UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Anonymous Users
|This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.|
I propose that we add a limit for the amount of posts anonymous users make per day. The amount would be around 5. If an anonymous user tried to edit after writing 5 edits, it would show a page asking them to make an account. I see a few benefits to this:
- Users spamming who cannot change IP's quickly would be hindered, forcing them to make an account.
- Bots, though they normally do not make 5 edits per IP, would also be hindered similarly.
- Users who make 5+ good edits per day would be more likely to create an account.
- Users who make 5+ edits on a page would be likely to make an account, then we'd be able to help them with editing.
- I don't see any real benefit. Being an anonymous editor has more disadvantages to the editor than to UESP, so why should we care so much if someone chooses to edit anonymously? Forcing vandals to create an account just leads to the creation of tons of pointless accounts -- yes, vandals really will create accounts if they are forced to do so, as was very apparent back before the site allowed anonymous editing. Furthermore, there are some editors who are prevented from logging into UESP by their internet service provider (most notably Chaos Monkey, who made hundreds of contributions to the site, all anonymously). Why should we lock out those users completely?
- Even more importantly, there is the technical question of how it would be done. Unless there is an existing mediawiki extension to do this, implementing it would require a ton of work by someone knowledgeable in PHP and mediawiki software. Which at this point normally means either me or Daveh. Personally, I'd rather be spending that time actually contributing something constructive to the site. --NepheleTalk 12:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)
- It's very easy for people to change IPs. They would probably change their home IP or use a proxy to make edits if they wanted to remain anonymous. I don't see a compelling reason to limit edits by unregistered editors. I think all anonymous sessions should be confirmed via a good captcha though, and captchas should be disabled for registered users. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 17:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)
- I agree with Lukish. On the subject of vandalism, I still don't understand why we attempt to give vandals a second chance. I'll admit, I used to be a Wikipedia Vandal. I know what they're thinking. We shouldn't be giving them a second chance. If it's an IP that vandalizes, we should block it instantly. As for people using proxies to get by the 5 edit limit, we should also visit Proxy.org, make a Sandbox page, and visit every proxy, signing the page with each one. We then gather each IP and permablock it. In the case of users who vandalize, we do the regulation warning. If it happens once more, we block. We should NOT be giving IP's and vandals second chances when they vandalize, just because a few admins (not naming names) think that the IP's will change their ways and start contributing. Prince of MadnessDaedryon 07:07, 6 January 2009 (EST)
- Hear it from a nameless non-admin then. I don't think we need to permanently block IP addresses the first time. There are very few IP editors that return after one week and continue vandalising. Furthermore, many IPs are dynamic, or the users behind them change. A good example of that last one is Volanaro, a productive editor who worked from school, and had the good fortune that he created his account before his schoolmates managed to get their school's IP adress blocked. --Timenn < talk > 09:06, 6 January 2009 (EST)
- Quite right Timenn. In fact, I can't get on the forums at school because there's an IP ban for the school. Anyway, why are we still discussing this, since Nephele is quite right that there are people who can't log on due to their ISP. The only thing I would want to make sure of dealing with anonymous users is that they are kept anonymous by administrators. (which, I believe we do have such a policy judging by an above conversation)--Tim Talk 13:23, 6 January 2009 (EST)