Forum:Changes to rules on userpage editing
Last year, we adopted a set of policies regarding editing userpages, especially regarding the editing of userpages by non-administrators. However, soon after the adoption of that policy, an increase in userpage vandalism led to the creation of an abuse filter which prevents all non-administrators from editing other userpages. A couple months later, I removed the block on user edits to other userpages, but later added it back once the amount of userpage vandalism spiked again.
At the present time, the editing of other users' pages by our rules remains allowed (under certain circumstances) but is in reality prohibited by the existence of the abuse filter. I'd like to propose that we resolve this in some way. For instance, we can remove the Userpage policies, or change them in such a way to explain that editing of other userpages is not allowed. On the other hand, we can remove or change the abuse filter to allow users to edit those pages again.
In looking at the logs for the abuse filter, most of the hits seem to come from IP users. The remaining hits seem to come from experienced non-administrator editors who are more than likely acting in good faith. The amount of actual vandalism that seems to be flagged is relatively low, and my guess is that most of those accounts are relatively new. So, I personally would suggest that we change the abuse filter to allow edits by autoconfirmed users, while continuing to prohibit edits made by unregistered and new users. Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 17:51, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
Discussion[edit source]
Since the vast majority of userpage vandalism stems from unregistered contributors, I'd have no issue with extending editing rights to autoconfirmed users. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 22:58, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
I am okay with allowing autoconfirmed users to edit userpages belonging to others in moderation. By that I mean that edits must be made in good faith, as in a minor grammar fix, wikicode fix or vandalism revert for example, and not for any other purpose. Friends lists, if any still remain, should still be edited by the userpage owner only given that headaches related to that were what contributed largely to this policy being instated in the first place. Lost Labyrinth .svg){kind=small}
• (c) • (b) 23:28, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
- All those points are already listed out in the existing policy. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 23:47, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem having the abuse filter allow autoconfirmed users to edit other's userpages. The policy is already pretty strict about what what anyone other than the owner can do, so for now, I think we can afford to AGF on edits by autoconfirmed users. Dharden (talk) 18:32, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Sometimes I try to edit someone's userpage to correct a template for them or something like that but it never lets me. I support. Joey.eyeball (talk) 21:31, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's a bit difficult to keep track of who edits whose userpage, and what they've modified. I think each user should take care of their own userpage, although it seems that the majority favors to allow users to edit others' userpages. I'd support to disallow anonymous contributors from editing other people's userpages without doubt, though. Nikel Talk – Vote! 16:51, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
- I am also in support of allowing autoconfirmed users to edit others' userpages. Hopefully, people with accounts can look after their own userpage and watch for vandalism by any autoconfirmed user. ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 03:27, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
- There's a reason why I didn't request protection for my Wikipedia userpage. I wanted other users to positively help me construct the userpage, maybe fix some typos or correct a template, fix syntax, whatever. Of course, it does mean that IP editors can vandalize my page as well, but it doesn't bother me (in fact, I like it because I get free reverts from doing it). I support the decision, but I also wonder whether some users can get exceptions. K6ka (talk | contrib) 14:25, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really see any problem in allowing autoconfirmed users edit other users pages; at the end of the day, it is all down to a matter of trust. There should be no problem in allowing autoconfirmed users edit user pages. Beds (parlare - da leggere) 14:32, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
- There's a reason why I didn't request protection for my Wikipedia userpage. I wanted other users to positively help me construct the userpage, maybe fix some typos or correct a template, fix syntax, whatever. Of course, it does mean that IP editors can vandalize my page as well, but it doesn't bother me (in fact, I like it because I get free reverts from doing it). I support the decision, but I also wonder whether some users can get exceptions. K6ka (talk | contrib) 14:25, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I am also in support of allowing autoconfirmed users to edit others' userpages. Hopefully, people with accounts can look after their own userpage and watch for vandalism by any autoconfirmed user. ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 03:27, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's a bit difficult to keep track of who edits whose userpage, and what they've modified. I think each user should take care of their own userpage, although it seems that the majority favors to allow users to edit others' userpages. I'd support to disallow anonymous contributors from editing other people's userpages without doubt, though. Nikel Talk – Vote! 16:51, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
- Sometimes I try to edit someone's userpage to correct a template for them or something like that but it never lets me. I support. Joey.eyeball (talk) 21:31, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
Conclusion[edit source]
The filter has been modified to allow autoconfirmed users to edit userpages. This has been tested and the filter still limits edits by unregistered contributors. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 18:14, January 28, 2014 (UTC)