Forum:No full protection for userpages

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > No full protection for userpages
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 July 2010 by Psycho Robot.

It has come to my attention that our protection policy does not allow indefinite full protection for user pages when requested, except in the case of blocked users. While I can certainly understand wanting semi-protection for user pages to combat vandalism, but why would someone need full protection? It causes trouble for maintenance workers (such as removing red links or moving templates. My proposal is to follow the policy by only allowing semi-protection to userpages. I'm curious to hear the reasoning for having full protection. ʞooɔ 02:23, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal-disallow full protection of user pages


No viable reason for full Semi protection is plenty, people making an account and then vandalizing 4 days later are pretty rare, I can't think of one off hand (not counting the users who end up going off, I mean the vandal only accounts). Seems kind of overkill.--Degenret01 02:40, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't see a real reason for it either -

Runecrafting MythbustermaTalk   HSCabbage.png<= BRASSICA PRIME

03:22, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I proposed something like this before at Forum:Protection policy amendment but it met some uncharacteristically heated resistance so I just gave up on it. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:34, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

That is strange. I don't understand why people are so incredibly protective of their userpages that they won't allow simple maintenance (such as the tasks I previously described) to be done. It seems like full protection of userpages hinders some of the allowances in RS:DEU. ʞooɔ 05:08, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - No real reason for full. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 05:52, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Why not.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:15, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Protection just hinders users trying to do maintenance tasks. In the last thread, I'd never really seen it from a non-sysops point of view. But since then I've faced problems like this on other wikis. My userpage is free of protection, and I've never seen it vandalised once (I think it's actually been vandalised a lot, but RC-stalkers revert it swiftly). It does no harm; what is the point of full protection? The "it's my userpage, my property and my choice" argument just doesn't work, as this wiki is accessed and edited publicly. You could call our system Communalism. My viewpoint. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:19, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Your's was vandalised 5 times and you reverted one. Lol *page history stalker =>* Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 06:29, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If a normal user (non-admin) had their page fully protected, they wouldn't be able to edit it. No reason. ShinyUnown T | C | E 11:20, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose and comment - as I said before, it is my user page and if I want to fully protect it, I can. There is no reason for anyone else to need to edit my user page, and if they did, they could ask on my talk page. You cannot touch my user page. Andrew talk 14:44, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

That's just all sorts of wrong with that statement. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 12:06, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Maybe you are on top of your userpage, edit it when someone posts on your talk page, etc, but policies are about consistency. One clear exception to RS:DEU is maintenance, that users may edit others' user pages to remove red links. Consistency; if we allow you to fully protect your user page, why shouldn't we allow everybody to fully protect their user pages? For the purpose of preventing a flood of red links where users are oblivious, inactive, or just stubborn, and in order to stay consistent and fair, we should uphold the maintenance exception to RS:DEU and allow users to edit others' user pages, all others' user pages, for the reasons that have already been determined acceptable. Leftiness 15:21, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
if we allow you to fully protect your user page, why shouldn't we allow everybody to fully protect their user pages? Um..who says we can't? All you have to do is ask a sysop to fully protect your user page. Andrew talk 16:18, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
If we fully protect a users page for them, they will not be able to edit it. They would then have to ask us to make changes for them. Since this obviously does not work, full protection for normal users can not happen. So why should anyone be special enough to have full protection their page when 90 percent of our users can't? You are not entitled to special privileges as a sysop, yet you are using a sysop tool to grant yourself that privilege.--Degenret01 16:50, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Obviously if someone wanted their user page fully protected then they don't want to edit it. What I do on my user page does not affect anyone else. Please show me how this is harming the wiki. Andrew talk 19:18, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
DEU does not simply mean "don't edit my userpage ever ever ever", there are exceptions. And the full protection of your userpage hinders those exceptions, and is also against the current protection policy. ʞooɔ 18:23, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
I realize that. I never even brought DEU into this. Now, if you can find something on my user page right now that needs to be edited, please let me know. Besides, if there ever was something and I wasn't around (even though I check the wiki daily), there are loads of other sysops around to edit it. Andrew talk 19:18, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
For instance, I am in the process of moving all of the userbox templates. See Forum:Userbox Proposal for more details. I can't fix the templates on your page because it is protected. There are other instances, such as the moving of pictures, or the removal of red links, which, all in all, are easier done if your page is not fully protected. I've given my reasons. Now give me reasons why full protection is advantageous. ʞooɔ 19:25, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain why you are the only one who can edit my user page to fix userboxes? Andrew talk 19:28, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Uhh, what? ʞooɔ 19:29, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Why can no one else edit my user page to fix these userboxes? I can do it if you tell me what needs to be changed, and there are dozens of other sysops that can do it. The same goes with any other edits that would need to be made at any time. Andrew talk 19:33, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Because it's easier to do it this way, and I doubt any admins would really want to fix the userboxes. It would bog down the entire process having someone do all of the protected pages by hand. However, that's only a small example. It's simpler in the short term, and the long term, to not fully protect your userpage. I've provided my reasons for unprotected, now I'm waiting for one simple reason why you should be allowed to have it fully protected. ʞooɔ 19:37, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

My point has already been proven. There plenty of people that can edit fully protected pages and not very many fully protected user pages. If you can't come up with a legitimate reason for a non-sysop to need to edit my user page when a sysop is perfectly capable of doing it, I don't need to come up with a reason. It's my user page and I want it fully protected. Andrew talk 19:41, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I can see that I'm not getting through to you at all. If your only reason for keeping things as is, is a narrow interpretation of DEU, then I can't do anything about that. ʞooɔ 19:45, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Do you even know what you're talking about? This is the second time I've had to tell you that this has nothing to do with DEU, so please don't put words in my mouth. I believe my point has further been proven. Wink Andrew talk 19:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, it has everything to do with DEU. Your only reason, as far as I can tell, for opposing, is that you don't want people editing your userpage. DEU also has allowances for maintenance, which is hindered by your protection of your userpage. You've been coming up with reasons against my examples, but nothing against the main point which is "Maintenance". And I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult me. ʞooɔ 19:50, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
I haven't insulted you, you've simply put words in my mouth. Have you read my argument? How could I not want people editing my user page when I have been arguing that other sysops can still edit my user page? Everything I have said proves that semi-protection isn't necessary for maintenance because dozens of other sysops are capable of maintenance on a handful of user pages, and that's assuming I'm not around to do it myself, which I am. Now, if you have something right now that needs to be changed on my user page, tell me; I will do it myself. Andrew talk 19:53, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Cook x 2, Andrew)Andrew, please deflate your head for a moment. Exclusive access to your userpage is not all-important. Yes, you can edit it. Yes, other sysops can edit it. But that's simply inefficient. You stated above that there are a limited number of protected userpages. Gee, I wonder why that is... could it possibly be because full protection isn't logical in any way? You can't state that it's illogical to prepare for some situation just because it isn't an immediate concern. I'd like to see you make the argument that the U.S. doesn't need any airport security because, at the current moment, there are no terrorists in U.S. airports. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 19:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC) 
Now that was a personal attack. Please do not take a debate that far. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but don't attack me. Now, your example isn't comparable here..unless you think there are terrorists on the wiki? I don't care if some admins don't want to fully protect their user page; I do, and if you want to call my personal choice illogical, so be it. I can think for myself. Andrew talk 19:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
You are being completely unreasonable. You continue to intentionally confuse the elements in a perfectly valid comparison in an attempt to make it appear less valid. Of course I'm not suggesting that there are terrorists on the wiki, and I seriously doubt that you could believe that I'm implying such a thing. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 20:06, June 23, 2010 (UTC) 
As I've said before, I'm not getting through to you. You are clearly in the minority here, so I'm done arguing. ʞooɔ 19:58, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
I really don't care. You wanna ignore a valid opinion, go for it, sir. Andrew talk 19:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
He has that right, since you've been doing the same thing this entire discussion. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 20:01, June 23, 2010 (UTC) 
Keep the argument civil. Andrew talk 20:03, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - There is no reason to protect userpages beyond semi-protection. Andrew, tell me one benefit of your userpage being fully protected. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 16:34, June 23, 2010 (UTC) 

Give me one benefit of semi-protecting it. None of this "consistency" nonsense. Andrew talk 19:18, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Maintenance. Your turn. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 19:44, June 23, 2010 (UTC) 
Read all the stuff above. Maintenance is not a legitimate argument here when I can edit my user page and so can dozens of other sysops. Andrew talk 19:49, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Maintenance is a completely legitimate argument. What if you're gone? What if sysops don't want to edit your userpage? Would you like me to send you a message every time you need to move a Userbox? Because I can do that, but it will be slow and painful for both of us. You've been saying you don't need to come up with a reason to oppose because my reasons are "irrelevant". Do me the favour and give a reason. ʞooɔ 19:58, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
I don't like "what if" arguments. What if all the sysops suddenly quit the wiki? What if Wikia went bankrupt so no one could edit my user page? Your "what if" isn't going to happen. Andrew talk 20:00, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
What if somebody found out your password to RuneScape? It's not necessarily a common situation, but does that mean you shouldn't have recovery questions and a bank PIN set in case it does? Now, what if it's more efficient to simply edit your page rather than waste time asking a sysop to do it? It's not necessarily a common situation, but does that mean you shouldn't grant access to non-sysops in case it does? I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 20:27, June 23, 2010 (UTC) 
Can you tell me what getting hacked has to do with any of this? Can you explain what is so urgent about editing a user page to fix a few userboxes or remove a red link that it can't wait 30 minutes for a sysop to see the message on their talk page (assuming I'm not around)? Andrew talk 20:29, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Do you even understand the concept of a comparison? I'm going to assume that you have recoveries set. If so, then that's in case somebody obtains your password. Now, I'm comparing that to leaving your userpage unprotected, in case somebody wants to change something without wasting time requesting that a sysop do it. This isn't about how long until the task is completed. It's about how much work is required to complete said task. If a semi-automatic process allows the task to be done with ease, that's a better solution than having to look through all of the protected userpages manually and then request the changes are made. Would you prefer to simply click a button, or check it manually and then make a request so that someone else can manually do it? I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 20:45, June 23, 2010 (UTC) 
Oh, and you've been avoiding my question. What's one benefit of fully protecting it? Frankly, I don't see one. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 20:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC) 

Comment - If the userpage belongs to an admin, I guess they could full protect it but userpages that don't belong to admins should not be fully protected but instead, have it semi-protected. In short, Support. Liam - Beta Tester (talk) 14:47, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

It would only be logical for admins to fully lock their userpage because non-admin users would not be able to edit it otherwise. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:12, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. There are several reasons not to have it fully locked, and no reasons to fully lock it in the first place. Vandalism should not be an issue as it can be fixed easily. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:12, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I do agree that most of us would be better off with this implemented, but we have to assume they're making positive contributions.  Swizz Talk   Events!   17:42, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Assume who's making positive contributions? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:51, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Whoever is editing the userpage in the first place.   Swizz Talk   Events!   19:04, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Support So it's optional...Ahh.   Swizz Talk   Events!   19:05, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per others. bad_fetustalk 19:18, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Full protection shouldn't really be needed. Suppa chuppa Talk 20:06, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Not to break the flow here, but having turn-by-turn arguments is not going to settle anything. Just stay on topic and let's avoid this from becoming an inferno/flaming area/non-diplomatic environment. We don't need mob mentality, and opinions can't/won't be changed in an angry environment. The fact this is heated is ridiculous, stay on task or don't bother posting. Also, I am neutral. I unprotected my page (which I can't recall why it was in the first place) until consensus is reached. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 20:16, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'd also like to restate that the current policy does not allow for fully protected userpages. This is not really changing the policy as much as reaffirming it. This means that (as far as I can tell), unless consensus is reached in the opposite direction (which seems unlikely at this point), the userpages should become unprotected. ʞooɔ 20:22, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What about user sandboxes, especially for calcs n stuff? They could be fine but show up on some maintenance page, and someone comes along and 'fixes' it, causing it to break. AMCLEOBucket detail.pngrwojy 8:56 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Support - Absolutely no reason for full protection of userpages. ajr 20:27, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Full protection only serves as an unnecessary obstacle in this case. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 20:43, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Generally speaking I personally find full protection very overkill except in very extreme/needed places, IE things that result in massive edit wars or mass vandalism, historical pages, future updates, and possibly archives to name a few. Regarding user pages, Mass vandalism the only thing that really applies here and even than it's uncommon at best to see it in main space articles let alone user pages. While generally users aren't allowed to make edits to userpages there are exceptions to the matter and users should assume others aren't there to vandalize and there to help. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 22:44, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Even the vandalism issue is solved with semi-protection. I'm not aware of any cases on this wiki where autoconfirmed users are constantly attacking userpages and thus would require higher levels of protection. Overall, I think userpages should not be any special case of the protection policy; they should be just like mainspace articles in terms of how protection should be (rarely) applied. We already have RS:DEU for enforcing the "ownership" of userpages. --Quarenon  Talk 01:07, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Asking an administrator to fix such small edits is just a hassle.  Tien  02:27, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Full protection isn't needed. BUKKITZ WEEL SMITE YOU!!!Murd3rlogistTalk Contribs Sign here 09:08, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all 222 talk 09:38, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It would be a major hassle for maintenance edits, no real advantages. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 09:56, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Just though i would point out that of the approximately 40-45 active admins I counted 9 or 10 (lost count) that had there pages fully protected.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:46, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - No reason why we should be protecting these pages. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 12:00, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just wanted to say that this proposal is going to pass unless the opposition actually comes up with reasoning why userpages can be fully protected. There is none. The "it's my userpage, my business" argument just doesn't stand, as it is not your personal URL where you can do whatever the damn you want. You can not make racial and/or hate comments, put inappropriate images, or things like that. As the Big Q said, vandalism 99.9% of the time is by non-autoconfirmeds, so semi-protection suffices. Fully protecting is illogical (and to an extent, selfish) Chicken7 >talk 13:27, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I think we all know that at this point this is going to pass. I have my my points, though, so please do not insult me by brushing them off as illogical and selfish. I have lost a good amount of respect for certain people after the way I was treated here. Andrew talk 14:42, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to "insult" you. I'm only attempting to bring forward my what I think of fully protecting userpages. Chicken7 >talk 06:49, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are. You are ignoring everything I have said and brushing it off as selfish and illogical. It's fine to disagree with me, but at least take the time to read and respond to my points which I have taken the time to write out in detail. Andrew talk 14:51, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I offended you. And other users have already responded to your points, but it seems you're very adamant on your position. As am I. I guess it'd be a waste of time trying to convince each other. Chicken7 >talk 16:04, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all Slayer Timwac talk Fire cape.png 14:01, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Oppose - I'm not sure I understand entirely, but I will state what I think. I don't think there's anything wrong with people fully protecting their userpage (as long as they do it themselves). (And semi-protection for non-sysops, or sysops that don't mind small fixes by other users.) If there's some error, you can always just leave them a message on talk. Some people may want things some way, so I think they should be left alone. I don't see how it can be "illogical or selfish". Some people just want it that way, and I don't see that it is a real inconvenience to not let them have their way. Who suffers from the 9-10? sysops that have fully protected pages? Does it really bother anyone that much? I don't see that it's hurting anyone, and when it's possible I prefer to give people more freedom rather than less. I'm interested to see what responses I get as I continue to read through this and see what supporters have brought up. HaloTalk 07:08, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

If it is for maintenance for something like Forum:Userbox Proposal it is often done by bots which don't have the ability to talk on talk pages. Also this stops some of the exceptions to RS:DEU as said before.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:15, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
Bots can edit talk pages? We tell those sysops to move their templates. If they don't reply/are on break, we get a sysop to move them for us. Done. No problem. Could you explain the DEU thing to me as less protection would tend to mean more edits? HaloTalk 08:12, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
That includes adding extra code, so that the bot can first check/determine if the page is fully protected, then edit the sysop's talk page requesting to change the userboxes. As bot's use their own weird language, it would be hard for the bot to word what they want the user to change in English. As the bot would find it hard to pinpoint which templates need to be changed and what the instances are on their userpage with their coding. Plus, if the sysop/user is inactive, and doesn't reply to the request, how can we know who we need to fix? We could get the bot to keep a list of the "change requests", but that would again require A LOT of extra coding. It's illogical because the full protection causes hassle, while solving nothing, as vandalism is prevented by semi-protection 99.9% of the time. And selfish, as the user would have to realise this, and doesn't consider how the protected userpage prevents other editors/bots from performing maintenance, as they can edit their userpages whenever they want. Why all this trouble, when full protection solves absolutely nothing? Chicken7 >talk 09:10, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
I never said the bot had to leave the message. Cook said a total of 89 (user) pages (have full protection). I'll leave them messages on their talk pages myself if other people are too lazy. I believe when it's your space you can do whatever you want as long as you aren't using obscene amounts of space/insulting people (and/or wiki)/spamming, etc. Or as a sysop you could just move the userboxes for them, and then leave them a message. It sounds to me like you guys are complaining when you are too lazy to do something. In fact, unprotecting all the pages (subpages, etc), would probably take just as much work, if not more. It's not that full protection "solves" anything. I don't see that not allowing full protection would "solve" anything either. I'm not saying that it isn't annoying when I can't edit someone's page. (Triple negative-yes I just established it remains negative!) But I also beleive you can choose to do it if you want. (Kind of like stating that people have the right to build a 20 foot high steel fence all around their property if they want, instead of just a 4 foot high wood fence.) That's just how I see it, and no one will probably agree with me, but that's okay. I'm just mainly asking people to think. It isn't going to hurt me either way. HaloTalk 16:51, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
I think it's important we remember that their userpage isn't their property, though. As I said above, you could call our system Communalism. As no one owns their userpage. They can't do what they want with it. There are rules. And if RS:DEU says that users are allowed to edit your userpage for maintenance, full protection would be hindering users, therefore going against policy and the rules. And it's not that we're lazy, but that it is significantly easier and much more appropriate to just be able to edit the page and get on with things. If you wanted to do it, we would still have to have the bot keep a list of which users had protected userpages (required extra coding), and then the controller of the bot would have to get that list, convert it to common English and pass it on to you. And unprotecting them would be a one-off job. Maintenance is a constant aspect of our wiki, that we must continue. Last thing, let's not remember that we're not only doing this because of the userbox move. No doubt, there will be template/page moves in the future that affect userpages, there will be outdated links, deprecated coding, etc. Not allowing full protection would solve the problem faced when a user/bot, doing a maintenance job, comes across a protected userpage and can't edit it. Chicken7 >talk 17:03, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
The policy says they may. It doesn't say they MUST. Therefore whether it breaks policy depends on how you look at it. I think we should go with this:
"It is highly recommended to only have semi-protection on your userpage, but if you are an active user, who would be willing to change updated templates or other things on your userpage on a regular basis, you may have full protection, understanding that if you become inactive or fail to comply, the protection on your userpage will be dropped to semi protection, so that other users may perform these edits for you. Also note that with this, all inactive-fully-protected userpages have had their protection dropped to semi-protection."

I would like to be able to edit these pages sometimes, but I think people should be allowed to do whatever as long as they aren't hurting anyone. I just want to make my view clear. HaloTalk 17:16, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per other supporters. Maintenance is a fully legitimate reasoning for keeping userpage protection at semi, as opposed to keeping them fully protected because certain users just want it to be that way (which isn't really a reason at all). 9-10 fully protected userpages is not a problem, true. But if every other user wanted to be like those 9-10 users and have their userpages to be fully protected as well, obvious problems would arise from that, which is why semi-protection should be the limit for all userpages. C.ChiamTalk 07:16, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - No need for full protection, a vandalism edit can be easily removed in less than a second. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 07:51, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - It appears that most people agree full protection is not the way to go. Also, please calm down and don't be rude to each other; we are all one community and should be friends. 222 talk 10:58, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

3 days? That's a little premature. HaloTalk 16:41, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Why can't there be another protection option where only users with 50+ (or another number) edits can edit the page. 222 talk 11:00, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

maybe someday, but not now. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 11:05, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks kinda what semi-protection is (4 days+ can edit).Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:10, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
A user could easily get 50 edits in under a couple hours. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 16:38, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
Or a few minutes? And I'm not quite sure about this, but I'm guessing that we would have to make this a serious wiki thing...(like taking it to wikia staff). Which while it may be possible, it would take months and months to get done, and probably isn't worth it for 89 pages in the end. HaloTalk 16:52, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what the point of this would be. Semi protection really stops 99% of vandalism, and if someone's determined, they can get 50 edits. Either way, it's a couple clicks to revert it. ʞooɔ 20:38, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
Ok maybe this wasn't my brightest idea 222 talk 23:41, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
We all have our moments ^_^ ʞooɔ 01:29, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense to me; I've removed mine. --Aburnett(Talk) 02:32, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - User pages such as mine are very prone to vandalism (see here). No support from me. Star Find 02:37, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

You can still request semi-protection, how often would it be vandalised by users (not IPs) anyway? C.ChiamTalk 02:43, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Plus, if we were to full-protect your userpage, you wouldn't be able to edit it! Chicken7 >talk 02:47, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
My user page is fully protected, and I can freely edit it at any time. Star Find 02:50, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
That's because your user page is protected, but the template that you include on your user page is not. Since this page is not protected, anyone can edit it and you will see the changes appear on your userpage. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:59, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. that page is protected. Star Find 03:02, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Its semi-protected, not fully protected. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:03, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict x3) Technically, you're not editing the userpage, but the subpage template. To me, that system just seems like extra hassle, as the "vandal" could easily go to your subpage and vandalise that, as he can still check what the template is. But, that is assuming the vandal is autoconfirmed. Has you're userpage actually ever been vandalised excessively while semi-protected? Chicken7 >talk 03:04, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
That's completely different from "not protected, anyone can edit it," as you put it. Also, it is just another security precaution that I choose to take to prevent my page from being vandalized as it has in the past. And no, most likely because of the precautions I've taken. Star Find 03:06, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
I think that's pretty a pretty silly way to think about it, by that logic I could say that dumping salt on my floor each day keeps vampires away. Because I've done it and there's never been a vampire attack. In all seriousness, the fact that you have edit section links means that the full protection is useless unless someone always clicks the top edit button. Because if someone clicks the section edit link, they wind up editing the sub-page which is not fully protected. I strongly believe that the reason no one has vandalised your user page lately is because 1.) semi protection blocks all the ips that would be vandalising it and 2.) no one else cares enough to create an account and wait 4 days to vandalise it. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:15, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
How many random vandals do you know that actually are experienced with the wiki? How likely do you think it is that they will know what to with that subpage link once they attempt to edit my user page? How likely do you think that they'll know how to pull up that subpage? How likely do you think, if they even do reach the subpage, that they'll continue through with it, since I have the entire page hidden? It is my user page, therefore regardless of what you think of the precautions I take to secure my page, I choose to keep them. Star Find 03:19, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
You have a section titled "About". If you click the "edit" link next to that section header, you will see what I am talking about. The resulting window will be the code of your user page that is freely editable to anyone with an account over 4 days old. That is why I say the full protection of your userpage doesn't accomplish anything. As I revert IP edits, almost all of the vandalism they do has an edit summary like "→History" which means that it was a section edit initiated by someone clicking the "edit" link next to the section header. Almost all IPs do their vandalism by editing the section headers. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:27, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the link. Star Find 03:30, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Then you would appear to have section editing disabled in your preferences, but it is enabled by default for any IP and newly created account. The link, by default, is a very big green "Edit" button, so its no surprise most IPs edit by clicking those links rather than the much less noticeable one at the top of the page. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:33, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
It is enabled, plus the link isn't even there when I'm logged out or on a proxy. Star Find 03:36, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Then I am unsure of why the section links are not appearing to you, perhaps something to do with Java script. But for the vast majority of users, edit section links appear by default. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:44, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't even appear for five of my friends whom I've asked to confirm for me. Anyways, this is irrelevant to my point: what's the big deal in simply politely asking me to change something, if needed, instead of forcing this upon everyone, both innocent and 'guilty.' Star Find 03:48, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
I can not see an edit link there. 03:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
It won't appear if you're unable to edit the page in the first place due to page protection, as is the case here. --Quarenon  Talk 04:21, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
What's the big deal in asking? It takes time, and users/bots shouldn't have to go to the trouble to edit your talk page and request/explain the changes, when your userpage is causing problems... We can force changes upon your userpage the wiki's page designated for an explanation about you, if it is causing maintenance problems in the wiki. I don't see how innocent and guilty comes into it; no one is "guilty". Chicken7 >talk 07:24, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
You are making it into an innocent-guilty situation by assuming that everyone who has full protection obviously probably has or will have red links, etc. on their user pages. If you can prove to me that the majority of fully protected user pages have such flaws which you claim are worthy of such forceful changes, then you might have my support. However, simply saying that we have the potential to do so is never a legitimate reason to invoke something. Star Find 13:43, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's easy. All the userboxes are going to be moved soon, and almost all of those protected userpages have userboxes. When the userboxes are moved, they will be full of red links, and nobody will be able to fix it as they are protected. bad_fetustalk 14:52, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, also how can the potential of userpages being vandalised can be a reason but the potential of red links in userpages can not? That's dumb. bad_fetustalk 14:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Simply saying so does not constitute that it's 100% accurate. Also, ALL you must do is leave a message on my talk page if it does occur to my user page, politely asking me to correct it. You're acting as if absolutely nothing whatsoever can be done about it. Also, in regards to vandalism, I'm speaking from expereince and about my own personal situation. My user page is prone to vandalism, and more than likely will be vandalized if there is no protection whatsoever. There's a big difference between harmful vandalism, and the slight inconvenience of a red link. Dismissing the legitimate reasons for others' choices as 'dumb' is not constructive or civil. Star Find 15:16, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
An automated bot will be making the moves. The bot will go psycho if it comes across a page it can't fix. As I mentioned somewhere above, enabling the bot to alert the user, and all the processes that come along with that, will require a lot of extra coding and a waste of time for something that shouldn't be an issue. Also, if you're worried about your userpage being vandalised, you can have it semi-protected, so IPs and new accounts cannot edit it. From looking at the page history, there was never a problem when it was semi-protected, maybe because it was fully protected soon after. Chicken7 >talk 01:54, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Will this apply to all pages in the user namespace, including subpages, talk pages, and archived talk pages? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:39, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Most likely yes. They all may end up having broken templates or links. Chicken7 >talk 02:47, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Archived talk pages should be able to have full protection in my opinions, as most arived pages are.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:56, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Archives are only semi-protected, I don't recall any of them being fully protected actually. C.ChiamTalk 09:59, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Oh didn't realise that cause i don't take much notice of archives.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:01, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - lololol scoot4.pngscooties 03:38, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - People stay calm when discussing. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I've noticed the three people who oppose have been "abused" a lot. 222 talk 10:25, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a way to reach a compromise here. What if we allow people who really want to to have full protection if they don't have any things that are frequently the cause of issues included in that full protection? Things like userboxes could be put on a sub page that is semi-protected while the text and other minor things can be put on the fully protected user page? While I may not find what star-find has done to be particularly effective, since her page is editable by anyone who wants to do maintenance, it doesn't cause any problems. Theoretically, full protection could be allowed with no consequence if the pages didn't have anything on them that was likely to cause a problem, such as untmemplated signatures, image links, and things like that. I think 99% of edits I've ever made to userpages that weren't my own were replacing an untemplated signature and deleting image links. I wouldn't suggest something as clumsy as putting nowiki tags around the entire page, but that's the basic premise I'm getting at.WAFFLES, TASTY WAFFLES! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:03, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

We have a fully workable solution right now. Everyone is to go along with the policy. Two or three people do not want to know but offer no compelling reasons for them to be exempt. Vandalism is a joke of a reason, it is fixed wicked fast, and even in the moments it exists it is not causing any real issues. You people in favor of going along with the policy should stop arguing and debating with those opposed. They offered their reasons which have little to no merit. Thier is no reason to respond to them. Logic, reason, and facts are clear. Your debating in circles and it is only giving legitimacy to what has none to begin with. That arguing and responding is what will defeat this proposal.--Degenret01 02:29, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I gave a pefectly valid reason: in-use sandboxes. Those often will show up on maintence pages, because they are being worked on. Another user 'fixing' it would likely do more harm than good. DXAVCBucket detail.pngrwojy 03:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I find your distaste for waffles disturbing. They cannot help if they are circular. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:35, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
Shrugging off my, as well as others', reasons for opposing this suggestion as "without merit" and not worthy of anyone's response is a little harsh. I provided my reasons for opposing it, and that's that. Legitimate discussion should continue on this issue, regardless of whether or not it's in direct reply to the opposition. Telling people not to is embarrassing, and a clear flaw in the way this system is working. Everyone should have their voice fairly heard, responded to, and debated. BTW, I'm a he - not a she. Star FindTalk 03:24, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
@Rwojy, RS:UCS comes before all policies. Users doing maintenance work should investigate further when fixing issues on sandboxes. If it's been in idle for a long time, fix it. If only the past few days, they should leave it. If you're worried about edit conflicts too, that's highly unlikely, although, temporary protection couldn't hurt. Chicken7 >talk 13:18, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
I find what Degen has said to be rather offensive..just because you don't like our reasons doesn't mean you have the right to tell people to ignore us. We have taken the time to type out our opinions and all you can do is say they "have no merit". How sad. Andrew talk 15:31, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support: With userpage protection I wouldn't have remembered that pictures are only allowed if they're used on the mainspace.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Gedge (talk).

Support: Per all above Sgt Hailfire 16:19, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Why are we NOT allowed to fully protect userpages? After all, they are our personal space for expressing ourselves. Since only sysops can have a fully protected userpage without extreme inconveniences when editing is required, and only a small fraction of sysops have fully protected userpages (I can only come up with me, 3i+1, and Andrew off the top of my head), this amendment to the policy seems overkill.

As for your points, what's wrong with maintenance users not being able to fix red links or move templates? A small note on the talk page of the user in question, or that of another sysop, will readily fix the problem. This proposed policy serves no practical purpose while unnecessarily infringing on our individual rights. --LiquidTalk 02:11, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

First, check out this page. Secondly, it is a major inconvenience to maintenance workers to do that for every page that is protected that they are trying to fix. Thirdly, it's not an amendment at all. It's what the policy says at this moment. Unless this thread fails utterly and completely and consensus turns in the other direction, the pages (I believe) will have to be un(fully)protected. Also, I disagree with you on the...sovereignty of userpages, but I'm not going to go into that. ʞooɔ 05:02, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

On that note, I am Requesting closure. Consensus will not be turning in the other direction, which would have to be what would happen for userpages to be fully protected. The policy, as it currently stands, disallows the full protection. There is obviously not consensus to protect the userpages. This thread was made simply to reaffirm the current policy as it stands, which I believe it has. Can we close this now? ʞooɔ 05:18, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

See below. ʞooɔ 08:50, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

No - I would say there is no reason to fully protect your userpage. Our anti-vandal is strong enough that we don't have anything to worry about. HaloTalk 16:17, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - It's quite obvious the general wiki's opinion is not to allow full protection, no further discussion is needed as the opposite side has not presented any reasonable arguments within the month that this has been open.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mythbusterma (talk).

Although that statement itself is extremely ignorant and insulting to everything the opposition has brought forward, perhaps you should, I don't the entire discussion before requesting closure? As you can see right above here it was decided to leave this open until it is determined whether or not user talk page archives are allowed to be fully protected. Andrew talk 00:33, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archives

Question - I have semi-protected my user page and all of my subpages, but are you also wanting fully protected talk page archives to be semi-protected as well? (looking at the list from Special:ProtectedPages, that would be quite the task if the answer is yes. OMG!) Andrew talk 07:22, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. You certainly raise a good point. That's sort of a gray area, but the relevant part of the policy is:
Acorn 5.png
This page in a nutshell:
Pages should remain fully editable unless there is considerable cause to warrant protection.
Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
  • Archives.

Is what it says on the page. The question is, is there "considerable cause" to warrant full protection? Let's leave this open so we can discuss this. Cool heads, everyone! ʞooɔ 08:50, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, what's your take on this? ʞooɔ 00:36, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't make a difference to me. I have unprotected talk page archives in the past to allow my bot to HTML tidy them and then I restored their protection, but semi-protection for archives is fine. Andrew talk 00:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I can think of is vandalism, but we generally just warn the person who is vandalizing. The charm logs are constantly vandalized, but it's not like we fully protect those. Compare that with say Andrew's page...Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 16:12, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Our anti-vandal can handle it...easily. HaloTalk 16:17, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I've often seen archives receive more maintenance than userpages (mainly because people look at their userpage and update it, as opposed to archives which just generally sit there.) That's factual...not really stating my opinion yet. HaloTalk 08:57, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for No full protection for userpages. Request complete. The reason given was: Discussion has died down. Consensus is to disallow full protection for user pages. For talk pages, I think most of the arguments about userpages apply here.

ʞooɔ 19:22, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Archives should be treated the same Can't see how one type of page (outside sandboxes) are different from others in that they may need work. Any of our sysops not participate here? Need a closer.--Degenret01 04:59, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Closed Since the current policy was to not allow full protection for userpages, and since consensus wasn't even close to swinging the other way, clearly the current policy stands. All arguments made for unprotecting userpages, the arguments that everyone agreed to, also apply to user talk pages, so they shall be unprotected too. But fear not, opposition! If after your pages are semi protected, you get vandalised as you are afraid of, you will have a lot of grounding to call for a change in the policy. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:10, July 8, 2010 (UTC)