Allow all registered users the right to semi-protect their own user and talk pages
Problem: Vandals, and other disruptive users, sometimes maliciously edit the user and talk pages of individual users who have reported them or otherwise dealt with them. Those who are administrators have the ability (and some of us have used this) to semi-protect their personal pages. But users without this right must ask for it to be done, which can lead some of them (I think) not to do it at all because they may not want to wait, and may be afraid their request would be denied.
Proposed solution: Allow registered users past a certain number of edits the right to semi-protect their user and talk pages as they see fit.
Who would benefit: All users, as it would really make for safer personal space for everyone.
User talk pages should get protected only for limited durations to deal with actual instances of vandalism or harassment. We can't expect all users to be aware of the expectations around page protection, so we shouldn't be giving them the tools to do it. For user pages, on the other hand, this seems to make sense, but I'm wondering if it won't be better to have it as a feature that's default for everyone, so that, for example, only registered users will be able to edit user pages. Uanfala (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support User pages, yes, talk pages, no. IP editing remains a large portion of WIkimedia editing, and not allowing them to contact other users could pose a serious issue. If needed, they could always request talk page protection, but I don't think it should be given out like free candy. Sea Cow (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose potential for abuse and sets a precedent for non-admins doing admin actions. You can always request protection. Sea Cow's comments are also relevant. EpicPupper (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for user pages (semi protection), as the only two reasons why non-autoconfirmed people would edit someone's elses userpage is either if they are trying to leave said user a message but are on the wrong page (this should be done on user talk: instead) or if they are a vandal and try to deface the userpage. Oppose for user talk pages, as that can be used to hide from legitimate discussion, particularely if you edit in RC or other areas with many new editors. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose (on talk pages) – this has enormous potential to be used abusively or incorrectly, and for it to be used usefully by a user requires more knowledge and experience than most registered users (excluding sysops) have. Since this involves a permission change, would it not need global consensus? Giraffer (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for user pages (and subpages) and Oppose for user talk pages. In metawiki and some wikis, there is an edit filter to ban standard users from editing others' user pages. Thingofme (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for user pages (and subpages). However, I Strong oppose user talk pages— I see an opportunity for abuse from vandalism-only accounts. Helen(💬📖) 20:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be semi-protection, not full. Long-term users and admins would be able to issue warnings, and new users (like the majority of VOAs) would be unable to do it. You could also make the semi-protection automatically revoke when blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reducing interaction reduces possibilities for community effort and consensus. Wikipedia is no one's private space. If someone violates rules, an admin can block them or restrict page editing.--Роман Рябенко (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support all initiatives that help deflect harassment are welcome, and this one will make users feel 'locally empowered', which is good. But just for user pages, not talk page Sasha7272 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose abusable and, before that, only sysops evaluate and decide on the extraordinary exceptions to the freedom-of-editing principle; and yes, the principle is still valid even with vandals wandering into the projects and hordes of trolls wasting sysops' time --g (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is doubtful I see some harassment issues that could be resolved with this, but there is still this risk of a given user deliberately blocking their page to avoid others to tell them that they are doing things the wrong way. Trizekfrom FR11:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Talk pages must be editable as long as that's the wiki way of communicating with users. User pages, OTOH, should by default be editable only by the respective user and administrators. Silver hr (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is risk of a given user deliberately blocking their page to avoid others to tell them that they are doing things the wrong way. XavierItzm (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I said above, that's why I'd limit this to semi-protection. It's not going to offer that kind of user much of a shield, if any, against that kind of contact. Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for user page, Oppose for user talk page as it is meant for communication. In case of harassment, the user can report to ANI noticeboards, and in case of persistent vandalism, the user can request for protection, which should only be done by an admin DaxServer (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for user pages, Template:Oppose for talk pages: there is no need for an IP, or anyone else except an admin removing problematic content, to alter a user page, but plenty of reason for them to ask questions or comment on a user talk page. PamD (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for talk pages, that defeats the whole purpose of them. Oppose for everything else. Editors don't own the pages in their userspace. Sometimes user pages need tagging for deletion for instance, and there's no reason to prevent IP editors from doing this. SpinningSpark12:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is clearly another form of IP Editing Restriction. This will worsen the overall situation by the fact that more often they will think that this is their own page and that no one should edit it at all (be more hostile to the edits of others on their pages. Because they put up protection themselves, they are already setting themselves up to be hostile to others. This is different from when there is some kind of global namespace protection or protection set by another). A few infrequent cases are not worth it. Sunpriat (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for user talk pages (more or less indifferent regarding userpages); "I don't need to talk to IPs" are already too common, and I fear this would exacerbate that problem. Blablubbs (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support MrMisterer (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It is doubtful --Kusurija (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose potential for abuse and sets a precedent for non-admins doing admin actions. You can always request protection. Sea Cow's comments are also relevant. EpicPupper (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose (on talk pages) – this has enormous potential to be used abusively or incorrectly, and for it to be used usefully by a user requires more knowledge and experience than most registered users (excluding sysops) have. Since this involves a permission change, would it not need global consensus? Giraffer (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Neutral Supporting for user pages and opposing for talk pages as per Victor Schmidt's reasons. DeeDeeEn (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Weak support only for userpages Glerium (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
