UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/User Page Obscenity

User Page Obscenity

Please could an admin take a look at this user page? It contains obscenity and racism but I'm not sure whether or not editing user pages is permissible - especially given (relatively) recent events. I'm especially not sure as there appears to have been at least one admin-initiated reversion to this page, although it was undoing even more obscenity. In case you're wondering, I noticed it because of the NeedsImage category. Rpeh 08:53, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
:See a similar question at .  It's what uniblab chose to have for his user page and doesn't, in my opinion, break any (unwritten) rules about allowed content on the site.   Or at least, not to the point where it justifies altering a user page.  --Nephele  10:08, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::If the word 5h1tty (leet-speek to avoid filters) and his comments about the Jews don't contravene administrative policy, it's time to change the administrative policy. The Michael Jackson comment is also inappropriate here, whatever one's feelings for the man. My first instinct on seeing this page was to blank it. I've read about the Aristeo controversy and so thought I'd better at least post a notification first. But I have to say that at some point I'm just going to blank it and hang the consequences. It is unacceptable for this to be present on a site of this nature. Rpeh 12:38, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:::First off, I'd like to point out that Shitty is not filtered. In fact, the only filter we employ is a spam filter. Now, about user pages, it has always been our policy to not worry about content that has been posted by a user to their own user page, even in cases of profanity (see the Wrye-Aristeo edit conflict: [ [ Now, I agree that Uniblab's page could be seen as racist, though personally, I don't think that "Please provide proof that Jews are responsible for all wars in the Talk page" is a direct attack on Jewish people. It was meant as a joke, and in the context of the page, I think it is easily identifiable as a joke. The same goes for the Michael Jackson comments. I highly doubt that Uniblab wanted to offend anyone. Therefore, since Uniblab is no longer around to make a decision on what he is going to do, I am going to remove the comment about Jews and the comments about Michael Jackson.

:::On the wider issue of editing user pages, I think we should handle it as we do user names. We don't allow racial statements in them. and thus we shouldn't allow them on user pages. My opinions on languages and sexual comments are a bit different. Obviously, neither should be used in articles, but in the user and talk areas, we are a bit more lax about such things. I don't think that words themselves cause any harm, as long as they are not directed against a certain person or group. Personal attacks aren't and never should be tolerated on the UESP. I feel that racism falls into this category. Still, I am against making the UESP a nanny site. Any 13 year old has heard fuck, shit, ass, sucks before. --Ratwar 14:08, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks Ratwar. I agree with you that the comments were meant to be a joke, and if anything warning the user about a poor sense of humo r would have been the best thing to do, but since Uniblab's last comment was in January I brought it up here. I also agree with you about making this a nanny site, but when a page contains almost nothing but - potentially - offensive material, I think a line needs to be drawn. Oh - I didn't mean this site filtering things out. If I'd been surfing at work (not that I ever do such a thing) it's possible our web filters would have brought the page to the notice of my boss. I know some places do such things so I thought I'd play safe.

::::Lastly, I don't suppose you can take the 'Requires Image' template off? That just bugs me! Rpeh 15:12, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think removing the Requires Image temp would be over stepping our boundaries. --Ratwar 19:55, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::If I upload a picture of my teenage sister in a bikini can I remove it? Just kidding. Okay, apologies all round if I appeared to come on a bit strong on this one. I honestly believed (and still do) the page needed editing and was a bit surprised that this wasn't an immediate consensus view. I think we're just a bit more sensitive on this side of the pond where (possible) anti-Semitism is concerned. I do think there's a reason for taking the 'Requires Image' template off, albeit a minor one. It shows up on the Pages Requiring Images page, which leaves a slight blemish on the site's completeness. However, if you guys and gals are happy with that, it's good enough for me. Thanks. Rpeh 12:32, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::It would be possible, albeit slightly tricky, to replace the Needs Image tag used on the page with the actual alert box, and make it look exactly the same, but leave out the inclusion in the Needs Image category.  I've done things like that before and I'm sure I could again, but the question remains - how important do we think this is?  There's also the case of various people who've used the  on their user pages, which generally creates links to a bunch of non-existant categories and pages, since that template is not intended for use in the User namespace.  If people think that Uniblab's page needs changing, then those probably would as well, and where do we draw the line?  At any rate, I'm of the opinion that messing with other people's User pages - even inactive users - can be a rather risky business.  First of all, by default, any change to a User or User talk page causes an e-mail to be sent to the user in question, so even if they're not active, that may get their attention, so we can't just assume that they won't notice.  (That mistake has been made before, with disasterous results.)  Secondly, User and User Talk pages for inactive users are very unlikley to be visited by anyone, so it's a pretty minor problem.  Admittedly, it does become more noticable if it appears in Category pages, which may be the reason this has been brought up twice.  I think the best course of action is to bring it to the user's attention by mentioning it on their Talk page, or failing that, by sending an e-mail, explaining the reason you wish to change it.  All in all, it helps keep the peace a lot better than just changing stuff without permission. --TheRealLurlock   00:25, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

::While it looks offensive at first glance, closer reading indicates that he was deriding nutso comments about Jews and Michael Jackson. And it was probably done in the space of five minutes while testing templates. Essentially we're looking at the random scrawlings of a teenager. While I understand that some people will find it offensive, I don't think it's that big a deal, and given our desire to avoid nanny-ism, and give people more leeway on their user pages it should probably have been left alone, where hardly anyone would have even noticed it. 

::If there really had been a racial rant or a prolonged sexually offensive diatribe, that probably would have warranted action IMO, but this did not get near that. --Wrye 16:54, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Wrye, I agree with you, and if Uniblab was an active member, I would definitely not dealt with the issue so unilaterally. The way I see it is that it doesn't matter either way, as it is a joke. Therefore, it doesn't hurt any of us to change it, and it may help some people be less offended. I don't think Uniblab would want his user page to become the center of a discussion on the wiki. --Ratwar 01:48, 11 June 2007 (EDT)