim to free speech, which he'd start whether he's "asked to remove" or "isn't allowed to put up". The end result is that the only difference between restriction and discouragement is that the number of cases of the latter is a subset of the former and is thus easier to police. Toomai Glittershine 15:36, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really in the best shape to be debating this right now, but I'll continue anyway. The main problem I have with this whole asking first thing is it brings more attention to the issue than a simple edit removing the offending statement will and extends the process more than it needs to be. I know personally, if another user posted a negative comment/opinion of me on their userpage, I would hate having to cause attention for asking for the statement to be removed. Other users would probably feel this way as well. Being forced to ask a user who posted such a comment about you on their userpage to be removed can feel demeaning to the asking user when they are capable of removing it with a single, simple edit and getting it out of the way as quickly as possible. With a restriction would come the ability of any user to remove the offending comment/opinion, which would lessen the time it is up, decrease the chance of any shit it causes, and decrease the chance of impressionable new users getting the wrong idea about another user or even the Wiki. It also wouldn't demean users to asking the user who posted the negative comment of them on their userpage to remove it. In the end, a restriction achieves the same goal as discouragement, but more simply and more efficient. Omega Tyrant 16:30, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't believe a rule should be made against posting negative or unwarranted opinions. If this wiki were full of angry and immature people who were constantly guilty of posting these kinds of comments, it then a rule might be practical for the purpose of toning down the conflict. But it's not, and I don't believe cases of offensive opinions have or will ever be frequent enough to warrant the need for a rule against them, especially when the rule restricts people's freedom. Shark (talk) 16:04, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

The Wiki may not be full of such people, but that doesn't mean it can't be and a policy is needed in the cases it does come up due to potential shit it can cause. Such a rule would be aiming to prevent such crap it does and will bring. It also doesn't restrict people's freedom in any way. Is it really so restricting to your freedom not to be able to openly rant how much you hate Danny on your userpage when you don't need to and nothing good will come out of it? Now please Mako Shark, try to refute the points I brought up instead of simply saying that the situation doesn't happen frequently enough and such a rule will restrict people's freedom. Omega Tyrant 16:37, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

1. Something not happening with any regularity is indeed a reason not to write a policy. Policy is not meant to be all-encompassing.
2. Your proposal by definition limits freedom. If I can't write what I believe on my userpage, my freedom has been restricted. End of story. Shadowcrest 18:49, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't much like pointing the obvious out OT, but if you insist. Note that I'm not for or against compulsory asking before removing comments. Also I apologise to everyone about the ridiculous length of the following.

Posting on someone's talk page asking them to remove an unnecessary negative comment/opinion of them brings unnecessary attention to something that doesn't need it and can just end up causing large disputes that multiple users get involved in.

Supposing the restriction were not enforced, I don't believe that asking for something to be removed brings any more unnecessary attention to it than flat out removing it. Last time I checked, people tend to be more tolerant of each other and less likely to stir up trouble when others ask before changing something that they made. I also don't believe there's a high chance of a large dispute occurring when everyone follows the proper guidelines.

While it is true removing the comment from the userpage without "permission" can cause even more trouble, that will only happen if the user gets the idea that they could post the negative comment in the first place, since it is not restricted and just discouraged.

I believe a user with any amount of common sense is very unlikely to post a negative comment if they read the proposed guideline, which strongly discourages them from doing so and warns them of the consequences. The guideline will be especially dissuasive when they discover that bad comments could lead to a request from an offended user, which stays on their talk page permanently (while this doesn't happen if the restriction is in place). The only scenario in which someone might realistically consider posting a bad comment is if they haven't read the proposed rule/guideline page, regardless of whether the restriction is enforced or not. So I believe the proposed guideline would be effective in stopping the vast majority of people with a mind to post a bad comment (of which there are just about none anyway) from posting bad comments, while the restriction wouldn't be effective in completely stopping it.

As you stated yourself - "it is true removing the comment from the userpage without 'permission' can cause even more trouble". What if a user posts a comment that later gets removed without asking, but the the poster believes that the comment was not offensive, and that he has done nothing wrong and wishes to argue his case? What if arguing his case causes a "disruption" - a talk page dispute? If it does, that user is in technically in a position to "get banned for causing disruption over it." Furthermore, if people cause "disruption" after a comment removal incident (regardless of whether or not they were at fault) by questioning the restriction or arguing that they don't believe the restriction should be in place, they are technically also in a position to be banned for that. Since when has it been reasonable to ban, or threaten to ban people for arguing their case? Since when has it been reasonable to ban, or threaten to ban people for questioning the wiki's rules? We would not "just be restricting users from posting unnecessary negative comments/opinions of other users", we would be violating peoples' freedom and right to question and argue.

The Wiki may not be full of such people, but that doesn't mean it can't be and a policy is needed in the cases it does come up due to potential shit it can cause.

There is no need to find a solution to something that isn't actually a problem. If the wiki's not full of these people now, there's not currently a problem, just a "potential problem". True, it's a nice idea to come up with a solution to something that might possibly happen, but that's not a good enough reason to have the rule enforced now instead of later. The wiki's not full of these angry, immature people. True, that doesn't mean it can't be. But do you think it will ever be? I don't. If you do, come back and propose the rule when these people arrive and we actually need it.

I believe that people will respect the fact that the wiki does not enforce a rule just because it "achieves the same goal as discouragement, but more simply and more efficient." Part of the concept of freedom is giving people the benefit of the doubt, and by enforcing the restriction now and not later, we are not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

While some of the logic behind the proposed restriction is understandable, I don't think the rule is appropriate for now. Maybe it will be later, maybe it won't ever be. Shark (talk) 19:13, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict

Preface to this post: it might be kind of hard to follow, because I'm responding to older comments that have already been replied to, so I might say something that has already been said. Sorry.

"Still, it's better to have a policy on User pages than to not have one. --Mr Anon" Not always. If a policy page doesn't achieve anything by being implemented, then there's no reason for that policy to exist. Policy isn't meant to be something that attempts to cover all possible scenarios, they're supposed to be baseline rules (NPA, 1RV, etc) or establishing a standard procedure for something (RfX). And even then those are arguably unnecessary as long as the sysops are competent and the wiki has contributors capable of discussing and coming to a reasonable consensus.

@Mako Shark: I personally think the examples you gave illustrate pretty clearly why that distinction is not fitting for a policy page. Trying to put something like that into a policy just opens the door for butthurt people to wikilawyer and be like "OMG that's not what I meant you can't remove it!!!!1!!" In my humble opinion, this sort of thing can't be handled with a blanket standard and removal should be handled on a case-by-case basis. (Or people could just shut up and not care about what's on other people's pages. Just a thought.)

"As the old saying goes "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all", which I would apply to the policy. --OT" Terrible idea when applied to wikis. (<-- See? I just violated it, and yet made my point effectively.) Though there is obviously nothing to be gained by saying "X is a dumbass" (→ why NPA was implemented), there are clearly also times where not bothering to sugarcoat everything is positive.

"Allowing users to post their negative opinion of another user on their userpage can cause unnecessary conflict that gets in the way of work on the Wiki. --OT" Know what else caused a massive, unnecessary conflict? Removing something that didn't matter in the slightest. To be perfectly honest, who cares if somebody else considers you their friend? I'm not "friends" with a number of people who have listed me, but I don't see that as important enough to spawn copious amounts of unnecessary drama, nor would I see it as important enough even if it wasn't a drama hive. See also User:Semicolon: those links are plainly jabs at me, and yet I still haven't removed them. It wasn't even a negative comment like you were talking about with your "nothing nice to say", it was someone saying you were a pretty cool guy. careface.jpg imo.

@DP/Mega: why is it so unreasonable to post a message on somebody's talkpage? What if they're new and don't know what's going on?

Mako: Another good point about negative comments. Also consider the oppose sections on RfX's-- negative opinions are not inherently horrible demonspawn that should be deleted on sight.

"You're wrong, good things don't rarely come from negative comments about other users, they never do. --OT" False, see my point right above this one.

"Who are you to say Danny's Sonic edits aren't substantial? If a user is showing a good faith effort and aren't starting edit wars, you should never discourage them from editing. --OT" Complete BS. We've handed out multiple blocks recently for shitty editing that I'm pretty sure you supported too. Also, I like how you pointed out that negative comments on RfAs are beneficial to the wiki within the same post you denied that there could ever be use in negative comments. 1/10.

"As said before, they bring absolutely nothing good and cause shit storms that unnecessarily disrupt the Wiki." PS. if you haven't realized yet, removing comments was what started this "shit storm that unnecessarily disrupt[ed] the Wiki". Perhaps we should just ban removing comments that aren't violations of policy altogether? (Now that I think about it, I like that idea a lot more than sometimes-removal. Censorship ftl.)

"If negative comments about other users is going to cause shit storms while not bringing anything good, the Wiki shouldn't have to tolerate them so users have "freedom"." Again, it was a positive comment that you somehow felt the need to remove that brought this about; pretty sure that auto-invalidates your entire point. But maybe that's just me.

@Toomai: your most recent proposal is pretty good, though basically it just adds another step before removing the comment. Honestly I'd rather either make it a discussion-based or contact-your-local-friendly-admin and have them take a look rather than "you must remove if asked or else".

"if the user gets the idea that they could post the negative comment in the first place" What about when you remove positive ones? Derp.

"The main problem I have with this whole asking first thing is it brings more attention to the issue than a simple edit removing the offending statement will and extends the process more than it needs to be." Because clearly removing comments without asking first causes no drama at all. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but iirc DP99 has said multiple times that he would have removed it if you had just asked first.

"If this wiki were full of angry and immature people who were constantly guilty of posting these kinds of comments" Actually, I wouldn't put it past quite a few of our users... :/

So in addition to all of the above points being good/bad, I would again like to just put forth the idea that either admins or discussion can decide whether something warrants removal, especially considering the fact that admins are (supposed to be) well reasoned and impartial. Maybe I'm just crazy though. Shadowcrest 19:27, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

You know, the thing about having no negative comments only applies to userpage, I never said to apply it to everything on the Wiki. Despite not being in the best shape right now, I'll respond anyway.

"As the old saying goes "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all", which I would apply to the policy. --OT" Terrible idea when applied to wikis. (<-- See? I just violated it, and yet made my point effectively.) Though there is obviously nothing to be gained by saying "X is a dumbass" (→ why NPA was implemented), there are clearly also times where not bothering to sugarcoat everything is positive.

This was only meant to apply to userpages, not the entire Wiki, hence why I said I would apply to to the policy and not the Wiki. Since this talk page is about the userpage policy, I wouldn't see how this could apply to any other policy on the Wiki. To my understanding, the saying applies to saying things about others, so you didn't really violate it when you said the idea sounds terrible. But anyway, I wouldn't support sugarcoating things said on the Wiki's talkpages, I simply brought the saying up as saying negative things about another user on your userpage isn't going to do any good.

"Allowing users to post their negative opinion of another user on their userpage can cause unnecessary conflict that gets in the way of work on the Wiki. --OT" Know what else caused a massive, unnecessary conflict? Removing something that didn't matter in the slightest. To be perfectly honest, who cares if somebody else considers you their friend? I'm not "friends" with a number of people who have listed me, but I don't see that as important enough to spawn copious amounts of unnecessary drama, nor would I see it as important enough even if it wasn't a drama hive. See also User:Semicolon: those links are plainly jabs at me, and yet I still haven't removed them. It wasn't even a negative comment like you were talking about with your "nothing nice to say", it was someone saying you were a pretty cool guy. careface.jpg imo.

You can bring up the recent talk page dispute, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the allowing of posting negative comments/opinions. Anyway, while my edit did caused the shit I'm talking about, it also happened because DP decided to start the argument with me over it, I wasn't the only one at fault. While you can argue that I shouldn't care over me removing myself from someone's friend list, the user in question shouldn't care either if I remove myself from it or not. The main thing that comes from another user from posting you in their friend list, is that it affiliates them with you and you should have full control over which user you get affiliated and which ones you don't. While you can argue this isn't important, there are going to be users that don't want to be affiliated with another user, and they should have to right to decide such affiliations. As for those links on Semicolon's page, they are clearly used in a humorous matter and I highly doubt he made them in ill intent. Though you may be fine with them, fine then, but you should still have the right anyway to remove them whenever you want.

Also consider the oppose sections on RfX's-- negative opinions are not inherently horrible demonspawn that should be deleted on sight.

"You're wrong, good things don't rarely come from negative comments about other users, they never do. --OT" False, see my point right above this one.

Again, I never meant that when applied to every single negative comment/opinion on anything ever said. It only applies to userpages, and are you really going to say good things can come from another user posting such negative things about another user in ill intent on their userpage?

"Who are you to say Danny's Sonic edits aren't substantial? If a user is showing a good faith effort and aren't starting edit wars, you should never discourage them from editing. --OT" Complete BS. We've handed out multiple blocks recently for shitty editing that I'm pretty sure you supported too. Also, I like how you pointed out that negative comments on RfAs are beneficial to the wiki within the same post you denied that there could ever be use in negative comments. 1/10.

If you read the bit later in that statement, I mentioned the edits being constructive. But anyway, while blocks got handed out in the past, I have never blocked a user simply for "shitty editing", and I never supported one. While I did support the blocks of ZS and Doc and their low quality, frequent edits were a factor, I supported the block for the other areas they were disruptive users in. Have their only problem been low quality edits, I would have never supported their blocks. As for the last thing, my comment about negative comments being good only applied to userpages, not the entire Wiki. So, there was no contradiction there.

"As said before, they bring absolutely nothing good and cause shit storms that unnecessarily disrupt the Wiki." PS. if you haven't realized yet, removing comments was what started this "shit storm that unnecessarily disrupt[ed] the Wiki". Perhaps we should just ban removing comments that aren't violations of policy altogether? (Now that I think about it, I like that idea a lot more than sometimes-removal. Censorship ftl.)

Like the earlier point, my removal wasn't a removal of a negative comment and shouldn't be brought up in the discussion of the restriction of negative comments.

"if the user gets the idea that they could post the negative comment in the first place" What about when you remove positive ones? Derp.

Again, me removing a positive comment from a userpage is irrelevant to the discussion on whether negative comments/opinions should be allowed on userpages. So you can stop unnecessarily attacking me for it when it adds nothing to the discussion about negative comments/opinions on talk pages.

"The main problem I have with this whole asking first thing is it brings more attention to the issue than a simple edit removing the offending statement will and extends the process more than it needs to be." Because clearly removing comments without asking first causes no drama at all. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but iirc DP99 has said multiple times that he would have removed it if you had just asked first.

Once again, DP chose to aggravate the situation by bringing it up on my talk page. While it did caused more attention and what not then "asking" would have, in most cases, removing the mentioning of yourself from another user's userpage without the asking would be faster, simpler, more efficient, and would bring less attention than the asking would have. Should a user not get so worked up over someone making such a minor edit to their userpage that doesn't change its content, no wiki drama would occur.

So then, in response to Mako Shark, your argument is better than mine and I'll concede on the point of outright restricting negative comments/opinions of other users and settle for the discouragement. However, we should not discourage users from removing such offensive comments about themselves from other users' userpages without "permission". I would also like to perhaps see it written that with the mentioning of any user on your userpage, the other user has the right to remove it without notice if they want to or at the least, not discourage them from doing so. Omega Tyrant 21:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

@Shadowcrest: Uh, yeah I was the one who suggested requiring users to leave a message on the user's talk page. @Everyone: If we can't agree on what's acceptable user page content, we should either require users to ask before they edit another user's user page or just not have a policy at all. DP99 (CTE) 22:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think statements about other users should be allowed unless they agree. You should allowed to place comments of other users, but they should be allowed to remove the said comments whenever they want if they don't agree with it. If you disagree with a user's poor edits then you should make that point on their talk page, not on your userpage. Keeping on your userpage will cause even more unnecessary conflict, as OT stated. Furthermore, as I said, it gives new users a misinformed view of the user being discussed in question.

Let's look at the following theoretical situation: OT feels that my edits aren't very useful to the wiki, but nobody else has complained about them. What does he do?

A: He puts it on his userpage saying "Anon's edits are of poor quality. I think he should start editing in a better manner or be blocked." What does this do? As a result I go on his talk page and confront him about that. Then it goes into a huge argument that wastes a lot of the wiki's time. Meanwhile, any new users get a skewed view of me, and it does nothing to make me do better editing.

B: OT confronts me on my talk page and tells me something like this: "Hi Anon. Your recent edits don't seem to be very high quality. It would be a good idea to start making better edits." Doing this makes good use of what a talk page is for and informs me of how I should improve myself. Furthemore, it doesn't make OT seem like he's gossiping about me, rather it shows me that I should improve my edits.

In short, your own userpages should not be used to house your opinon on other users; you should keep those opinions to the talk pages of the users in question. Anon 01:21, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Anon. +1. --MegaTron1XD 01:52, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Blanket-stating "unless they agree" is going to allow a bit of negative rules lawering. For example, Megatron1 has numerical rankings of people he's brawled; is it really practical for him to ask each person if they agree with the ranking he gives them? That's not the best example, but the general idea is there - why must you get permission to blab about how X awesome user A is? You'd get less scrupulous users saying "no I'm not X awesome, I'm X+Y+Z awesome". I agree with the example of complaining on a userpage about a user, but if the policy is implemeneted (which as of now allows but heavily discourages negative opinions and allows affected users to say "remove that"), that kind of thing will be rare and hopefully quick to resolve. Toomai Glittershine 20:43, 29 September 2010 (EDT)