In message
<42f90dc004110215456670a8d5(a)mail.gmail.com>om>,
Matt Brown
<morven-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org>
writes
I believe that under most circumstances a
user's main userpage
[[User:X]] should be a place for that user to state what they want the
community to know about them and their beliefs, philosophies, aims,
goals, etc. In other words, the main User: page is intentionally POV
and there should rarely be a need for other contributors to edit it.
It is certainly NOT a place for other users to place their opinion of
that user under normal circumstances.
However, all this is accomplished with the current state of affairs.
User pages are indeed rarely edited by anyone but the user. There are
rare cases of vandalism, quickly undone. Few users' pages are
regularly vandalised, and those pages can be (and are) protected under
our current policy.
It strikes me that some of those wanting their user pages protected
from editing by other users are not doing so out of actually
experiencing any problems, but rather, as UC says, from a sense of
'ownership'. This IS a bit troubling. Certainly userspace is
different than other namespaces in the system, but it seems to me that
the 'Wiki way' is to avoid trying to fix problems in software whenever
possible - instead relying on community norms and consensus to set de
facto policy.
'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' is the rule of the game here, I
think, and I haven't seen sufficient argument that the current state
of affairs is so broken as to override the objections.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Well, I just protected my page today, after it had been vandalised for
the 10th time in 8 weeks by the same bastard, using a range of IP
addresses so individual short-term blocks had no effect.
I strongly support the proposal to restrict the editability of user
pages to the user concerned in normal circumstances.
I may have 30 or 40 user pages now.
Anyone may edit them.
If I do not like the edit, I just revert :-)