This Forum has been archivedVisit the new Forums
|Forums: War Room → Anons being able to make edits.|
|This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:|
Anonymous users may edit the wiki.
|Please do not edit this discussion.|
It's sad that it has come to this, but I feel that this has really become an issue. I have been here for more than a month now. Like everyone else, I try to contribute to this wiki by editing, undoing bad edits,and preventing vandalism. I've noticed that most of the edits I undo are from anonymous users. Personally, I do not have anything against users who don't make a profile. Some of them are actually productive editors. Unfortunately, the vast majority are disruptive and are of no help to this wiki. There is no way to just isolate the unproductive anons. So here's my proposal: Only registered users should be able to make edits. Lemongrab 08:37, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with this. Because the anonymous are disruptive, it's not make all anonymous are like that. I have got a friend, anonymous, that s/he helped me creating a transcript. And it works! S/he helped me until I left s/he alone, and done. If only registered users able to edits, it will makes a lot of users with not really sense of user. Just like me, sometimes on several website, I don't too enthusiasm with the features, make my user abandoned. It is against housekeeping. Acer Indonesia Ask anything about fanon! • TCA:TFF 11:28, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wholeheartedly disagree with this proposal. Everyone, whether they have an account or not, should be free to edit the wiki. The more users, with a variety of ideas and opinions, we have contributing to the wiki, the greater it will be. There probably are more bad edits being made by anons than by registered users, but I'd like to point out that there are more anons than registered users by size, so the numbers will always be skewed towards them.
"There is no way to isolate the unproductive anons". Yes there is. If an anonymous user continues to vandalise the wiki, and makes no indication they will change their behaviour after being warned about their actions, they will be blocked. If they continue when the block is over, they will be blocked again. This system has worked so far, and will likely continue to work in the future. Your proposal is essentially to put a permanent block on every anon, regardless of how they have behaved in the past, on the perception that a few others made some bad edits. Penalising some for the actions of others is in no way a fair system, and I do not believe it is true to say that the majority of anons are unproductive and disruptive.
I have said this before, but we should not force a user to create an account if they do not wish to do so. Everyone should be capable of making edits to an article whomever they are, and we should not restrict anons from editing just because of the actions of some users. That does not foster community spirit, and does not promote the idea that everyone is equal. HAMMEROFTHOR 09:39, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
- No offense, Lemon but I support HammerOfThor. Acer Indonesia Ask anything about fanon! • TCA:TFF 10:12, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
- This should definitely not have even been proposed. We are a wiki that welcomes all; disabling anonymous users from editing is not what we stand for. 15:12, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Not to be rude, but to be totally blunt: Hell. No. Anons can be fantastic contributors, and just because some act like jackasses is no reason to ban the user group from editing totally. That's ludicrous. This community discriminates against nonies enough as is. Enacting this proposal would make things ten times worse.If your doctor is sick, then who is healing you? Read. It's good for you. 16:38, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
Per everyone, just a big no to this proposal. You know, there are users here who have gotten their start by being anonymous editors/commentors. And there have been many helpful nonies in the past, and some in the present. Not everyone is like how has been described. Katara and Bolin Fanboy Send me a messenger hawk 16:42, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree as well per HoT. We have more helpful Anons than harmful ones, and the Wiki really wouldn't be the way it was without them. Without my time as an Anon I know I never would have wound up joining the Wiki. I have seen great edits made by Anons, and I wouldn't want to block them for the actions of a few. There are also many vandalizing users with accounts, so should we ban all of them? I don't think so. I understand that it's hard to see the Anons as different individuals, seeing as they all have the same profile image and name on their comments and edits, but they are all different. We can't simply tell them to get an account, they probably have their reasons. So let's just leave it as is. Truly Ferret (a •) 17:10, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
Okay this is probably the worst idea I've ever had. I'll ask 888 to close this discussion then. Lemongrab 17:30, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
(So, this is the War Room) Some of these random anons get on my nerves with their vandal edits and vulgar comments, but we shouldn't let a few cabbages spoil the whole cart now. As said before, anons can be amazing contributors. I just recently saw an wikian who says they've been here for a very long time contributing to the wiki, as an anon. Contributors like this user will be force to make an account they're not ready for, if this proposal was to go into action.
Also, let's say that an anon who is forced to make an account choose a wiki name for themselves that a future user may want. The future user will be forced to choose another name that an inactive anon has who's not even contributing to the wiki.
I say we just stick to our regular policies. If a user spots a vandal anon, just report their IP address and reasons of reporting them. Then leave it to an administrator and let them handle it. --The Cabbage Man (talk • contributions) 18:38, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
The consensus has already been reached. There's no need to say anything more. Lemongrab 18:30, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
Like others have said, no. However, I do feel that blocking the bad ones, or at least giving out warnings could be a bit stricter. I often see some anons who vandal, but because it's just one or two edits, and not something as big as blanking an article, they don't even get told to stop. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 18:47, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
I totally disagree as per everything above. But one more thing is that if we were to ban all anons, there would be far less people becoming registered users because they would not be able to really interact with the wiki like they should and see what it's like. I know that if I wouldn't have been able to edit before i got an account, I probably never would have signed up. SukitheNinja 21:41, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
Anos. are cool. Twenty maybe thirty are bad, the rest are cool. The primary reason some people who I know are anons. is because of the age limit. So I am totally against this proposal. The Kid 100% (wall • contribs)
Don't worry everyone. Anonymous users will still be able to comment. I guess I really did not think ahead by making this forum. 888 will close this soon. I'll just try harder to single out the anonymous users who cause trouble. Surely that cannot be too difficult. Lemongrab 2:10, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal; yes, some anonymous users are troublesome and don't make contributive edits, but that's what users have rollback rights for. And not all anonymous users make unconstructive edits; I've seen a few anonymous users make excellent contributions. And it is true that some anonymous users start off on this wiki by making edits and such; actually, that's how I started out on this wiki; so when all is said and done, I disagree with this proposal. The Ultimate Waterbender 01:40, July 12, 2012 (UTC)