CZ:Managing Editor/2010/001 - Editors of their own user pages and subpages thereof

Description of problem

Are we still requiring a bio for authors? What does "editor of their own user page mean?" D. Matt Innis 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We'd better be! Having said that, Article 8 suggests that users may do what they like with their own user pages as long as it's not abusive material. The use of 'editor' is confusing and muddies the author/editor difference. There is nothing about bios in the Charter either. That and Article 8 create a serious ambiguity which really needs a rule in place to avoid fallout problems. Take categories, for instance. There is nothing to stop an active user editing without them (as at least one contributor is doing at the moment). I always took removal of categories as an indication that the user had left, but that page only says that the departing user should not blank the page. John Stephenson 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose even editors cannot remove appropriate categories, right? They are also required to have bios on their user pages (though they are more extensive than authors'). I don't mind the ability to act as an editor on their own page. D. Matt Innis 15:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Draft decision

To allow community feedback, I plan to always state a draft of my decision at least 24h before actually making it. The text below is what I plan to decide in this case. Feel free to edit the text if you think this improves it. If your edits require discussion, please use the dedicated section below. Editing and discussion in this "Draft decision" section shall stop 24h after my last edit to it.

User pages in general are governed by several articles of the Charter. For all Citizens, the following two are pertinent:

• Article 2: Citizenship shall be open to anyone who fulfills the basic conditions for participation as defined by the Management Council—including registering according to the real names policy—and agrees to abide by this Charter.
• Article 8: Citizens shall be considered Editors of their own user pages and subpages thereof, as long as content is not inflammatory or derogatory.

In my view, "registering according to the real names policy" does not make sense without having a biography on the user page that provides some basic information about the participant, their background and interests, such that other Citizens have a basis from which to explore opportunities of collaboration in the framework of the project. So yes, biographies are still required.

Requirements for biographies of Editors, Constables and elected officials go beyond those basic requirements and require a clear statement about their relevant areas of expertise (preferably with links) as well as a link to a page describing their official role in the project.

As for the general meaning of "Editors of their own user pages and subpages thereof", I interpret this as meaning that while Editors can rule on matters of content and style within the scope of their Editorship, users can rule on matters of content and style within their own user pages and subpages thereof, provided that such ruling does neither

1. contravene any other part of the Charter nor
2. interfere with the ability of other Citizens to manage content on the site according to the principles laid out by the Charter.

Articles that seem particularly relevant to the first point are

• Article 5: Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive language or behavior will not be tolerated. Citizens who interfere with another Citizen's rights as delineated by this Charter or who violate rules established by either the Management or Editorial Councils shall be subject to administrative action upon complaint of the aggrieved Citizen, the punishment of which may include, but is not limited to, suspension from the Citizendium for a period of time, or permanent expulsion. Other administrative actions may be established by the Management Council.
• Article 23: The Citizendium shall remain free of advocacy, advertisement and sensationalism.

Articles that seem particularly relevant to the second point are

• Article 34, point 8: manage technical matters (software and hardware);

Categories would clearly fall under technical matters and thus not be included in the matters that Citizens can rule upon in their user space.

I note that I interpret Article 8 as in part contradicting (and thus overruling) the current "Authors may not edit each others' user pages unless there is an explicit message to that effect on a person's page" provision at CZ:User Pages: Given that anyone can edit article pages that Editors can rule on, Article 8 would also allow anyone to edit user pages that other users can rule on, which fits with the "social covenant centered around trust" invoked by the Preamble of the Charter. However, the Charter - including articles 5, 23, 34 - also applies to edits made to the user pages of other Citizens.

The principles outlined in this decision apply equally to newly registered, current and past participants, though leniency is advised when dealing with pages that have not been edited for some time.

I will request the Management Council to review and update CZ:User Pages and Special:RequestAccount in light of this decision.

--Daniel Mietchen 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Draft decision

I am concerned about creating hard feelings when authors change someone else's user page. Obviously, if someone is an editor on their own page, they can change it back and ask that no-one change it again, but it seems a little intrusive. I'm not sure which the constabulary would be enforcing, the author being allowed to change it, or the user telling them not to. Perhaps you could outline under what circumstances an author can change another person's user page if necessary? D. Matt Innis 02:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the Charter as conferring the right to edit others' User Pages at all. I think what was intended, and not properly worded, is that the sole author of his/her User Page is the owner, with intervention by CZ institutions as permitted by the Charter and associated regulations. This does not apply to the Talk page, which should be seen as a normal Talk page but with the owner acting as editor of it.

If this interpretation is accepted, I would urge the ME initially, and the MC at its own pace, to rule that we may not edit others' user pages without specific authority to do so (whether that be from the owner or from CZ regulations).

There should also be a ruling about a bio on the page, with some basic specifications of what is required at a minimum. These may have to be discussed, owing to the potential sensitivity of personal data. Although CZ requires real names, it does not require that personal details are made public...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that article 8 does not allow others to edit a user page which is not their own, but rather that when others are allowed to edit the user page (as detailed by other policy) they are the Editor and can overrule those edits as long as they comply with CZ policy. I think that editing of user pages should be limited to the user and Constables unless specifically permitted by the user, at least until other policy is set up with specific details of when and why edits may be made.

This is not without precedent. For example, I am an Editor of World of Warcraft, but it is protected as per Citizendium policy. This means that although I am the Editor of that page, nobody can make edits to it except in line with specific rules and policies. --Chris Key 04:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far. Given that Article 8 can certainly be interpreted in other ways than the one I outlined above — you gave some examples — I shall err on the side of caution and go for making User pages editable by other users as per opt-in, not opt-out, with some leeway for official actions and possibly for edits at the level of typo correction. Not entirely sure yet how to phrase that out - suggestions welcome.

@Matt - typos would certainly be something that an expert-led project would have to watch out for even on user pages. In terms of what to enforce, the case is clear when the owner has ruled (yes, enforce the ruling), and I think the opt-in would make things clear otherwise.

@Martin - I gave a brief description of what should go into a biography on a user page. If more specifics are needed, we could turn this into a follow-up decision, to keep this one from getting oversized. I am also thinking of maintaining a version of the Charter with links to clarifications issued by the councils or the ME. Matter of time.

@Chris - there is no equivalent of Approval in user space, so the "Editor of" comparison would not apply there, I think. Anyway, changes that do not modify content are still possible (primarily typos) even for approved articles.

--Daniel Mietchen 22:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that no one should edit another's user pages unless for official purposes, or when specifically allowed by the user. However, binding guidelines have to be followed -- as elsewhere on the wiki -- and may be enforced if necessary. In my view, typos or wrong grammar are not a problem and the claim to be "expert-guided" is not touched by them. (Talk pages are not free of them, either. Some sloppyness should be allowed here.)

As to the format of this decision: The decision should be brief and to the point, I think, and not contain the arguments leading to it. The reasoning is better given separately.

As to the location of this page: There should be some index pointing to these pages (probably best sorted by reverse date), either directly on the ME page, or on a page mentioned there.

--Peter Schmitt 02:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)