Debate:Should we get rid of anonymous editing?

Forcing folks to create user names and log in would slow down TOR vandals and make it easier to control vandalism in general--especially the creepy/hateful/violently misogynist stuff we tend to attract. We want people to be janitors? The job requires certain tools--could this be one of them? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

From ToP's Talk Page

 * Who gives a rats, I am just fucking sick of TOR. Is there a way we can find out what IPs they are using as proxies and block the fucking lot? A dedicated RW does not need a proxy. 01:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I need a link to the reason for your bitching, Pi. That is, one that shows you spent hours cleaning up crap or something? 06:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Special:VandalBin have a look at the ones we got yesterday, add in the ones that weren't vandals binned because we gave up. 06:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WOW seven on the 15th and 4 on the 14th. Surely our mouse clicking fingers are in need of major therapy?  Pi, are you serious in thinking this is a goddamn "problem"? Or are you just fucking nuts and need to get outside or something?  07:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I say GET RID OF ANONYMOUS EDITING. Having to create a user name will slow them down/make it not worth the while/easier to control. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I would hate to see it go, anonymous editing spam is a roblem. Besides, we're not like CP in that if you have a username, we won't automatically block it just for shits and giggles.The Goonie 1 (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)Trouble with ridding anonymous editing is that it stops potential users "testing the water" so to speak, with an anonymous edit or two before signing up and feeling committed to it. Double edged sword really. Although is it possible to limit what a BON can do, stop page creation for example? 02:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not talking abouts anons I am happy with them, just the IPs being used by TOR. Unfortunately the only list I have found so far isn't machine readable, which makes me even more suspicious of proxy servers than before. 02:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To me a BON is a BON--how the hell can I tell at a glance if it's TOR or not? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a nice clean list now, I could set Pibot to block the lot if everyone agrees. 02:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

-	Perhaps we could limit the number of anon edits per hour? Not like the vandal bin does, but 5 an hour would seem like a good testing of the waters to me.The Goonie 1 (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anons are already limited to 120 an hour, per IP address, the TOR proxies changes constantly so you can vandalise away. 02:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * EC Doesn't do anything--BON comes in, leaves a bunch of smut on someone's page, typically gets binned right away--it's rare someone will get several bits of wandalism in w/out one of us noticing. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of it is just one-trick unfunny vandalism. You're not going to stop it by banning anon editing. Blocking TOR would work, but it's difficult. TOR itself is fucking disgracefully useless (I've been reading a few TOR based FAQs over the last few minutes) at helping people stop it being abused. 02:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed that. Ban away! 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * EC Banning anon editing won't stop it; it WILL slow it down and make it less worthwhile to some people. 2. Can we block TOR? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a list of all IPs being used by TOR. I can write a script that will block the lot. Given how rapidly it changes, I would block for a week and then run the bot once a week. Sounds good? 02:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Santa Claus had a list, Joe McCarthy had a list, and now PI has a list....Make it so. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just checked it twice. Got a block message? 02:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Something polite; we're sorry, but you seem to be editing from a TOR address, if you think you've received this message in error, please email this person right here? Or something along those lines? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I have done the test. Should I do do the other thousand or so? 03:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are that few? Let 'er rip. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, maybe I'm reading incorrectly here, but I see only two people fully agreeing to this, is that really all it takes to perma-ban several thousand IPs?-- 03:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll stop and reverse it. 03:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a terrible idea. There's several BONs who make good contibutions here, and it also gives the appearance of being closed off. If someone really wants to vandalize they'll just create a username, it doesn't solve anything. If wikipedia can handle their vandals, I think we can handle ours. -- 02:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to the idea of blocking anonymous editing; for starters, we would be preventing OneForLogic from editing at work. 02:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What about Jinx?? We need him!  Anyways, I was thinking about this the other hight, where I was using TOR to maximize downloads off a file hosting site.  Anyways, I was also reading Uncyc, and I found a spelling error.  I went to edit it out, but I received the message 'Your IP address, 666.66.666.66, has been identified as a TOR exit node. You have been prohibited from editing to prevent vandalism.  Perhaps something like that here?  I, for one use IP editing quite frequently, and I believe others do the same.  -- 03:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um at Uncyc you get blocked as a joke. I don't think they allow IP editing at all any more. 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, just checked, I can IP edit. -- 03:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am against increasing the difficulties of IP editing.--BobNot Jim 07:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking TOR
Do we want to block TOR proxies or not? 05:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, fuckwad. You present no evidence for why they are a problem, other than your whining.  06:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are we had this conversation over 24 hours ago and came to a resolution then? 06:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am all right with blocking them for anonymous editing, but not with blocking account creation from them. 05:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate doing that because it's almost like playing into their hands, and affirming the disruption. However, it doesn't look like this guy is stopping. I guess it's the best solution. -- 05:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So that is TOP, PBM, LX, AV and Pi, anyone else? 06:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it will make a difference. When people want to wandalise they'll find an unblocked proxy somewhere. If it makes you feel better then go ahead, but I agree that you're just playing into their hands. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * TOR does seem to be the centre of most of a persistent wandals. It changes constantly, gives you new IPs every few seconds, it does not have tracebacks and is generally dodgy. Even Wikipedia has restrictions against it. 06:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will block them for a week and we will see how it goes, seeing as most people have said yes. 06:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get the argument that blocking TOR means the vandals have won. Letting their crap stand would mean they've won. TOR is meant for getting round unfair censorship etc (eg CP, China), not here where we welcome debate. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As we're not stopping people, there is no legit reason to use TOR except to circumvent blocks and create spam. However, can I suggest we log vandal-like activity somewhere so we can see if blocking TOR for a week does actually stop it? Individuals aren't on for 24 hours a day so can't keep track of everything. I sometimes don't see anything for weeks but I don't know what's dropped off the bottom of the recent changes. I wouldn't lose any sleep it TOR was blocked and it didn't stop spam and wandals, but I'd be happier knowing that we've figured out that it won't work so that we can look into other measures. 11:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Objection to process
I am generally opposed to this idea, but I am more opposed to this process. --BobNot Jim 07:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be taking place on community standards.
 * It should be announced on the intercom so that people know it is taking place.
 * It should be subject to a formal vote of acceptance.
 * So you want me to stop and reverse it again? 07:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I am undoing the blocks. I think we might need a site wide agreement on this. 07:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)I just don't think that a bunch of guys on a debate page should be making wiki policy without the whole wiki being obviously involved. But I'm not telling you what you should do - only a clear and fully debated consensus on the wiki can do that. If you feel that you have sufficient authority go go ahead then I can't prevent you. But in my, and presently only my, opinion you do not have sufficient authority to make such a change.--BobNot Jim 07:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said Bob. We've had a few vandals but has it got to such a state that this has to be dealt with in a rush? The whole ethos of the site is that we hand out sysop powers so that housekeeping duties can be shared. If people feel sufficiently concerned then it should be discussed at Community Standards. 07:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am in the middle of reversing it although it will take a while. We should take this to the CS and get everyone involved if we wish to make this official policy. If we do, I would bet my last dollar that Nx could come up with a more efficient method. 08:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay all TOR proxies are free to edit. 08:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers Π. I understand that you're trying to do what's best for the site.--BobNot Jim 09:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)