Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 10

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In practice, I think the "Simulating the MediaWiki interface" subsection is mainly aimed at joke "You have new messages" banners (the orange bar). To clarify that, I have made an addition to it. The community doesn't so far as I know "strongly disapprove" of such banners; most people don't like them much, but we're definitely divided on whether it's appropriate to remove them from other people's pages, per many earlier discussions on this page and elsewhere. (Here's one from 2008.) The guideline should reflect the lack of consensus on that matter better, and should definitely mention the joke banners specifically, since the technical term "simulating the MediaWiki interface" doesn't mean much to most people. The wording I have added (reinstated from an earlier version) is that the community "frowns on" such banners. Please note that the guideline specifies disapproval of "formatting codes that disrupt the Wikimedia interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable (other than by way of commenting out), or replacing the expected interface with a disruptive simulation". I agree with disapproving of all that, of course, but to call a simulated new messages banner linking to Practical joke disruptive would surely be a devaluation of the notion of disruption. A fake banner linking to malware or goatse would be disruptive, but perhaps that obvious point doesn't need to be in the guideline? (Please add it if you disagree.) And if you feel we need another of the hardy perennial joke banner discussions right now, go ahead, of course. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

• Agree that calling a joke banner plain "disruption" is to devalue the term, but it is a degree of disruption. It is a simulation of the interface intended to be a bold messaging mechanism, and to jokingly simulate it is to disrupt the concentration of the reader and to devalue the importance the of the new message notification. To my memory, any time a nomination at MfD appears relating to a simulation of the interface, inclduing joke banners, it results in either deletion, or the simulation being removed with the clear message that otherwise the page would be deleted and/or the user blocked. I think the guideline should be more strongly phrased than "frowning" on joke banners. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. We need to make these a blockable offence. They do not contribute to discussion, have no encyclopedic value whatsoever and are just a straight-up pain in the rear end! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with SmokeyJoe that at MfD, the prevailing consensus is to disallow these joke banners. I have never seen a single MfD where a joke banner was allowed. The joke banners serve little purpose. They irritate others more than they amuse. I have reworded the guideline using SmokeJoe's phrasing, which is stronger than the current wording and which better reflects community consensus at MfD. Cunard (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• My revision was reverted by Bishonen who wrote that the wording was opinionated and that there was insufficient consensus. I have removed the wording about the orange joke banners because the weak wording does not accurately reflect community consensus at MfD to disallow them. That weak wording was cited at User talk:Bishonen by Heimstern (talk · contribs) and Hans Adler (talk · contribs) to demonstrate that such banners cannot be removed. Both users stated that they believed the banners should be "prohibited" and "illegal", but that there was insufficient community consensus.

  What are other editors' thoughts about how to word the guideline regarding the joke banners? Should an RfC be initiated? Cunard (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have a joke banner, and nobody is going to confuse it with a MediaWiki user notification message. Please be careful on any future wording. Reading this discussion sounds heavy-handed and authoritarian which is not the way we keep users around long term. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Be assured that somewhere, sometime, a Wikipedian is frowning on your joke banner. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• The original wording was to frown upon "joke 'You have new messages' notifications (the orange bar)". The wording of your joke banner does not deceive the user into believing s/he has a new message, so it would not violate the original wording of the guideline. I would be open to any suggestions about clarifying the wording to avoid misinterpretations. Cunard (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why an outright ban can't be implemented and enforced here. User pages belong to a specific user insomuch as they somehow further the encyclopedia's aim or they're benign. If someone's user page is actively disrupting/annoying other users, I'm not sure why it has to be tolerated.

bugzilla:12681 is a software solution that I've long been in favor of. But this could be considered fundamentally a social problem, not a technical problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these irritating pages should be outright banned. How should an RfC about the issue be framed? Cunard (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I read "Joke "You have new messages" notifications (the orange bar) are frowned upon by the community." as true, whether accurate or understated, and think it should be put back. Disagreement about how to word a more accurate stronger statement is not a good reason to remove the sentence entirely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak wording unrepresentative of community consensus at MfD should not be restored. Because there is disagreement between Bishonen and me about the wording, I have reverted to the revision prior to the disputed wording. The current wording:

  The Wikipedia community strongly discourages simulating the MediaWiki interface, except on the rare occasion when it is necessary for testing purposes.

  is inclusive of Joke "You have new messages" notifications. It should suffice until there is consensus about how to word the discussion about Joke banners. I welcome suggestions about whether an RfC should be started and how it should framed. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, yes. The current wording is inclusive, and fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"New messages" banner hoaxes simulate the MediaWiki interface. Many direct readers to unexpected locations such as the practical joke article and non-Wikipedia websites.

Proposed: "New messages" banner hoaxes in the user and user talk namespaces are prohibited.

Note: This proposal covers only banners that in both wording and color closely resemble the one listed at Wikipedia:User pages#User talk notification. Joke banners that do not mislead editors into believing they have new messages are not included in this proposal.

Notifications

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines (tag) (list) | detag) (delist)
• Template:Centralized discussion (list) | (delist) (archive)

1. See my view below for an extended comment about this proposal. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Enough is enough. It's time to end this disruption once and for all! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 05:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Imzadi 1979 → 05:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
4. That I don't laugh at trolling doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor. Get rid of these. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
5. I have great respect for Malik Shabazz and agree with him on most matters. But this I see as a hoax rather than a joke. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
6. It's clear that these hoaxes bother some people, and it's simply not collegial to tolerate something that disrupts the experience of using Wikipedia for others.  Sandstein  07:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
7. It was funny the first time it was done, but the joke was used up after that. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Not funny, just distracting. Nobody Ent 11:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Simulating a official message means that people may ignore actual messages. Washuchan (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
10. No fake messages. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Could be quite distracting to see fake messages. Not funny. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Not finding deliberately irritating 'jokes' to be funny is not indicative of a lack of sense of humour. Kill these stupid things with fire. → ROUX ₪ 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
13. The worst one of these I've seen was directing people to Special:UserLogout, forcing them to log in again. Stuff like this is not original or funny, just annoying. Jafeluv (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
14. We don't tolerate jokes that are actually disruptive and this particular joke ceased to be funny a long time ago. Hut 8.5 14:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support; this was disallowed a long time ago in my home wiki. — AlexSm 15:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support – there aren't many of them in my experience, but those that I have come across have been annoying, and the whole matter would be even more irritating were these things more widespread. Ergo such banners are intrinsically annoying (and have not been bothering me too much only because there aren't many of them around, not because they are in of themselves funny/whatever), and should be banned. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support – there is no reason to deliberately annoy other users. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support prohibition of banners simulating the "You have new messages" one. Not funny, and confusing to new users. JohnCD (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Support—there is a line between humor and just plain disruptive. Whenaxis about | talk 22:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Support - If they are going to be "highly discouraged", you might as well go one step further and say they are not permitted. Nothing wrong with the odd joke here and there, but these are clearly disruptive and should be disallowed. CT Cooper · talk 00:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support The first of these fake notifications that I saw was amusing while also being a distracting irritation. That was a long time ago and it is time for them to be removed as they serve no purpose other than to confuse new users—when an old joke is copied many times, it loses its humor. Fooling around with the user interface is a very bad way for a new user to focus their attention, and permitting fake notifications sends the wrong message to such new users. We should be saying this is an encyclopedia where collaboration and respect are important. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Support - joking around is OK, but sometimes when I'm expecting someone to edit my own talk page, these false positives aren't needed. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a site to post disruptive, lame and utterly unfunny "jokes" such as this one. Edison (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Support. Nothing to do with building an encyclopedia; security risk; disturbing to a high number of people without any redeeming value. Shrigley (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Support as security risk and unnecessary biting of newbies. Seems like the basics of it are already covered by not replicating the MediaWiki interface. It just needs to be enforced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support I have a sense of humour, but confusing newbies isn't a good thing. As for seeing them too much because one is looking at user pages rather than articles? Yeah, that's called being an admin. Those people who spend time worrying about what goes on in non-article-space are there to ensure the article creators don't have to deal with socks, trolls and vandals so much. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Look, I have a sense of humor just like everyone else here but in my book these fake messages are just annoying. Yes, some people find it funny but at the end of the day it's a detrimental distraction. The ultimate purpose of Wikipedia is not to allow autonomous user-pages, it's building a free encyclopedia. As I see it (see the arguments above) these "jokes" boil down to an irritable nuisance to committed editors. </magister's-rant> Magister Scienta^talk 23:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Support. Those things are downright annoying, and while after awhile one can learn to ignore them, I think around these parts people probably really do have better things to do than stop and mistrust any userpage where they seem to have new messages, because that's what it comes down to. Also makes a place that much less welcoming to new users, who will have a whole whack of other stuff to get used to even without that... -— Isarra (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. They are very annoying, as well as misleading. I get very annoyed when I am waiting for a response on my talk page and click the hoax banner, only to be disappointed. Suitable material for Encyclopedia Dramatica, but Wikipedia users should be more mature.--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. While I appreciate the humor, I think there are more appropriate ways to express humor that do not lead to undue confusion. Furthermore, if the humor is at the expense of the poor newbie who falls for these fake messages- isn't that newbiebiting? Nightenbelle (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support - I have a sense of humor (I swear!) and appreciate the April Fool jokes and whatnot, but when a joke actually upsets people it's no longer acceptable. -- Atama頭 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Mild support. I once had a similar banner, although it said "You have NO new messages". When I ran for admin, I was told to lose it. Hence, I thought such banners were already banned. I don't get apoplectic when I see one, but it also depends on what it redirects to. And, frankly, it was funny at first but by now it's nearly as old some of my jokes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
34. Support per above. --Rschen7754 02:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
35. Always hated 'em. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
36. Support. I could almost defend these on "freedom of expression" grounds, but I see many of the opposers are claiming these are actually funny, which needs to be refuted in the strongest possible terms. These things are less funny than a drunken uncle demanding you pull his finger. They are less funny than the "infinite loop" knock-knock jokes that small children across time and space independently discover upon turning four. They are less funny than a washed-up comedian doing contract work at a company dinner, telling stale jokes about the CEO's golf score. They are less funny than Joan Rivers. They are less funny than Joe Piscopo. They are less funny than Joe Dirt. Carrot Top would not put such a thing at the top of his userpage, despite the orangeness. 28bytes (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
37. Support this was mildly amusing the first time I saw it. Now it's just a waste of time, both mine and the creators. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
38. Support. This is the first time that I have come across these "joke banners". I can see how some editors would be irritated and/or confused by it. (As a joke, it is weak, but that's not really relevant.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
39. Support - Almost as unfunny as Joe Piscopo. (No need for hyperbole here.) Disruptive, annoying, good riddance. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
40. Support These banners violate WP:DICK. As an experienced editor I find them annoying, but I imagine that new editors are seriously confused by them. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
41. Weak support The only thing lamer than being upset about these is actually putting one on your page. So this !vote isn't struck, they are somewhat disruptive and upset a number of users. AniMate 12:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
42. Support. They're not constructive or useful. They have the potential to annoy. Not all attempts at humour succeed, and these banners don't. Colonel Tom 13:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
43. 'Support Though we have bigger problems than this, it's one of the things that we can most easily do something about. User space is primarily for communication, and for personal expression intended to build building the Wikipedia by encouraging cooperation. This feature is not nearly neutral in these respects, but actively hinders them both. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
44. Hear hear. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
45. Support per my view below. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
46. Support Way too much potential for abuse. Klilidiplomus 14:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
47. Support: Humour on user pages and talk pages is OK within bounds as long as it doesn't get in the way of serious editors: these hoax message bars do get in the way of serious editors. PamD 00:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
48. Support: They get in the way of working on improving the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
49. Support I usually remove these per WP:SMI, and it would be nice to have specific text prohibiting these fake new messages banners. They are confusing and do not benefit the encyclopedia in any way. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
50. Support BigDwiki (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
51. Support I am surprised that this isn't already prohibited. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
52. Support—Neither do I see a good reason to oppose this proposal, nor do I see a good reason for anyone to have hoax new message banners (or any other hoaxes that simulate the interface). Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
53. Long overdue. I don't mind humour, I'm occasionally prone to be humorous myself, but this isn't humour, it's social networking stupidity and tiresome the first time you encounter it. --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
54. Support Any templates or messages which simulate the user interface should be banned and removed on sight. There is too much potential for abuse and it sends the wrong messages to readers and editors that this kind of fakery is allowed on WP. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
55. Support. Destroy them with fire. --Fang Aili ^talk 05:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
56. Support. --  Badgernet  ₪  09:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
57. Support - Yes, hoax banners are mildly irritating, but my bigger concern is that they will confuse new users. If the first time someone sees the new message bar turned out to be a hoax, new users will not realize the real meaning of the bar. This is especially true when the hoaxer warns or welcomes a lot of new users. Their pages are visited too frequently by new users to be leading them astray. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
58. Support - Forbid malware vectors. Selery (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
59. Support. I don't see how these type of recreations of the interface do anything to improve the encyclopedia. Indeed, they have a small but significant chance of driving editors away. May I politely suggest that the people behind these redirect their creative efforts in more productive directions, such as improving the encyclopedia? –Grondemar 23:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
60. Support. It is funny (but lamely) the first twenty times, after that it is just annoying. A small matter to be sure, but there is no point in doing something silly on your talkpage where the sole purpose to be irritating. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
61. Support. Funny or not they are misleading and confusing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
62. Support These fake messages are annoying and disruptive time-wasters.--Chaser (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
63. Support per Dweller. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
64. Support per Grondemar.Babakathy (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
65. Support - not funny, and a distraction when people are trying to do actual improvement to the encyclopedia. LadyofShalott 21:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
66. Support. Not funny, not useful. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
67. Support. Could certainly make people who click on them feel foolish for falling for a stupid practical joke. Someone ending up at Practical joke, which some of these banners link to, would discover that they've fallen prey to "a mischievous trick played on someone, typically causing the victim to experience embarrassment, indignity, or discomfort." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
68. Support. Annoying, misleading and disruptive. Bgwhite (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
69. Support. I've come across this hoax a few times and has been annoying after the first time. And not to mention how confused newbies would feel when they come across this. Suraj T 05:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
70. Support Banner hoaxes are a huge security issue. Thankfully, we don't yet have mammoth issues regarding these, or users inclined to make a point. This proposal should have been implemented like yesterday. Wifione ^Message 05:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
71. Support Yes, it's kinda cool and funny, and kinda old and lame at the same time. But it's caused so much disruption over the years, and wastes people's time, might even confuse some. Editors with this type of practical joke should be kindly told to stop. Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
    

1. Grow a sense of humor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Draconian nonsense. That a mode of expression is personally unfunny or distracting to some editors is in absolutely no way an acceptable threshold for its prohibition. To endorse this censorious frivolity would be to set an ill-judged precedent blind to the inevitable unintended consequences. Skomorokh 14:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3. I am philosophically opposed to excessive policing on user page content. That said, the joke is stale and annoying. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
4. Get lives, people. This is what we do on Wikipedia? Debate a line of trivial code in userspace? Write articles, for heaven's sake—stop beating a dead horse and nitpicking at irrelevant shite. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Obviously the support votes are too busy looking at User Pages than contributing anything meaningful. Lugnuts (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Per Malik Shabazz. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
7. It's damn irritating, but it's not particularly disruptive either (ie if your editing experience is significantly impacted by this, the problem is not the "joke"). And making more rules on Wikipedia is taking coal to Newcastle. Danger ^{High voltage!} 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
8. What a waste of time debating something that really doesn't matter. -DJSasso (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Beyond prohibiting downright offensive content, content that's problematic for copyright reasons, and content that's subject to speedy deletion, we have no business telling someone what may not go on a userpage. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Can't say it better than Schmucky.--Kubigula (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
11. What a waste of time! (This here and future enforcement if implemented).TMCk (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
12. See my comments, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
13. Does it actually stop you from improving the encyclopaedia? Von Restorff (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
14. Weakly, and with caveats, as described by TransporterMan. The fake new messages should have some difference compared to the regular "new messages" banner, but as long as there's some difference and they don't redirect to a different site, there's little harm. It may confuse newbies a little, but so does using WP:SHORTCUTS for WP:EVERYTHING WP:WE WP:SAY WP:ON WP:THISSITE. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
15. WP:Wikipedia is not censored. We don't need to be controlling userspace. A412 (Talk * C) 00:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

    You might want to re-read the text that you linked: it says "articles or images". And I guess you're unfamiliar with the following text as well: WP:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?. — AlexSm 00:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

16. Eh, I find them annoying (though I haven't seen one in more than a year) but it's way too much bureaucracy to make rules like this. Really. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
17. Serious over-regulation. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
18. I don't deny they can be mildly annoying, but not so much or so common as to warrant an additional rule. Rlendog (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose; they aren't very funny, but they are not in themselves all that disruptive either. (A fake "new messages" banner that redirects to an especially annoying place could be a different story.) Cardamon (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Lord Roem (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose. This joke was old long ago, but it doesn't usually cause any real problems other than annoyance. Sometimes it may cause problems, e.g. when linking to explicit content, but it doesn't arise frequently enough that it can't be handled thoughtfully on a case-by-case basis. Humor in general is an essential element of community-building and contributes to relationships that are later leveraged to contribute new content. I also fear a general rule against simulating the interface could unwittingly crush experiments with new interfaces or tools being conducted in user space. Dcoetzee 04:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose - I don't care for these banners, but the last thing we need is another arbitrary restriction on what people can and cannot do with their personal space.   — C M B J   07:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose - an editor's User page and talk are the one place on Wikipedia where silly stuff is allowed - some write hoax articles about themselves, some add conflicting user boxes, some add fake "new message" banners. If they think it's funny (and as long as it is only in their own user space) I see no big problem with it. --Six words (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - None of the opposers to this proposal have said banner on their user or talk pages... Why? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the users do have such banners. User:Lugnuts and User:Fetchcomms/Miscellany have two of the banners that this proposal would prohibit. User:SchmuckyTheCat and User:Stifle have joke banners on their user talk and user page, respectively, that would not be prohibited by this proposal.

  Some of the opposers are philosophically opposed to imposing restrictions on the userspace though they dislike these banners ("stale and annoying" and "irritating"). Although I do not subscribe to that philosophy, I find these arguments to be the strongest to oppose this proposal. I have discussed User:Danger's Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep comment below. Skomorokh's concern that this would "set an ill-judged precedent blind to the inevitable unintended consequences" is a slippery-slope argument. This proposal is narrowly defined; further changes to the user page guideline will require another discussion. User:Nyttend's comment that "we have no business telling someone what may not go on a userpage" except for "prohibiting downright offensive content, content that's problematic for copyright reasons, and content that's subject to speedy deletion" is a valid opinion. But it is one that does not correspond with Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?. The guideline includes other prohibitions such as discouraging "writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals". "New messages" banner hoaxes that serve only to irritate fall under that section.

  I find that the rest of the oppose votes only cast aspersions on those who support this proposal and are ad hominems that should be accorded their due weight by the closer. Cunard (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think you're spending too much time on this trivial issue ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One important factor behind the vibrancy of this project is that every volunteer to free to volunteer their time and aptitudes in whatever way they choose. Volunteers are not constrained by what others think are the leading priorities. To tell someone else that they are using their time poorly is so close to casting a critical judgement on their value that it really is best not done.

Here, Cunard is cleaning up loose ends, ambiguities in the rules, and is thus contributing to improving the project in terms of professional appearance and efficiency in function. Silly games, skylarking, pressing doorbells and running away to laugh, are not worth the time for the police to respond to. However, Cunard is not asking others to enforce the mature-behaviour-rules. He is clarifying an old, simple rule: Do not deceptively simulate the WikiMedia interface. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

One important factor behind the vibrancy of this project is a sense of humor and a spirit of fun. Blah blah blah insert condescending and irrelevant crap here blah blah blah. I am offended by your use of "WikiMedia", too. Another important factor behind the vibrancy of this project is the correct use of its name. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Got me on a point or two there. Normally, I'm a dedicated supporter of many things humourous. However, I expect some originality. The discovery of a new perspective on something old is fantastic. Your joke banner I find unfunny because the "new message" turns out to be the same old page I've previously be tricked into loading. As it is, it only serves to trick the newcomers. Now if your joke new message banner took me somewhere unexpected, or even interesting, I'd appreciate it.

By the way, I found the fourth joke original and very funny. In many ways the merge is well underway. However, I think the first shows many signs of damaging bloat, and that splitting would be beneficial for those trying to maintain as well as the external audience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in myself for being unoriginal ... I could've sworn I'd done something witty but it was so long ago. Perhaps I'll change the color to something satirical. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

comment don't waste my time (smileyface) NewbyG ( talk) 01:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've run the numbers and as of 5:34 UTC on 13 February 2012 there are 3 supports to every 1 oppose (63/21=3). Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 05:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh...

I just found this little gem... This is just one example of how these banners can be used abusively (In this case linking to Gay Nigger Association of America which can be seen by many as calling someone a gay nigger) Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 02:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that was dealt with during an ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages#Simulation and disruption of the MediaWiki interface currently states:

The Wikipedia community strongly discourages simulating the MediaWiki interface, except on the rare occasion when it is necessary for testing purposes.

CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the Wikimedia interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable (other than by way of commenting out), or replacing the expected interface with a disruptive simulation, may be removed or remedied by any user. Inappropriate internal or external links that unexpectedly direct the reader to unreasonable locations or violate prohibitions on linking may also be removed or remedied by any user. Text, images, and non-disruptive formatting should be left as intact as possible. Users of such code should consider possible disruption to other skins and to diffs and old revisions.

Some Wikipedia user pages contain joke "You have new messages" banner hoaxes (the orange bar). An example of such a user page can be seen here. The guideline currently states that simulating the MediaWiki namespace is "strongly discouraged". Joke "You have new messages" banner hoaxes are covered under this wording. I propose that this wording be strengthened for "You have new messages" banner hoaxes. Rather than saying that the banner hoaxes should be "strongly discouraged" or "frowned upon", I propose adding a sentence that says they are "prohibited", "banned", or "disallowed".

In December 2011, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep was closed as "delete". The user page contained a fake "new messages" banner. The consensus was against allowing them; see my discussion with the closing admin at User talk:28bytes/Archive 16#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep. SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) writes above:

To my memory, any time a nomination at MfD appears relating to a simulation of the interface, inclduing joke banners, it results in either deletion, or the simulation being removed with the clear message that otherwise the page would be deleted and/or the user blocked.

I agree with him that the prevailing consensus at MfD is to disallow these joke banners. I have not seen a recent MfD where a joke banner was allowed. This proposal is prompted by the above discussion and the edit war at User talk:NWA.Rep to remove the "new messages" banner.

The above proposal covers banners that closely resemble the one listed at Wikipedia:User pages#User talk notification. Joke banners such as the one at User talk:SchmuckyTheCat that do not mislead editors into believing they have new messages are not included in this proposal.

Such banners were extensively discussed in 2007: see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AF#Practical jokes in "new message" boxes, Wikipedia talk:User pages/UI spoofing, and Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 3#Crafting a guideline on "new message" joke banners. See also David Levy (talk · contribs)'s removal of a number of the banners.

I have read the above discussions about the banners and have listed arguments opposing them below. They have been edited for clarity, concision, and spelling. For context, the diff for each comment is appended at the end of each comment.

Arguments for prohibiting the fake "new messages" banners

Faking the UI is intentionally creating confusion where something looks like clicking on it will give you one thing when it gives you another, or producing a page that looks like something it isn't (like creating a user page the looks like the page you get when there is no user page by that name). Decorative changes that don't impact how someone interacts with the UI wouldn't meet this criteria ... Adapted from Doug Bell talk's comment at 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment We tolerate silly user page content up to the point at which it becomes harmful. Deliberately misleading people in this manner impedes their efforts to build an encyclopedia. These pranks are flagrantly harmful, and I would have attempted to outlaw them long ago if I'd realized that so many others agreed. Adapted from David Levy's comment at 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment There is no positive, or even good-faith, reason to put fake UI on your page. Its only purpose is to harass other users. Given that it is also a potential security risk, we might as well say that it "may" be removed. It is true that there is great lenience about user pages, but it seems reasonable that the guideline can ask users not to engage in behavior that is broadly offensive to the community. This is underlined by the potential phishing risk of fake UI - it should not benecessary to doubt every UI link when editing a user's talk page. Adapted from CMummert · talk's comment at 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment WP:BEANS is always a Catch-22: if there is no written guideline, then it is much harder to argue in favor of removing things, but every guideline in oppositon of some behavior violates WP:BEAN ... Adapted from CMummert · talk's comment at 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment I'm still amazed by all the angst this proposal is creating in the name of freedom on user pages. We're not "creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour"—we're talking about a very specific, practical and non-content-based prohibition on spoofing the UI. There's not lots of gray area here or some dangerous slippery slope. Even without the bot issue I would think this is a no-brainer; with the bot issue this should be a slam dunk. Adapted from Doug Bell talk's comment at 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment I consider that this div class (usermessage) has been abused, and that its abuse should be curtailed by enforcement, not by a “please don’t” message on WP:UP. Most importantly, the community is able to be elastic about interpretation of WP:UP in murky cases. If consensus is against such orange user messages, which appears to be the case, then they shall be removed. There may also have to be an MFD for all of the user subpages of the general note “Sign here if you’ve been fooled, lol!” Adapted from GracenotesT's comment at 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment Two cents here... when I was a newbie, I clicked on those joke "new messages" banners. Now that I've been around a while, I get the joke and don't click on them. Heck, I can go in my monobook.css and make my real "new messages" appear some other color or whatever. But, for the sake of newbies (per WP:BITE), these practical jokes should not be allowed. Adapted from Aude (talk)'s comment at 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment I've got yet another con. When I'm on a slow computer (read: public one) and am just logging in for a few minutes (you know, just to make sure no one is calling for my head, maybe copyedit something, maybe make a follow-up comment on some talk page) these fake message bars can be really disruptive and time-consuming. They serve no positive purpose, yet they serve multiple negative ones. Luckily, I'm seeing consensus to remove them based on this thread, and will do so. Adapted from Picaroon's comment at 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC); see link to comment

Comments (edited) from current discussion

Agree that calling a joke banner plain "disruption" is to devalue the term, but it is a degree of disruption. It is a simulation of the interface intended to be a bold messaging mechanism, and to jokingly simulate it is to disrupt the concentration of the reader and to devalue the importance the of the new message notification. To my memory, any time a nomination at MfD appears relating to a simulation of the interface, inclduing joke banners, it results in either deletion, or the simulation being removed with the clear message that otherwise the page would be deleted and/or the user blocked. I think the guideline should be more strongly phrased than "frowning" on joke banners. Adapted from SmokeyJoe (talk)'s comment at 07:16, 1 December 2011; see link to comment We need to make these a blockable offence. They do not contribute to discussion, have no encyclopedic value whatsoever and are just a straight-up pain in the rear end! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Adapted from Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me's comment at 01:33, 14 December 2011; see link to comment Not sure why an outright ban can't be implemented and enforced here. User pages belong to a specific user insomuch as they somehow further the encyclopedia's aim or they're benign. If someone's user page is actively disrupting/annoying other users, I'm not sure why it has to be tolerated. bugzilla:12681 is a software solution that I've long been in favor of. But this could be considered fundamentally a social problem, not a technical problem. Adapted from MZMcBride (talk)'s comment at 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC); see link to comment

The following table is adapted from Gracenotes (talk · contribs)'s table. It has been expanded with arguments from the above quotes.

Table summarizing the arguments

Summary of the pros and cons of false new message boxes
Why to prohibit	Why not to
Users often click on them without thinking, resulting in possibly downloading a virus or being directed to a malicious site. A user may also find him or herself in the security-threatening situation described by CMummert Impedes users' efforts from building the encyclopedia People find it annoying and disruptive Disrupt the concentration of the reader Confusing to editors. Violates WP:BITE for new editors. Disruptive and time-consuming to editors using slow computers Many bots are coded in various languages to look for this div and possibly desist functioning until further instruction is given An editor may be doing a systematic task (like reverting vandalism or tagging talk pages) when they are interrupted to consider a false talk page message Devalue the importance of the new message notification system.	The Wikipedia community is tolerant, and shouldn't crush jokes just because they're irritating The bot issue can be worked around, with some extensive recoding (?)

Users who endorse this view

1. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

   In reply to Σ: The comment about the "new messages" banner interfering with bots is motivated by this comment:

   I would also agree with disallowing this sort of practical joke. I think there was a situation in which one of the userbox migration bots kept stopping because it came across fake new-messages banners and thought they were real, so this is more important than just the annoyance value. (It's kind of ironic that users sporting such banners had their userboxes gradually degrade due to the bots not being able to replace them, but this interfered with other users too.) --ais523 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

   And this comment:

   I don't think that a fake new-messages bar is worth complicating bot programming for. I also don't think that there's a query.php uihasmsg check built in to the popular bot frameworks, so it would mean changes to existing bot code (which can be a bad idea; imagine if a new-messages banner was confusing an adminbot, it would have to go through a new RfA so that the uihasmsg check could be implemented!). By the way, Tra, you probably want to change the output format of that query.php check from the human-readable xmlfm, which has to be screen-scraped, into something more useful for bots. --ais523 11:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

   Complications, while not present in the bots listed by Σ below, may occur with other bots. As ais523 noted, recoding those bots to work around the div class "usermessage" problem will be a waste of precious time and resources. Cunard (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

   Those bots were old and dependent on query.php, which no longer works. It should be noted that like the current API, query.php also had the ability to check for new messages.

   Downloading the source of an article and searching for '<div class="usermessage"' would waste more resources in the long run than recoding the bot to download the text returned from a query (which should be trivial anyway - make the bot search the text of the API query instead of the article) and then downloading the article if there are no new messages. →Στc. 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for the explanation. I have stricken the mentions of bots from the table. Cunard (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

   In reply to the Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep argument: CMummert (talk · contribs)'s comment about WP:BEANS is applicable to WP:CREEP. Paraphrasing CMummert, WP:CREEP is always a Catch-22: If there is no written guideline, then it is much harder to argue in favor of removing things, but every guideline in oppositon of some behavior violates WP:CREEP. The community has, in the past, spent much time discussing the "new messages" hoax banner: Wikipedia talk:User pages/UI spoofing. There have been edit wars and conflicts since 2007 involving the hoaxes.

   These hoaxes are harmful: They (i) pose a security risk, (ii) confuse and give new users the impression that Wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia, (iii) may cause people to disregard actual messages, (iv) wastes the time of users on slow computers, (v) impedes encyclopedia building by disrupting the reader's concentration, and (vi) is a detrimental distraction that annoys rather than amuses.

   In my view, prohibiting these net negative banners is not a violation of WP:CREEP but a codification of the community's willingness to, as Sandstein (talk · contribs) said above, no longer "tolerate something that disrupts the experience of using Wikipedia for others". Cunard (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Searching for the div class "usermessage" is uncommon in most bot frameworks. It can be done through the API. If there are new messages:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<api>
  <query>
    <userinfo id="1234" name="Σ" messages="" />
  </query>
</api>

If new messages have been read, then the bold text is not in the query.

As far as I know, ST47's Perlwikipedia, Chris G's botclasses.php, and Cobi's wikibot.classes.php do not use the API to check for new messages at the same level Pywikipedia and Wiki.java do. But I am sure that none of them use the div class "usermessage" to check for new messages. →Στc. 07:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BIKE Bulwersator (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Bulwersator (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) - as proposer

While I'm not pointing fingers at any of the proposers or supporters in this debate, I would note that if you look into the history of many lighthearted elements of WP such as the Department of Fun and, indeed, any which don't serve a strict nose-to-the grindstone purpose you'll find attempts, sometimes dedicated attempts, to get rid of them. Fortunately, such attempts ordinarily fail, as should this one. Sandstein's comment that, "It's clear that these hoaxes bother some people, and it's simply not collegial to tolerate something that disrupts the experience of using Wikipedia for others," can be seen, though I doubt that he means it to be, a call to arms in that direction. I have a fake banner at the top of my user page in the form of a warning that "This page contains text or images which may be disturbing to some. (Because everything is disturbing to someone.)" That is true and indeed, for reasons which I have explained at excruciating length elsewhere I find the term "wikilawyer" to be offensive and it disrupts the experience of using Wikipedia for me. Should we ban the use of that term, too? As much as I'd like it to be banned, even I am forced to say "probably not" because that term has a marginally useful purpose here just as the presence of humor also does. It cannot be questioned that we need to stick to our mission here, but neither do we need to allow this to be such a dry and humorless place that only masochists and those who would relish working in Ebenezer Scrooge's pre-Christmas workroom enjoy working here.

There is however a valid issue to be raised here. It's one thing to make a mild joke, but entirely another to do something seriously disruptive. A banner which takes you to the Practical joke article or to some similar inoffensive place is nothing more than a "gotcha" but it needs to end with the gotcha. A banner which takes you offsite at all, much less to one which is virus-ridden, or to something potentially offensive onsite such as a link to an image of an extended middle finger (to provide a relatively mild example) should not be condoned, not for a second. We don't need to prohibit all banners just to fix those problems when they arise, however; if the current tools are not sufficient to deal with those cases then focused tools should be adopted, but the Bozo should not be thrown out with the bathwater. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

1. Hear hear. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
2. We should treat these on a case-by-case basis, as we have always done. Dcoetzee 00:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to give a little different take on these banners than what I've read above. While I previously had a dislike for these fake-message banners because I found them distracting, this is not the primary reason I don't like them. Until about a year ago I had a long-running problem with an individual who persecuted me in any way they could. This included following each and every edit I made, making personal attacks, gaming the system, and so on. These things almost always resulted in some sort of message being left on my talk page. It got to the point where seeing an orange banner would make me sick to my stomach because a large percentage of the time it meant this individual (or one of his "buddies") was in the process of trying to stir something up. Because of this, every time I now see that orange banner, I'm reminded of that stuff and it is a very unpleasant experience. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view

Orange banner - Pavlovian reaction, I can sympathise with that. There were several months when the orange banner had that effect on me, for precisely the same reason. It is still not back to "Yay! I got a message!" Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Disappointing to see so much attacking of those who !voted the other way, instead to cogent arguments. Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.