Wikipedia talk:User pages

message: I am wondering what, if anything, can be done about an editor's user page which makes false claims of having made 100K edits and being a member of the Twenty Year society, despite the fact that the user in question has only been on Wikipedia since 2017 and has only made 3,500 edits. They have indirectly denied having previous accounts... Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Skyerise Is that still an issue? Doug Weller talk 15:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, depends. The content of their user page is obviously and intentionally funny. Yet it also includes various templates and categories from the 20 YS etc. which still make the kind of claims above. And yet I've recently been told there is nothing we can do if an obviously not retired user posts a big retired from Wikipedia banner at the top of his user page. So do we even care about this? If current protocol is to just ignore such things, then I don't want to make waves. Skyerise (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t know protocol but often see retired templates on active users user or talk pages. Annoying but not worth saying anything I usually decide. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claims on user page 

message: This user is challenging someone telling them they should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them, saying that they cannot find anything preventing them from doing so. I think this needs to be made explicit. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're wrong, because WP:PROXYING (linked to by Novem in the first place) states it fairly clearly. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Primefac Thanks. I knew that was somewhere, but I think it needs to be added here as well. Probably under "Ownership and editing of user pages". Doug Weller talk 14:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be useful; further interaction with them has shown even that fairly clear language can be reworded to suit very specific circumstances. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

text: WP:PROXYING does not . It doesn't state it at all. It does not say that blocked editors . It says that . It says nothing about what the blocked editor can or cannot do.  Tewdar  18:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Users are not allowed to be directed by blocked users to make edits. Therefore, a blocked user should not be directing editors to make edits. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with this interpretation, and there's plenty of precedent to cite on revoking TPA for posting proxying requests. I still would support explicit mentions here and in the block and ban policies that it is inappropriate to post edit requests in violation of a block/ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

text: This does not follow at all. Why not just add 'site-wide blocked users may only use their talk pages to request unblocks', to WP:BLOCK, if that's what you want?  Tewdar  18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what this discussion is, well, discussing. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I went and corrected the typo that "the user" indicated . Clearly, it was a net positive for the encyclopedia. Do you want to ban me for it? Go ahead. XMcan (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can’t believe so much time gets wasted on arguing when something is so simple, and you can just go ahead and make it better. XMcan (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , the discussion on that user's talk page is about their edits. This is about the next time this happens, and making sure our policies match up with what actually happens. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I believe this was a one-time occurrence. I don't have any reason to think this user will spend the rest of her life finding typos and directing us from her talk page solely to correct them. Do we need to fix problems that don't exist just because they may potentially exist? XMcan (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @XMcan I see on your talk page you were very unhappy about the user’s block. I presume that’s part at least of why you are here. But it’s a real issue that does exist, I’ve seen it quite a few times. There’s no reason to believe it won’t happen again. Doug Weller talk 21:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record I was not referring to the "next time" for this particular user, I was referring to the next time that an admin says "you can't use your talk page except for unblocks" and is questioned on it. Primefac (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Primefac, I understood you and agree. We need wording that will deter disruptive editors from gaming the system. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: WP:PROXYING doesn't state that at all. WP:PROXYING says, my emphasis,  That "unless" means that proxying is only prohibited if editors are not able to show the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. If they are able to do so (e.g., "fix obvious typo"), then editors are permitted to edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. I'm not sure that's what the community wants it to mean, but that's what it says. It has an inherent logical contradiction in its phrasing, which is that it is by definition impossible to have an independent reason to do something at the direction of somebody else. Either it's "at the direction" or it's "independent" but it can't be both at the same time. Teh community should probably vote on whether they do or do not want blocked/banned editors to point out obvious typos, BLPvios, etc., and then update the docs to say so clearly. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an opinion about the proxying, but I must protest against turning Doug's query into a binary question between a) blocked users asking others to make edits, versus b) blocked users only being allowed to use their pages to request unblock, as for example Primefac does here. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't say anywhere that a blocked user may only use their page to request unblock, and I wish admins wouldn't keep bollocking or sanctioning people per the notion that we have that rule. I'm also completely against codifying it to be a rule. A block is a shock, and it's only too human to react to to that block with protests and venting. That should be tolerated, being as we are humans, up to a point. If it goes on and on, and/or becomes ugly w r t to the blocking admin or other individuals, I will eventually revoke tpa. That's my system, and I'm sticking to it. Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  - that's why I want to pursue this line of inquiry and potentially clarify things; I was wrong and have have changed my opinion, but there are still a large number of admins who likely have misread the policy (or conflated it with the BAN regulations). Primefac (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, if the blocked editor writes: “Since I have been blocked, and can not continue my righteous crusade, would someone please nominate NewsIdontlike.com for deprecation at RSP.  Carry on the good fight!” That would be “directing” others, and a PROXY request. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree, though I'd prefer to wait until the XRV is concluded. Maybe someone can ping us all again when it's over? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Firefangledfeathers Oh we definitely should wait. I'll ping you all when it's closed. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proxying while blocked