Jens Ropers wrote:
I would favour giving every user a preferences
''option'' where they can
choose whether or not to protect their own user page.
This in part for the reasons Tim gave (below). Also, views about whether
or not others should be allowed to edit someone's own user page tend to
differ, so introducing such an option respects and reflects such
differing views. I don't think non-abusive users who feel that their
user page is "for them to control" should be ''forced'' to keep
it open
for community editing.
That's arguable...
Finally, as was observed previously, user page
vandalism is a bigger problem with some users (and less with others), so
leaving that one up to the individual user just makes sense.
I agree with that one though.
* Users should NEVER be allowed to protect their Talk
page.
This brings up an interesting point. If we protect user pages, we can
expect vandals to vandalise talk pages instead. That's a lesser evil, to
be sure. However I can see a possible partial technical solution. Users
could enable a moderation queue for their user page. When an anonymous
user makes a change, the software uses a cookie match to display the
unmoderated page to them after they hit save, but to everyone else, the
last approved version is displayed.
Logged-in users get the advantage of a message telling them that their
edit is being held for moderation.
Just a techno-fantasy, I'm not actually planning on coding this.
a still ailing
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
On 5 Nov 2004, at 17:24, Tim Starling wrote:
<snip>
ARRGGHH TOP-POST KILL KILL
-- Tim Starling