Wikipedia talk:Protected Userpage

Support

 * 1) Support as creator.  Th e   Gerg  21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support all the way! Funnybunny 02:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I support this too. It's also too bad users can't at least be safe from the Fair Use Nazis in their own userspace, but apparently the paranoid legal environment on WP is too gutless to stand up to the ridiculousness. (Sorry, am I sounding a little bitter? I had an image vandalized off of removed from my userpage which was a screenshot from a 17-year-old Sega game whose publisher went out of business 12 years ago... But that's a rant for somewhere else. Yes, I do understand that was absolutely correct under current policy. I'm just saying the policy is insane and trying to make a martyr of WP for political reasons.) - Daniel Pritchard 05:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I would prefer if admins ability to edit userpages were also restricted, but this policy is still a massive improvement over the status quo. Mgekelly - Talk 09:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, why should other users need to edit your user page? This measure will effectively make it impossible for anybody to vandalise a userspace. Dan1980 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support because all Wiki users hate it if they click on their History page and find a IP address or vandal edit your userpage in a bad way (Trust me, I know how it feels like). And, I really hate it, and YOU do as well, so, SUPPORT! Weirdy 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC).
 * 7) Support. Why should anyone else want or need to edit my user page? And why should I edit theirs?? --Tiro de Aethra 06:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. My userpage has been vandalized with insults and pornographic material several times and there is still not an effective way to prevent this.Rosa 09:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. There are some strong arguments in the oppose section here, but I would respectfully disagree. My user page is not a place for everyone, it is a place for me only. If others want to make comments regarding my activities or contact me for some reason then they can use my discussion page. In theory it would be nice if we could just amend the guidelines cited here, but in practise this will do absolutely nothing to curtail vandals. DrunkenSmurf 18:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support My reasons are the same as DrunkenSmurf's. P.S. If anyone is wondering whether I am a sock puppet due to this username's recent creation, I have merely transferred accounts into my real name account. I was formerly known as Dilbert3. MickeyK 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Feedyourfeet
 * 12) Support, but only if it is an opt-in feature. Users should be able to choose whether or not they want their userpage(s) to be protected.  ~ Mr Inky &#183; (T @ C) 15:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, but admins should be able to place blocks and other notices. --JChap 15:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, A user should be the only one to have control over his/her talk page aside from Administrators. Héous 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, William Avery 21:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, Greg L. I don't see how qualified support would work (allowing for minor spelling or grammar corrections).  If a user has a poor userpage, let's go ahead and let them advertise their lack of attention to detail.  No one has any business messing with another's userpage.
 * 17) Support, if a userpage needs correction, couldn't that fact be posted to that user's talk page?? --GypsieSoul420 (formerly gypsie) 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, everything but talk. BrianZ 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, as an opt-in. Edited userpages intimidates people from working on Wikipedia at the moment Red Dalek 09:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Why should anyone else want or need to edit my user page? And why should I edit theirs?? 220.227.179.4 17:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Support with modifications

 * 1) I believe that this policy might work, with the following exceptions: 1) people are allowed to make minor spelling or grammar corrections to others' userpages 2) barnstars and other awards may be presented. Also, editing another's userpage shouldn't be completely locked out (technically), but there could be a bot that automatically reverts all changes that do not have a certain syntax (e.g. typing "changing another's userpage - blah blah blah" in the edit summary). If it does have the syntax, then the bot can list the diff on a log, and patrollers can review and remove listings in the log. -- King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I like all The restrictions above but I do Believe your User Space is not Yours. And Your user Page should be mainly Wikipedia related.  I think Only User pages that have been Vandalized more than once (One person several times in a row should not count) should have protected User pages.  Main User pages should mostly have Wikipedia content and sub-pages with some more personal stuff.--E-Bod 20:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I support users being able to change spelling and grammar on a user page, but nothing else (contents of a user page). Since my own user page has recently been vandalized twice (by a user that was not logged in; adding complete crap to it (but in grammatically sound English!)), you can understand why.--JorisvS 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I would like this only if I get to choose wheather it is protected and which subpages are protected. Also the user talk page must be unprotected.Zoohoo 21:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support People should be able to choose whether their user pages are editable or not. Snowflake Sans Crainte 20:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support With Protest The user pages should only be available to edit to the users, Administrators should require permissions to edit someone elses user page from a hiarchy of other Administrators to insure fairness. Almost Famous 07:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) A user page is effectively a wiki-related user profile. There should not be the scope for others to rewrite details relating to a given author, and I fail to see why anyone would want to have their user page altered (yes, even spelling/grammar : this can be notified through talk page, and in any case spelling and grammar is an expression of the individual).  However, talk pages should always be open for editing (as they are the only method of contact if there is no public email address given). Instead of fixed always-on protection for all users, allow a user to protect/unprotect pages related to their own profiles (except talk) as they see fit? Tobermory 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support with modifications support as per King of Hearts. Generalnonsensecomic 01:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, but only if userpages are semi-protected by default. That way, established users can fix errors, but it stops most vandals. It also has the side effect of not allowing the user to edit their user page for four days, which personally I think is a good thing, as it requires users to focus on the enclyopedia first, and have a user page second, and not to come here, spend time setting up their user page first, before contributing (and many people only do the first step, and not the second). Regards, MartinRe 12:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support but authorised users (or bots) should be able to edit user pages containing images, articles or templates that have moved, to point them to the right place. Waggers 11:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support MartinRe's semi-ing. Most vandalism an be stopped that way.--HereToHelp 11:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support as per Tobermory. Allow users the choice of protecting or un-protecting their pages. This will allow useful edits but will allow a user to safeguard their page if it is repeatedly vandalised. Personally, I would keep mine open to editing but I would prefer to have the choice.--TDE 13:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but only if users can choose whether to protect/unprotect their own pages, per the various concerns above. The semi-protect idea sounds good too. BryanG(talk) 20:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose. BryanG(talk) 20:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Only if sub-pages are excluded. I quite often take user subpages out of the Wikipedia category space. Users often put fork articles into the category system by this means, as user subpages are rarely nominated for deletion. CalJW 22:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per Tobermory I believe this is a good Idea that will Reduce Stress on Admins and Reduce Vandalism in General, however another idea is to Prevent Removal of Warnings by the warned editor also, however I don't know if that's possible. --Corporal Punishment 00:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support in principle, but only if users can choose whether to protect/unprotect their own pages, per the various concerns above. Tibi08 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support if the user has the option of turning user page protection on and off. I like it when people edit my user page, so of course I'd have protection off. However, the people who want it can have it turned on. — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Partial support, users should be able to choose whether they want people to be able to write to their user pages and sub pages (but not talk). This fixes collaboration and if people want to be able to have others correct spelling etc. they still can. Maybe a reverting bot would be a good way of doing this, then people can throw up barnstars and helpful edits and if I am interested I can watchlist the userpage and see if someone put up something nice. Lundse 14:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support the option to turn the protection feature on and off. -Loren 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as long as the feature can be turned on/off on a "global" or per-page/subpage basis, except user talk pages which should remain editable. -- Heptite (T)   (C)   (@)  22:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support with modification I think it should be optional for the user, ie enable it, or disable it. Cavenba 03:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support with modification It should indeed an optional feature, left to the user's discretion to use or not. I know i would use it. Frankff 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support with modification I think this isn't a bad idea, if the following modifications are made: The User has a choice for each page in their user space, except the User Talk page, of whether they want to block all edits, block all but minor edits (and can follow up on major edits disguised as minor), or allow all edits by other users. I'd also like to note that this solves a lot of objections raised by those who opposed, so if this vote fails to achieve consensus, (as appears to be likely), it would be a good idea to put it back in in a modified version to determine whether that version would be suitable. ---DrLeebot 17:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose this proposal but not necessarily its content. A new proposal is the wrong way to go about this; it's sufficient simply to refine the wording already found at User pages. Feel free to strengthen the language found there as you see fit. This is a wiki; be bold. If you are reasonably moderate then I doubt anyone will object. There is no need to treat this as a change in policy; we already manage user pages in this way, generally speaking. If you have a specific dispute with a specific editor who edited your user page; or perhaps you simply don't want anybody to edit it, ever, then it's easy enough to resolve this. If you need help then please feel free to talk to me or request admin assistance. John Reid 04:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose anti-wiki way, agree with John Reid Jaranda wat's sup 22:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Take it to User pages per User:John Reid. The topic is covered there, so this is a duplicate - the changes should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:User pages, and any changes should be made to that page. SeventyThree(Talk) 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose agree with Jaranda and John Reid. -- Master  jamie  14:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per above. --Osbus 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, especially because of the subpages part. Lots good collaboration starts in userspace.  And even with the main userpage, many editors invite modification by others.  Is rampant userpage vandalism such a dire problem?--ragesoss 01:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose given that vandalism will find its way elsewhere. I'd far rather have the contents of my userpage changed by someone messing with me than have that person take their grievance to another more public page.  My own userpage, I monitor.  Other pages at WP, it's hit or miss.  Besides, as noted above, there are productive reasons for non-admins to edit pages--sometimes I get cranky at people taking liberties, but I've had people edit my userpage to reaim links after page moves, for example, and I see no reason to prohibit this.  I don't see a need for a rule here: exercise Wikilove, Wikiquette, revert the vandals, protect userpages (briefly) in extreme cases of repeat vandalism, and otherwise go on with the project. Jwrosenzweig 02:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose as per Jwrosenzweig et al. --Marysunshine 02:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Jwrosenzweig. It might be good for people to be allowed to semiprotect userpages, but I personally appreciate people editing my userpage, for things like substing userboxes. As a relatively new user who doesn't get userpage vandalism but sometimes doesn't notice right away when a userbox I use gets deleted, I think that if something like this exists, it should be optional. --Clarinetplayer 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Jwrosenzweig and John Reid. -Quiddity 04:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Gives special power to admins. Other users may also want to edit a user's page to fix spelling mistakes and link errors. Cedars 06:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Per above Bryan 08:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Wikipedia is a Wiki. Sometimes I see little mistakes on people's pages that just need changing. When it is vandalised, just revert the vandalism. Takes two ticks - • The Giant Puffin •  09:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, as there are much more pressing matters to attend to, and nearly all of userpage vandalism is caught. --M e rovingian { T C @ } 11:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Strongly oppose. 1) Vandalism- can be easily reverted; userpage vandalism is normally very easy to spot. Existing semi-protection and full protection can be applied to pages that particularly need it. 2) 'Intrusive edits'- well edits to userpages are either vandalism (see 1), following policy (e.g. removing fair use images, if you disagree with that then argue about that particular policy rather than stopping userpages being edited at all), or welcome (see next point). 3) A lot of edits to the userspace are totally welcome. For example see User:Banes, which contains an autograph box. Many (subpages in particular) are indented to be used by more than just the user. For example RFA noms prepared in advance, proposed programs, admin coaching, other people helping with userpage design (like mine!) etc. 4) Per above comments, no new policy is needed. Talk about updating existing one if needed (not needed in my opinion). 5) Per Merovingian, there are far more important technical issues to sort out. On that note I will finish this rant... Petros471 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose John Reid said it first and said it right. ~MDD4696 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Not a chance in hell. This is a wiki. --Rory096 20:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong oppose. Most edits to userpages that aren't by the user are bad, some aren't (bot edits substing about-to-be-deleted templates, say?), and the bad ones get reverted quickly.  The additional load on vandal-killers doesn't justify protection, except in severe cases. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) *And then there are all those users with fair-use images on their userpages. No way, change to strong oppose. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) **Although, come to think of it, I'd be fine with semi-protection. Full protection, absolutely not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose per John Reid. – Elisson • Talk 20:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose not a problem that needs solving. It won't stop user page vandalism, since the vandals aren't listening anyway. Hiding Talk 20:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose. User:Aidan Work (before he was blocked) would be a prime example of someone who's userpage needs to be edited by other people to remove defamatory statements. For instance this edit needed to be done ASAP --Midnighttonight 00:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose - We already have a problem with people using userpages as free webspace - making them editable only by one person would only magnify this problem. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Strongly Oppose - Maybe this is a tad zero-sum but seems unbalanced to protect the user namespace from damage that otherwise would be directed at the main namespace. Nowhere easier to detect, and determine, and revert vandalism than on the userpage. And userpage vandalism is on pages generally away from the viewing public. Protecting the userpage weakens WP. -- Henge 05:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose per John Reid. -- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Strong oppose, after all, as Rory said, this is a Wiki. -- ☆ TBC  ☆  20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose I own my userpage, and wouldn't expect people to just go and make edits willy nilly. But if someone wanted to correct a spelling mistake, add some useful info, or even (hint, hint) add a Barnstart - that's fine by me (If I don't like their changes, I just revert).  We don't need this policy, and we don't even need the existing policy, its all covered by common sense (or WP:DICK) Captainj 22:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose Kind of anti-free content. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 02:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose - there is a gazillion good reasons to edit another user's userpage. Just a couple of them: typos, barnstars, removing fair use images, re-designing the page, leaving a haiku poem, adding "sockpuppet" and similar templates, saying bye bye to a user who has left the project, etc. etc. Also, one of the principles of wikipedia is that no one ownes a page. I think that includes userpages because Wikipedia is not MySpace. I agree that userpage vandalism is nasty, but I see no way to alow all these legitimate userpage edits. Unless you want to create a huge instruction creep which would waist everyone's life. Renata 17:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Strong Oppose. Users should be able to userfy pages without having to get an admin to do it for them.  Furthermore, users should be able to remove fair use images when the owner of the user page has been given ample amount of time to do so but hasn't (for whatever reason, not online, etc).  Occasionally I'll see users add indef blocked templates that an admin has forgotten to add. Besides, user page vandalism is easily reverted.  Having to go to an admin to fix minor issues like userfying and removing FU images adds more bureaucracy and work for the admins. Also, as stated above, it is not wiki-like.--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. Plenty of viable reasons to edit someone's userpage, as mentioned above. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly" applies to userpages too. Reverting userpage vandalism is simple. drseudo (t) 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose per Henge. the wub "?!"  23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. The open nature of Wikipedia gets corroded no matter which way you view restrictions in general.
 * A user gets guidance for his own page and can copy from other user pages. Blocking access will prevent this.
 * In general, the revert mechanism prevents the vandals from carrying out any kind of lasting damage. So why bother to tie ourselves in chains, viewing vandalism as an overhead for freedom is a better way to go.
 * User page vandalism is extremely irritating but harmless, and I feel inconsequential to the user of Wikipedia. Article vandalism is more serious as a viewer may see vandalised pages. Reverts protect articles from lasting damage. Dont make basic wikipedia policy, that is to make a new kind of 'normal' (as opposed to special) wikipages with restrictions, based on considerations of the user community alone.
 * AshLin 06:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak-ish Oppose. Maybe because I haven't had vandalism on my page, but also because I use other people's user page as examples for cool things to do (or not to do)... JByrd 21:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per WP:USERPAGE. There are sometimes very good reasons for editing another person's userpage - e.g. if nominating an image for deletion, WP:IFD states that you should add 'this image is up for deletion...' to the caption. Although it is generally accepted that editing another person's userpage is generally to be avoided, approving this policy/guideline (whatever it is) would undermine both WP:OWN and the wiki spirit itself. Cynical 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Against the wiki spirit. --Bharat 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per most of the comments above. Lbbzman 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per several reasons stated above. Clearly not everybody wants their userpage protected, and this policy is kind of universal. If it were an optional thing that would be different. --Niroht 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per User:John Reid. Dbalsdon 18:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongly Oppose Unnecessary, and restrictinos should not be made if unnecessary! CAPS LOCK 03:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) EXTREME OPPOSE. I've had a lot of useful modifications made to my userpage. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 07:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Unswayable Oppose. I don't mind if anons edit my userpages, even if it is vandalism.  Hell, It's just making me revert it and get one more edit on my editcount.-- A  c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. I've found a great deal of the opposers' comments above valid (especially Renata and PS2pcGAMER), and no longer feel I can even conditionally support this one. WP:USER is enough already, it's not like it's hard to revert. BryanG(talk) 20:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose It is a Wiki. GangstaEB (talk • contribs • [/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username= count] • ice slides) 17:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral – I would support if user subpages were not protected, but cannot do so as the proposal stands. I would also prefer it to be a guideline rather than a policy – Gurch 08:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Neutral - This proposal is very unclear. Will this be some form of software-based protection? Users should certainly be able to opt-out of protection. This is critical for user subpages, which may contain content intended to be gernally editable, but is not really suitable for a main namespace page, or even a Wikipedia namespace page. The proposal really should be updated to adress these sorts of things. Tacvek 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
See User pages for the current guidelines relating to editing user pages. I disagree slightly with the both versions as they stand, and I prefer the WP:USER version at the moment. Things I would like to change about this page:
 * Guideline not policy
 * Non-admins should be allowed to edit user pages.

SeventyThree(Talk) 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If not already policy, I would like this poll to change slightly to prevent anon users to edit someone elses userpage - • The Giant Puffin •  09:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How could you even protect it yet still allow the user (if he's not an admin) to edit it, anyway? This proposal is not only a bad idea, it doesn't make sense. --Rory096 21:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I may just change the policy to restrict just anons from editing them.  Th e   Gerg  15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't get strikeout to work right. I did have a support vote. But this IS a Wiki. GangstaEB (talk • contribs • [/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username= count] • ice slides) 17:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark as rejected
As the proposal has been running for over a month and is currently at 43 oppose vs 38 support(s), it looks clear that this is not going to pass, so I will take the liberty of marking this proposal as rejected Regards, MartinRe 10:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)