Forum:Keep your hands to yourself - extension proposal

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Keep your hands to yourself - extension proposal
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 22 May 2010 by Tienjt0.

Hello all,

I would like to see what the community here thinks about enabling the KeepYourHandsToYourself extension. This extension removes the ability for users to edit userpages that aren't their own, which basically would enforce RS:DEU. Administrators are immune to this, and would still be able to do those administrative tasks that require editing other user's pages.

I am aware of the benefits and bad things that go along with this, so please discuss. If the community does like the idea of it, then we can request that it be enabled. If not, that's fine too. I have no special connection with this, and am fine with others editing my userpage anyways. Thanks, Ajraddatz Talk 19:55, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Neutral - I am neutral on this being enabled myself, I only bring it up because it might be something that others would be interested in. Ajraddatz Talk 19:56, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There are certain users who want others to edit a userpage. Also, there are non-sysops who could be removing red links or reverting vandalism. The last issue I have with this is that some people have lists of signatures on their userpage. I think User:Vimescarrot is an example. --LiquidTalk 19:58, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Erm, what vandalism? :3 Ajraddatz Talk 19:58, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
There is often vandalism on userpages. Take a look at my userpage for example: [1] [2] [3] [4]. --LiquidTalk 20:01, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
No, how could there be vandalism on userpages if only the user and admins could edit that page? :3 Ajraddatz Talk 20:03, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Did you see who was behind that vandalism? 3i+1 and Wojwoj are both sysops, and they can still edit my userpage. On top of that, User:Man tag1 (nonsysop) removed 3i+1's vandalism, which could not happen if this extension was implemented. --LiquidTalk 20:06, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
I always knew that wojwoj was up to no good D: Ajraddatz Talk 20:07, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


Strong Oppose - What about Guest books? I was just asking Tlul how to make calculators, and I expected him to edit my sandbox to show me what I did wrong. He never edited it, but the point still stands that a lot more good can come from user's editing the sandboxes of others than bad. The University of Lumbridge depends on the idea of teachers being able to edit the practice pages that will go along with each lesson, so that aspect of the guild would be fried with this extension. We have a lot of tools to help combat vandalism. I could personally have a whole vandal bot attack undone in a few minutes (with the addition of a mass-rollback script), along with the vandal blocked and put away. I like the idea of restraining vandalism, but this is just too much. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:03, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Steler. bad_fetustalk 20:04, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - Per Stelercus TzTok-Gas talk 20:06, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Slight Oppose - A good idea, I like the benefits, but it kinda destroys the point of guestbooks, and also having other users help you out with coding etc (sometimes just posting on user talk pages isn't enough). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:08, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - What everyone else has said, plus certain bots need to edit user pages sometimes (i.e. FluffyBunnyBot when it tidies up HTML). Andrew talk 20:14, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Much worse than SUPER STRONG OPPOSE - maybe good idea but guestbooks, polls witout radio buttons... ect.  Rune scimitar.png Ppi802 Coins 1000.png  20:21, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Liquid and Steler, and maintenance edits are needed (e.g. wanted pages, deprecated HTML) Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 20:50, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I've seen many instances where edits were necessary (broken html, replacing images, etc.) - --KgnomesTalk 20:54, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - I often edit other's userpages to get rid of red links and fix problems. HaloTalk 20:59, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per what I said in a similar proposal at Forum:Protect or Semi-protect Userpages. --Quarenon  Talk 21:16, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Does this include User subpages? ʞooɔ 23:24, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

I have read about the extension before (I run a private wiki server in my house for some experimental purposes), and I am pretty sure it locks the entire userspace. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:31, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
If this is true, then I have to Oppose - It seems like there are too many user subpages (guestbooks, The Song Game, etc) for this to be worth it. ʞooɔ 03:17, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. I don't think the userpage vandalism problem is bad enough to warrant a change like this. Chicken7 >talk 02:22, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Userpage vandalism is hardly a problem, this will just complicate maintenance edits. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:17, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per others. I'm going to change to support only when the user can toggle the extension for their userspace. willwill Talk 04:25, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Userpage vandalism isn't enough of a problem for this to be justified. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:38, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:25, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Userpage page vandalism is always monitored, and reverted within seconds of the edit being made. I don't see the need for any unnecessary complication. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 11:51, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Proposals like these that are not going to pass need to be thought out more...Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 12:00, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

That's biased, and it's your opinion that no one will support. You can not perfectly predict if something will pass or not. I didn't think this had a hope in the world of passing, but there was unanimous support. Chicken7 >talk 14:21, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
If you actually read the proposal, then you would know that I don't support the idea myself. I presented this because I thought that it might be something that the community would like. Ajraddatz Talk 14:29, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
So the proposer doesn't even support it...Per Liquid and that user page vandalism isn't something that an occasional undo can't fix. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 14:37, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This would make guestbooks useless to all but sysops. If there would be a way to allow ages, this would be a good idea. ~MuzTalk 17:40, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Very Strong Oppose - This would ruin the point of guestbook,s other fun things like The Song Game, and helping others with certain things. I've had to make edits to other people's userspaces because their computers could not run the wiki. It would break apart many things that the wiki uses. Plus, should RS:SNOW be taken into account now?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scimitar77 (talk) on 19:01, May 22, 2010 (UTC).

Oppose - Per all. Sorry.   Swizz Talk   Events!   18:55, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Request for Closure - I know we should be patient with these kinds of things, but the massive amount of opposition shows that this will never pass. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:01, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RS:SNOW. 100% opposition from 20 people. Userpages will remain open to editing.  Tien  19:05, May 22, 2010 (UTC)