Block notices

Is (repeated) removal of block notices e.g., User talk:37.147.79.38 allowed? I assume so, but I thought I'd check. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general, yes. They know they're blocked, we know they're blocked, no harm is being done. Of course doing it in the way that 37.147.79.38 did it is going to get reverted and is not going to end up going well for them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I recently came across CooperGoodman's (no ping) userpage from a Village Pump discussion. That second section definitely isn't on-topic for WP, but I'm on the fence on for whether it qualifies as causing "widespread offense" or constituting "extremely offensive material". My inclination is to leave it alone, but I could definitely use with a second opinion. Cheers, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I mean, I understand (or at least assume) that the intent is humourous, but... Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's meaningless copypasta. --Onorem (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

likely to bring the project into disrepute

you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute

This should be removed. It's a hopelessly subjective standard, "disrepute" being entirely in the eye of the beholder, and entirely dependent on audience. What is "likely to bring the project in disrepute" amongst some people is likely to bolster the project among others. (And how likely is "likely"?) This language creates more problems than it solves, as it can be wielded by literally any side in any userpage conflict, but offers no meaningful, actionable, or usable guidance. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In context, that statement is a summary of what has been found removable in the past by MfD, much like WP:OUTCOMES for AfD. I agree that it itself would be problematic to enforce as policy, but as a summary of consensus, it should probably be refined rather than removed entirely. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, can you suggest alternate wording? Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is anything wrong with the existing wording. It falls under the heading of commonsense. It strikes me as similar to the old saying about pornography. "I can't define it, but I know when I see it." Has this ever been abused? Is there anything that would prevent a user from appealing to AN/I if they felt someone was being unreasonable in their interpretation of this? To be honest, I can't even remember it being invoked. But I think it's good thing to have on the books. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The language at WP:UPNOT is fine. It gives examples of unsuitable material ("disrepute") such as racist ideology and disruptive content, whether serious or trolling. As normal, rules focus on concepts rather than attempting to list every bad thing. As Ad Orientem noted, participants in a deletion discussion might recognize disrepute when seeing an example but would not be able to define it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I think WP:UPNOT already has better alternate wording, likely to give widespread offense. (To save a click, the full sentence is: In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology).)
Similarly, WP:UP#Images that would bring the project into disrepute has a pretty good description of what kind of images should not be on a userpage, and I'd keep it all, except changing "likely to bring the project into disrepute" to "likely to give widespread offense" (and same everywhere else in WP:UP). Levivich (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I think that there is an important distinction between the concepts of "offense" and "disrepute". The first is a personal reaction, and as we all know, some people are more prone to being offended than others, and even among people who are easily offended, they can be offended by very different things. Disrepute refers not to individual emotional reactions but rather to the reputational damage to Wikipedia as a whole. Twitter/X is a good example, I think. I am not easily offended by something like an individual tweet. I may be surprised, bemused, and unhappy that trolling and doxxing and racism and sexism and veiled (or not so veiled) threats are welcomed there, but I am not offended. I do think that Twitter/X has fallen deeper into disrepute in the Musk era, and I do not want lax monitoring to allow the same thing to happen to Wikipedia. Perhaps "disrepute" is almost an archaic term in 2024, but the new wording should not lose the reputational connotations. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think doxing, racism, sexism, and threats are things that are likely to give widespread offense (even if not to you), and I can't really think of an example of something that is likely to give widespread offense but not likely to bring the project into disrepute, which why I say "disrepute" is doing no work in the sentence, and why I don't think there needs to be a second category of prohibition in addition to "widespread offense". Levivich (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False claims on user page

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)[reply]

Proxying while blocked

This user[1] 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)[reply]

Well, they're an idiot, because WP:PROXYING (linked to by Novem in the first place) states it fairly clearly. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More