Forum:Protected Admin talk pages

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Protected Admin talk pages
Note: This topic has been unedited for 626 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


*TO CLARIFY, I AM TALKING ABOUT FULL-ON, ADMIN-EDITING ONLY, PROTECTION I HAVE NO ISSUES WHATEVER WITH SEMI-PROTECTED TALK PAGES --Mn-z 19:30, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Protected admin talk pages are stupid because it prevents people from contacting said admins easily.

Additionally, usernames that link to another web site should be forbidden, on the grounds that I should be able to find an editor in the same wiki that the said editor posts in. If you post on Unfree Uncyclopedia, I shouldn't have to go to Free Uncyclopedia, or wikipedia, or illogicopedia or friendship is magic wiki to comments on your post here.

This doesn't have anything to do with the move, I just like not needing to wiki hop. --Mn-z 14:50, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, admin talk pages should be editable by anyone. On the other one... does anyone here have a signature that links to another wiki? ~ BB ~ (T) Icons-flag-usSat, Jan 12 '13 15:05 (UTC)
Frosty's sig links to Free Uncyclopedia. --Mn-z 15:12, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Hadn't noticed. When making a forum like this, though, you should probably mention the transgressors by name, or people won't be able to find them easily and hang, draw, and quarter them, then roast them over a slow mesquite fire with a deliciously tangy Cajun barbecue sauce. ~ BB ~ (T) Icons-flag-usSat, Jan 12 '13 16:21 (UTC)
Because we need to personalize all policy decisions, and base all wiki rules on the drama of the moment. That being said, Hinoa has had a protected talk page since he rage-quit over rage-quitting in 2008. --Mn-z 16:34, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
Admin talk pages are protected in certain instances due to repeated blanking attacks on the pages of inactive administrators. Protection is sometimes necessary in the short term as an admin is not online and their talk page is being vandalised. Ultimately it is down to that administrator whether they want to protect their talk page, there are plenty of admins with unprotected talk pages, all it means is that IP's will have to go to them. I agree that protection of pages as a matter of course is undesirable but there seems to be very little point in trying to enforce this rule, all it will result in is wheel warring if that admin disagrees. As for signatures they should not link to a user/talk page on a different wiki and should not link to the forked Uncyc at all. If people want them linked to other projects, which are completely separate from Uncyclopedia that is fine, but they should not be used to get round the rules regarding advertising the new site here. --Chiefjustice32X 10:44, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
By protection, I mean full-on protection. Semi-protection of talk pages is justifiable, or full-on protection of a user page. However, a usertalk page is created so that editors can contact other editors. I would fail to see where usertalk full-on protection would ever make sense. --Mn-z 11:22, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Full on protection defeats the function of a talk page, the only time that should happen should be to prevent vandalism of a non-active admin page. --Chiefjustice32X 12:07, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
I think even in cases of unactive admins, that would defeat the purpose. For a "gone and never coming back again" that might make sense, but for an infrequent admin, if they are doing stuff even occasionally, their talk page should be unprotected. --Mn-z 12:12, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects