Proposal talk:Improve user page security

From Strategic Planning

It's wiki, stupid! (quotation). Nemo 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty low impact, I'd say. Having to revert your user page once a year is hardly a great problem. --Bodnotbod 18:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mine's been vandalised over 40 times, I take the view that its much better to have the vandals mucking around in user space than vandalising encyclopaedia articles where the public might see it. Of course if people edit in their own name its rather more awkward, that's another reason why we should discourage editors from revealing personal info such as by editing in their own names. But we can if necessary semi or even fully protect a user page. If someone was threatening to sue, I'd wonder why they hadn't tried to first resolve the issue by getting their user page protected - obviously it isn't a good idea to protect user talk pages but perfectly in order for user pages if they've become targets for vandalism. WereSpielChequers 00:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be a user option, in preferences? "Enable semi-protection on User page", default to on? -- Philippe 01:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean that new users couldn't edit their own userpage until they'd done enough edits to be autoconfirmed. We need to cater for different learning styles here, and one of the most harmless in my mind are the users whose first edits are to their own userpage. I'd have no great objection to giving autoconfirmed users the option to semiprotect their own userpage, but it isn't far from the current situation where admins will semi protect userpages if there has been a history of vandalism. WereSpielChequers 07:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]