Meta:Requests for comment/"Political" statements in user pages are permitted or not?

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. No consensus to create a bright line rule on this has emerged, and pages can continue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Users should keep in mind that meta: hosts global user pages, and content placed thereon could violate a local projects policies. Global pages can be overridden on any local project by creating a local page. — xaosflux Talk 17:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Statement of the issue[edit]

  • I have remarked that some users had "political" messages which has nothing to do with Meta-Wiki, and according to what I think Meta is for I requested SD. User:Sänger disagrees with me and change them to RfD. After, User:Vituzzu proposed to use RfC instead. So my question is: "Could we keep these 'political' message bearing user pages at Meta or not. If we keep what is the relation of those messages with Meta ? Thanks for your comments --Mskyrider (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Service: Some links: Discussion on my user page, Diskussion on RFD, overview of the pages with SD by Mskyrider. Everything's that needed to be said is said there yet. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think political statements consistent with the goals of a Project or the Foundation should be encouraged. In the instant case, Sänger is standing up for free speech, which is entirely consistent with the goals of the Foundation.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really want to give a yes or no answer. Some political statements might be appropriate, others not. --Rschen7754 17:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There exists some tradition to protest against censorship. I would like to recall the SOPA blackout. The Wikimedia movement and ability to distribute free knowledge and media depends very much on the freedom of speech which is, as we know very well, continually threatened by legislation and intimidation. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am glad that I have the freedom to point out that a closing double quote was missing from the first edit to this page, and that the "or not" portion muddies the waters from a !voting perspective. :)   — Jeff G. ツ 01:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it depends on the case. But we must also remember freedom of speech as long as this does not affect other. --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm for freedom of expression. We should just avoid terrorrists and religious messages CreativeC38 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes it’s basically people openly declaring their conflicts of interest, the Neutral Point of View should always be preferred when it concerns content but people aren’t neutral and allowing them to show their political leanings always makes us more aware of any non-neutral edits they might do, let’s say someone is a huge fan of the hypothetical Sour Grapes 🍇 Party, and they’re adding a lot of non-neutral content regarding the S.G.P. then we know that they have a conflict of interest, if someone is a member of the Sweet Cherries 🍒 Party and randomly removes information 🛈 on the S.G.P. where relevant or even adds slanderous anti-Grape propaganda then we know their motivations. “But the Meta-Wiki doesn't host content” you might be saying, well Meta-Wiki user pages display across all Wikimedia projects, so allowing people to declare their personal conflicts of interest isn't such a bad idea. 😉 Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 11:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • These should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Some statements are fine, such as "I am a member of x party". But others are clearly not fine. Individual cases should be handled by admin discretion or RfD as needed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please deal case by case. Oppose only if any statement is very objectionable.--Jusjih (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)