Forum:CT:Only autoconfirmed can create articles

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Only autoconfirmed can create articles

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 or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Oppose proposal (leave things as is). Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:19, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, one thing that aggravates me is anons and new users creating worthless articles. Too many of those articles are vandalism or other nonsense, and the few that aren't are just good faith, but the people creating them have no idea how to write a decent article. I'm starting this petition to make it that only autoconfirmed users can create articles from now on. With this done, no more garbage articles created. People like those make me lose faith in anons, and I had a good amount of my early life on this wiki as one. Hanzo Hasashi 03:32, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support (only autoconfirmed users can create pages)

Oppose (leave things as is)

  1. Unfortunately, Hanzo, I have to vote against. I don't mind reverting vandal edits, since it's easy and often amusing. It's a simple matter for the admins to delete spam pages and block the creators. Plus, it'd really wouldn't stop the vandals... they'd just see it as one more small barrier to overcome. And then instead of a bunch of anon IP vandals, we'd have user accounts used solely for vandalism, using up perfectly good usernames that other potentially productive editors might want to use when they join. I understand the sentiment, but I think that the current system works. This new way would probably cause more issues than it would solve. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 03:43, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  2. If anything, we should be placing less restrictions on anons rather than more. Menkooroo 04:21, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  3. I've already explained my reasons on IRC. Doing this won't stop vandals. And this will also drive away productive anons. And besides, at CVI, we want to promote an image of a welcoming community and encourage people to sign up, or make anonymous edits. If we prevent them from doing so, it will reflect poorly on us. Trak Nar Ramble on 04:34, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  4. You'd have a hard time getting this approved by the Wikia folks, let alone the Wook community. Having anons wait four days after signing up is not a good idea. 1358 (Talk) 13:09, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  5. I'm disinclined to support this. I've noticed that anons create articles which have "flavor." If they want to join, great, if not, that's their choice. Corellian PremierRobotechAll along the watchtower 13:15, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Per above. Look how many of our articles have been created by anons. Making it harder for visitors to edit and contribute here to stop the comparatively low levels of vandalism which are always dealt with speedily, isn't a good idea. Not to mention, most long-term users probably started off contributing as an anon. Cheers, grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 13:28, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Per the above.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 13:48, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  8. As the creator, I now oppose the very petition I started. Hanzo Hasashi 14:31, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  9. Per above, and particularly Trak. —MJ— War Room Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 15:43 UTC
  10. Although I'm not against being strict in our protection against vandals, I can't see too much benefit from this. There are usually on a regular basis several users monitoring the Recent Changes at all times, so it's not likely that something blatant is going to slip by. Besides that fact, I have seen many anons do very good edits. I would prefer to see them make an account, but I'm not going to stop them just because they're anons. We, including myself at times, tend to get a bad attitude against anons, which is understandable from the amount of vandalism that we get. However, we do need to be careful that we don't throw all anons into the vandal group. Some are honestly trying to help.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 15:50, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
    • Precisely what I said in the discussion. Hanzo Hasashi 15:55, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
  11. Probably don't need to say anything else, but we do have effective ways of combating anon vandalism, and cutting off that vandalism at the source also cuts off potential users who might subsequently be discouraged from contributing to or joining the site. CC7567 (talk) 18:42, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
  12. No, just no, per Trak and others. – Tm_T@Wookieepedia:~$ 09:47, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
  13. Heavily per Trak. I knew we had someone worthwhile to represent us at CVI. We want to be welcoming to all users, and deal only with those that interrupt. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:01, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
  14. Per Trak and CC. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:09, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I hope I didn't come off as being too negative towards anons. There are plenty of anons who do good things for this site, but there are others whose sole purpose is to cause trouble. Hanzo Hasashi 03:39, May 22, 2012 (UTC)