On 1/4/06, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 1/4/06, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com>
wrote:
We have a settled policy that users can do pretty
much anything
they like on their user pages and subpages, within the bounds of
civility.
That is plainly false.
True enough, it's a guideline and not a policy, and I oversimplified
by not listing all of the caveats. But do you think we have a policy
disallowing POV advocacy on user pages? If so, where would I find it?
There is this interpretation of policy from the Anthony DiPierro 2 case:
Userpages
1) A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within
reason (e.g. [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]). However,
[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not]] a hosting
service, and you should generally avoid any substantial content on
your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See
[[Wikipedia:Userpage]].)
''Passed 6-0.''
A later restatement of this in the Libertas case, without the
"However...service" phrase, passed 8-0 with one absention.
This does *not* rule out advocacy. I can say how nasty I think that
Mr Tulkinghorn is and what a rotten job I think Mr Walpole is doing of
running the country, and I can express my belief that the Tay Bridge
disaster was caused by an unsound central girder. However the caveats
"within reason" and "avoid substantial content on your user page that
is unrelated to Wikipedia" are important. You can't do "pretty much
anything...within the bounds of civility." I'd say that adding my web
page to a category of "Wikipedians who think Walpole is a rotter"
probably oversteps the margin by a wide mark by providing Wikipedia
with a ready-to-wear voting kit for anti-Walpolians who secretly blame
the scoundrel for the lamentable state of a Scottish bridge and the
loss of many lives.