Forum:Do not edit list

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Do not edit list
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 19 September 2010 by Liquidhelium.

In July, Forum:No full protection for userpages was passed. That disallowed the full protection of userpages based on the fact that maintenance work might need to be done. However, some users, such as myself, don't want our userpages to be edited, even for maintenance. I would much rather have them leave a note on my talk page so that I can change my userpage myself. For example, neither of the following edits (both of which I undid) would have happened if I was simply allowed to keep full protection on my userpage: [1] [2].

If I had my way, I would amend the protection policy to allow full protection of userpages. However, I doubt that's happening, so I'm proposing the creation of a don't edit list at RuneScape:Do not edit, or RS:DNE for short. This functions similarly to a do not call list, in that users who put their names on this page indicate that they do not want their userpage edited under any circumstances, the only exception being the removal of vandalism (since vandals are unlikely to oblige to this anyways). This could also include a template that holds a significant portion of the user's userpage, given that it's in the user's userspace. My sandbox and 3i+1's sandbox are examples of such pages. This will not be limited to only sysops, so nonsysops can also request that no one edit their page if they so wish.

However, I do realize that inactive users may not see or comply to the requests made on their talk pages. Therefore, I should say that the do not edit privilege only extends for a period of one week from when the maintenance request was first made. After that time period, the person who requested the maintenance edit may edit the userpage.

User pages are a means for users to express themselves to other users. If anyone is allowed to edit the userpage, that sovereignty vanishes. As full-protection is not allowed, a Do not edit list is the next best thing. --LiquidTalk 18:19, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Strong support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 18:19, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think this is unnecessary. In the uncommon scenarios you mentioned above, the issue can be solved by leaving a note on the user's page explaining why you don't want that particular edit made. I don't see a need to craft a policy when the same functionality can be achieved by a message on a talk page. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:23, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Those are one-off situations. Once they happen, they're not going to happen again (well, they're not likely to happen again) so leaving a note really doesn't help. If you want another example, take a look at this. Was QBot doing maintenance? Yes. Did I want that maintenance to be done by QBot? No. Would leaving QBot or Quarenon a message have helped? No. --LiquidTalk 18:25, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
What? Why wouldn't you want those edits done? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:33, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I don't want them done by others. I don't exactly trust anyone to be able to fiddle with my userpage and make it come out right. --LiquidTalk 18:35, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I think that's unreasonable. There is literally no way that it could have been screwed up. Its the same exact template with the same exact code, its just a different link. And in the rare event that the edit is messed up, you can always fix it or undo it. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:37, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Let's just say that certain people don't listen when I ask them to stop editing pages in my userspace. --LiquidTalk 18:39, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I realise what you're talking about, and I do agree that after it became clear that you wanted to keep those linebreaks, 7i should have stopped removing them. But that was one incident that does not merit a policy just to address. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:42, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This seems to me like trying to circumvent the result of the thread you mentioned. How is this any different than fully protecting userpages? ʞooɔ 18:32, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

This is based on the honor system. --LiquidTalk 18:35, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
It's still the same principle. You don't want people doing maintenance on your userpage because you want it to be sovereign. ʞooɔ 18:37, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
And is there something wrong with that? Is it really that hard for people to not edit someone's userpage? --LiquidTalk 18:39, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
It's a major inconvenience for people doing maintenance to have to do that for every person who is on that list. It's not like the person doing maintenance is changing anything on your page. They're fixing an image. Or a link. Or a userbox. Or anything. We've already reached consensus on this before, and the points you bring up are exactly the same ones that you brought up in the previous thread. ʞooɔ 18:42, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, how many people do you expect to sign up? I'm thinking of three at most. That's not a major inconvenience. What if I don't want them to fix a link/image/userbox/whatever? --LiquidTalk 18:44, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Why do you not want people to do maintenance? Like I said, they're not changing anything. I'll never understand this sovereignty thing people have with their userpages. ʞooɔ 18:48, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
"It's my page and I don't want others to edit it." That should be enough. Do you want strangers in your home without permission? I don't. Do you want others poking around your computer without permission? I don't. Do you want others editing your userpage without permission? I don't. --LiquidTalk 18:49, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I feel a more valid comparison to make would be allowing windows to install updates on your computer. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:52, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that analogy fails. You're not losing anything from having your userpage maintained. In fact, you're gaining the fact that you won't have red links all over your page. In any event, your userpage is not yours, but that's beside the point. I'm going to be done with this argument now, but don't expect opinions from this thread to change. And I like Psycho's analogy. ʞooɔ 18:53, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Withdrawn. If you guys really insist, fine. I'll slap a bunch of warnings to the same effect. This is not gaming the system, as users aren't prohibited from editing my userpage (and legitimate edits will not get reverted). --LiquidTalk 18:56, September 19, 2010 (UTC)