Forum:CT:Disabling creation of pages by anons and new users

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Disabling creation of pages by anons and new users


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was neither proposal finds consensus: no changes. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

With the rise in vandalism occuring daily including the creation of nonsense pages by anons and new users (particularly sockpuppets), we should disable the creation of pages by anons and new users. Well, back when Wookieepedia was young, some of the anons like me were quite helpful to the community and we helped forged Wookieepedia into what it is. Nearly all of these former anons are now registered users like me.

Now the times have changed, with nearly all the new pages being created by anons being nonsense or blatant fanon. If you don't believe me, please view the Destruction log and see for yourselves. We should follow Wikipedia's example by disabling the creation of pages by anons and new users. Thus if a they want to edit fully, they should be required to register and then follow the guidelines set on their talk pages and by the community. Also, we should have a creation log of new user accounts to maintain security for this site. MyNz - Zainal 4:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live.
The result of the debate was to reject the original proposal, vote on a modified one. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The following support or oppose this new measure.

Support

  1. MyNz - Zainal 4:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    Good idea. Then our "Gluupwhοre" vandal wouldn't be able to post that stupid page again. - Yoshi626 04:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • He can't. It exists as a redirect to Wookieepedia:Constantly recreated pages and is locked to editing. Adminpwned. Havac 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I know, but he keeps re-creating it with variations of the spelling. Mostly just spacing the letters apart. - Yoshi626 04:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Been saying this for a while. Kuralyov 05:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    Under the caveat that "Requested articles" is made more prominent on the front page. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 05:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Assuming Wikia can (and will) do it, then I say not just yes but Hell Yes. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 14:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    per Darth Culator. Jorrel Fraajic 18:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. I don't know any examples when anons created useful pages. - TopAce 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    Per Culator.--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 21:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Rune Haako 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. SFH 05:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. See comments. .... 07:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. No. Just no. Sikon 08:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Imp 14:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. As much as I'd like to stop them adding crap, it goes against the whole wiki thing. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. On second thought, per Green Tentacle. Besides, we wouldn't want the admins to get bored. :P Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. I'm convinced this policy would have a negligible effect on vandal reduction: obsessive trolls would just wait however many days it took for an account to no longer be considered "new", or just vandalise existing pages with their new accounts. (I could see restricting anonymous users from creating new pages in all namespaces other than the Talk: namespace, but more as a means of encouraging them to sign up than anything.) —Silly Dan (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. I need a name (Complain here) 17:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Would cause inconvenience for legitimate new users and can't see it deterring trolls much. Enochf 21:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Per Green Tentacle and Silly Dan. Adamwankenobi 21:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Most users are good. Some aren't. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Ozzel 05:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    See comments. - JMAS 13:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Per other comments. RMF 02:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Vandals will always find a way. No need to punish legitimate anons. --Azizlight 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Having created several articles in my anon days here myself, I think it's unduly restrictive, even if times have changed since then. jSarek 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    Only disable for anons. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    Changed my vote. New users should be allowed, but not anons. Jorrel Fraajic 18:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Although the recent Gluupwhore crisis was obnoxious and this would have solved it, with slightly more work it resolved itself thanks to some nice admin work. Creating new pages encourages new users to stick around, IMO and is not worth the tiny amount of vandalism it would stop to take away that privilege. -- Wildyoda 04:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Havac 07:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Anons Only

  1. JMAS 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. These losers have caused me to do this. Chack Jadson 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yep, only anons. - Fnlayson 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jorrel Fraajic 00:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. DarthMRN 00:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. If they were willing to put forth the effort to vandalize the page by becoming a user, I might vote otherwise.---Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum) 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. – Aidje talk 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Moved vote, as this is what I said before. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. I'll go with this one. KEJ 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Yoshi626 07:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Go with this one because new users obviously intend to contribute, otherwise they wouldn't have become Wookieepedians. Not letting them create new pages seems a bit backward, doesn't it? Furyan175 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments

  • Aren't there some limits on what a new user can do already? Like a week on moving and maybe something else. -Fnlayson 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Now we can see how the times have changed. Since its birth in March 2005, Wookieepedia has grown in size and fame and we are one of the best Wikicities and Star Wars websites on the globe. However, this fame comes with unwanted attention from all sorts of vandals and spammers lurking on the net. Rather than having to fight all these idiotic vandals, we should strip them of their access to creating articles. So if anons and new users want to create an article, they have to go to the requests section. Limits already exist like a week's prevention of moving pages though these should both be expanded and extended.

MyNz 4:53, 15 Dec 2006 (UTC)

  • It doesn't work on Wikipedia, and it won't work here. -- SFH 05:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you elaborate a bit for those of us who don't know much about how this is working over there? jSarek 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Everyday I check the newpages list on Wikipedia. I usually choose the first five articles on the list as a "bookmark", to know where I am. Usually, more than half of those pages are nonsense pages created by people who did the simple process of registering. Blocking anons won't work. -- SFH 06:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is all that wise. Admins and the like wield the power to fend off any would be admin on a whim, and passing this measure would only serve to dampen the novelty of the Wiki. .... 07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • How about having a creation log for user accounts. This may not solve the problem completely though it may help a little bit. If we see any obscene or unacceptable usernames or sockpuppets, just ban them if an admin is around. Also place the article an024]]'s talk page, it would not allow me to save my work. Can someone please get him here. I do not know and probably never will use the IRC channel. MyNz 08:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing we might want to consider: spending a lot of time trying to come up with a new policy in response to a single vandal might only serve to encourage him. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I think new users should still be able to create pages. Or is that not an option?--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am aware that there are a few genuine new users who want to contribute much to our community but there are also those rascals lurking on the net who are just here to annoy and harass us. So thats why its so difficult to come to a decision. MyNz 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to vote either way only because there are some anons who have contributed a lot; on the other hand, the majority are vandals. Either way, it will probably have a bad effect. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The majority? —Silly Dan (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I think it would be more accurate to say that half of the anonymous contributors were useful to us, while the other half were vandals. MyNz 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Maybe not a majority, but it sure seems like a one. -Fnlayson 20:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If it was only to block anons, then I'd support it. But registered users should have the right to create pages. And if one turns out to be a troublemaker, the admins can handle them. - JMAS 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • 'Tis why I changed my vote. Unless the "new users" thing is removed, this shouldn't pass. But, per JMAS, troublesome newbies should feel the admin rage :p. Jorrel Fraajic 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a new vote option for those who think only Anons should not be allowed to create new articles, but new registered users should be allowed to. - JMAS 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Quite frankly, I have confidence that if new content appeared, justifying the need for a new page, we have among us people who whould know of this. The chance of anon knowing about something none of the regulars here do is way smaller than the chance of discouraging vandalism. As long as anons can still pitch in on existing pages, I feel the Wiki thing is preserved. At any rate, anons can wait 24 hours while a member adds the new page, and then add as they please.DarthMRN 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A lovely tie: 16 against any blocks and 16 for blocks, whether anons only or new users as well. —Xwing328(Talk) 07:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Could we do a run off vote between Anons only and Oppose? -Fnlayson 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am abstaining from this vote until I make up my mind. - breathesgelatinTalk 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't object to closing the discussion and restarting it with "disable creation of pages by anonymous users" and "make no changes" as the options for voting. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Since the majority of users voting rejected the idea of blocking new registered users from creating new articles, I suggest we vote on a new proposal. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Restrict anonymous users only from creating new pages

I would suggest this restriction would apply to all namespaces except Talk: pages, and that whatever message pops up when an anonymous user tries to create a new page both encourages the user to sign up and points him or her to Wookieepedia:Article requests. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Allow anonymous users to create new pages

This is how things are now. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Voting

Support revised proposal

  1. For. Fnlayson 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yoshi626 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. For now. ~~ Commander Jorrel Fraajic File:Insignia.jpg|20px Communications Relay ~~ 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. It's not hard to register. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Seriously. Wookieepedia doesn't even ask for a confirmation E-mail or anything. ~~ Commander Jorrel Fraajic File:Insignia.jpg|20px Communications Relay ~~ 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And that still wouldn't change: that'd be something Wikia would have to apply thoughout all of their wikis. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I kinda figured that. I never said it was a bad thing either, just that it would be easy enough for an anon to get registered and then make a new page. ~~ Commander Jorrel Fraajic File:Insignia.jpg|20px Communications Relay ~~ 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. JMAS 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 03:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Negligible effect on vandalism, but might cut down on overenthusiastic fanon from the confused. Won't lose any sleep if this doesn't go through, though. —Silly Dan (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose revised proposal

  1. No. You limit part of the novelty of a Wiki anyway. Case in point: First article I ever created was YTMND, and that was as an anon. .... 02:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Havac 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sikon 09:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. I need a name (Complain here) 11:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. I just had to change my stand on this issue after witnessing a few helpful anons over the past few days and that a new user User:DarthRectifus updated us by adding information on the name of Lucien Draay's father Barrison Draay. MyNz 8:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You realize this revised policy doesn't restrict anons from editing existing pages, it just restricts them from creating new articles. - JMAS 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. I still believe this proposal is contrary to the idea of a wiki. - breathesgelatinTalk 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. SFH 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Valin Kenobi 09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on revised proposal

To be honest, I could go either way on this. I will point out that most of our vandalism is either vandalism to existing articles, or vandalism from registered users, so this proposal will do nothing to prevent it. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This looks fine with me. I added a voting section above. -Fnlayson 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: People keep saying this is against the idea of a wiki, but I ask, what prevents them from registering? No personal information is collected, and it only takes as long as coming up with a username and password, typing them in a box, and pressing enter. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly right, Xwing328! - JMAS 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That's still beside the point. The thing with a Wiki is...you can just edit it! It's that simple! And therefore, placing restrictions is contrary to the idea of a Wiki. .... 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm currently at home for break, and something with the nature of my internet connection is weird. Although I can register, I cannot stay logged in and am forced to edit as an anon. This proposal won't solve much of anything and will only hurt others. Havac 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
          • But this doesn't stop anons from editing existing articles. It only prevents them from creating new articles. And I see nothing wrong with expecting people that want to create new pages from taking 30 seconds to register. - JMAS 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, but requiring them to register in order to create a simple article may deter them from doing it. I know that while I may doodle around on Wikipedia occasionally, I don't consider myself a Wikipedian and don't want to register because it means commitment and one more password to remember. Basically, the requirement puts a burden on anons who may not want to register while doing very little to stop vandals who would simply register and do the same thing. Heck, most vandals appear to enjoy registering with some silly name to vandalize. I just think this is doing more harm than good. It's like locking Luke Skywalker because one guy changes the picture (as was, sadly, done in the past). Havac 05:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new thread.