Forum:CT:Prohibiting anonymous edits

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Prohibiting anonymous edits


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 how about no, okay? - Sikon 07:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going over this again because frankly I think it's something we need. You all know the drill: no anonymous edits, and new users need to wait a few days for major things.

Support

  1. Kuralyov 04:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not like it cost anything to register...in fact, if you register, you aren't showing your IP for the world to see everytime you edit.RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 04:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. General Layton 04:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. BubTalk 05:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. I've seen other Wikis that do this. --Yoshi626 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Goes against the novelty of a Wiki. .... 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ditto. Adamwankenobi 04:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So does my spending hours a day fighting vandalism that could be prevented this way. Kuralyov 05:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. This proposal is semi-redundant with Forum:Disabling creation of pages by anons and new users, where I'm vacillating over whether to prevent anonymous users from starting new pages or not (which might reduce vandalism somewhat.) However, I can't see my way towards preventing anonymous editing altogether. —Silly Dan (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Vandals seem just as likely to be registered users as anons. As much as I tend to agree with Kuralyov on matters of Wookiee policy, this, quite frankly, will not help the Wookiee and will only harm it. The entire point is that anyone can edit. Of course, I'm also biased, because I'm quite literally forced to edit as an anon four months of the year due to my wonky home internet connection. This policy would essentially assume bad faith in regards to all anon contributors. Havac 05:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per Fourdot. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per Silly Dan. jSarek 10:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Won't stop vandalism and, though it's simple and doesn't take long, will stop some people editing. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • We could block maybe 70% of contributors and nothing would really change. The only type of people this would stop from editing are the type who spend all their time on their userpages or adding fanon into clone trooper articles. Serious contributors wouldn't be affected at all. Kuralyov 19:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. I need a name (Complain here) 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. I'm just opposed to anons making new pages, which is in the other CT. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Valin Kenobi 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. second worst idea i have heard for this wiki ever. HappyTimeHarry 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe if you'd been here for more than a week and had more than a hundred edits to talkspaces and your userpage you'd get it. Kuralyov 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • HappyTimeHarry used to be Ugluk, and has been around for some time now. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. SFH 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. SentryTalk 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. I thought other people would not repeat my mistakes at the previous forum. But man doesn't always learn from the mistakes of their predecessors and thats why there are so many wars these days. MyNz 1:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • WTF? Kuralyov 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Strong oppose. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 03:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Sikon 06:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. yea that sorta makes it not a wiki MandofettWrist HoloprojectorJaingHead 11:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. This would do little to deter vandals and everything to deter new an unfamilar users. Wildyoda 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Agreed. And there are some helpful anons, even if most aren't. Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable 15:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Fun fact: 15% of our contributions come from anonymous users. -- Ozzel 05:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • And how many of those are actual edits and not vandalism or quick typo corrections? --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 05:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • How many user edits are not simple typo corrections or template tweaks? .... 06:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I just want to ask everyone who voted 'no' here what they did to help during the three hour vandal hit we got today? Kuralyov 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And I'd like to ask what a vandal spree committed by a registered user has to do with prohibiting people who aren't registered? -- I need a name (Complain here) 00:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Because if you'd bothered to read the actual post you'd see that it's also prohibiting edits from new users. Kuralyov 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Now i know its a horrible idea. why would we block IPs AND registered users from editing? HappyTimeHarry 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I blocked at least two. -- SFH 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What did I do during the vandal spree? Well I blocked about 8 of them, spoke to Angela in the #wikia channel to see if there was any way to do an IP range block (there wasn't, as the vandal was coming from multiple open proxies), and then I banned the open proxies he was coming from for a year. Also deleted a few pages after he moved them...note that you need to have been registered for at least 2 days for move pages to take place. Prohibiting new users from doing things won't do much though, and I'd cite the old Crumb vandal as an example. He registered over 2,000 usernames so that he could perform move pages 2 days from when he first registered them. It just means that they'll think about it more, rather than stopping them. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I was at work. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • By the time I logged on, everthing had already been reverted and cleaned up.
    • I was away from home, buying more obscure Star Wars sources that I can't afford. jSarek 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)