I've noticed that one common target for vandalism and/or trolling appears to be userpages. They can be targets for people like vandals who want revenge on the person who blocked or warned them. Naturally, this can be very annoying/embarrasing for the use whose page was edited like that. I'd like to propose that we semi-protect all user pages, so they can only be edited by that particular user, or by a sysop. This would prevent vandals and trolls from desecrating user pages, and would certainly mark a step forward in fighting vandals. I'm going to remain neutral on this, but would like the community's opinion. Would semi-protecting user pages be a good idea? Sgt. S.S. 16:31, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
Place all discussion below the line:
First of all: "only be edited by that particular user" that is not possible, either we fully protect pages so only admins can edit them, we semi protect pages so that new and unregistered users can't edit them, of don't protect them. I disagree with this, as you can see, most userpages have a "Friends" section made for users to add or a "Thoughts of me" section that is meant for all users to edit. I am sure that people won't like it if they can't add their name to the list. And even if they ask, it would be a little too much trouble to ask someone if they can add them on their page. I, for one, would rather just edit the page myself. --CodExpert 16:38, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is needed. If a userpage is vandalized, it is undone, and the vandal is banned. Simple as that. Cpl. Dunn(Talk) 16:41, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
We do have an undo button. Vandals will always be vandals, there's no step forward, it's not like we can totally destroy all vandals. Besides, their places will be taken with new vandals once they're gone. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 16:41, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
We don't need this. alot of userpages have a friends section or a guestbook for others to edit.
Well, what if we just protected the pages from unregistered contributors, as most vandals tend to be IPs. For registered vandals/trolls, like Ukimies said, we have an undo button. Sgt. S.S. 21:01, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
Protecting userpages bears similarities to protecting the main page of a wiki. It is generally unrecommended to do so unless vandalism becomes prominent. I've seen some administrators protect his/her or even someone else's userpage, but that is usually done after vandalism has occurred. It makes sense to "blindly" semi-protect some mainspace articles, provided that they have high traffic, such as Call of Duty: Black Ops. However, a page like that generates much more readership in comparison to a userpage. 
Bovell Talk | Contrib. 21:14, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see an actual use for this, one user could just undo the vandal to one's page, unless requested, userpages shouldn't be protected. 
Talk?21:25, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Not a good idea. It should be done on a per-user basis. IE if someone's page is being vandalized over and over, it should be semi-protected. Applying it to everyone is a waste of effort, especially considering that userpages aren't vandalized that often. The exception is admins, who are targeted more often because of their position. Darkman 4 21:27, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, unless constantly vandalised, user pages shouldn't be protected.
Talk?21:35, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, unless constantly vandalised, user pages shouldn't be protected.
I don't see any uses on protecting user pages. We could just undo them easily with one click of a button. 
DevilWarrior112 Talk Edits21:30, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both Darkman 4 and CodExpert on both counts, that, 1. Only Admins and 'Crats pages should be protected due to them being targeted more often in part of their position or revenge for past blocks, and 2. Per CodExpert's reason above. We don't need this. 
Braden 0.0 Talk 11:11, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who's had their userpage vandalised in a revenge attack, I'm in favour of this happening, at least where the page has been vandalised. I don't see the need for a blanket protect. Raven's wing Talk11:12, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Even after a case of vandalism, it isn't necessary to protect when it is reverted in one click -- and usually done very quickly. As with most articles, userpages should only be protected if they are the target of repeated vandalism. --Scottie theNerd 11:18, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Can you even imagine Admins trying to protect literally thousands of user pages? I can't. As everybody has said, you can undo vandalism in one click, alert an Admin, finished. Easy! File:20PX SIG.gif Talk 11:48, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, you got a point there Whiskey. Vandalism can be undone in 1 click and there its no problem at all. Unless if you have slow internet xD --File:Tbsoldier sig.pngSoldier 11:51, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
If anybody wants their userpage protected, they can just ask an admin. But protecting them all without the users asking for protection seems to overdo it. File:8-bit price r.jpgPoketape TalkFile:8-bit price.jpg 14:07, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Like WHISKEY35 said, Admins aren't going to go around, Searching for user pages. And if you look into it a UC's view, They mostly know nothing about or policies and barely figuired out the "edit this page" button. Its not a big threat. Most UC that get angry are...angry at small things like undos. It's reasonable ,but we don't have a "Army" of admins. Most users are fine, Only FNGs really get into trouble. And like almost everyone stated, Vandalism can be undone with ONE click. 
20:01, August 4, 2010 (UTC)