Forum:Anonymous userpages

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This started as a discussion on User talk:ListenerX

Is that a new rule? I didn't think we did anything like that. -- Mei (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When Jinx hi Jinx! edited as a BON, he had a user-page, but it was created for him. The reasons I put the delete-tag up are: (1) In recent changes and history, MediaWiki links to the list of a BON's contributions, rather than any user-page for that IP address; (2) IP addresses are often shared among several people. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow. Why do either of those things imply that a user shouldn't be allowed a user page? -- Mei (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If an IP is shared among several people (e.g., the proxy at Trinity College Dublin), then whatever was put on the IP's user-page would not properly represent the views of everyone editing from that IP. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Got to agree with LX on this one. User pages for logged-in users are assigned to a unique person, whereas an IP can be shared by countless numbers. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 22:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
But how often is that going to come up? If someone else is assigned that IP, we can deal with that, but why proactively delete user pages because they might possibly misrepresent people? -- Mei (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Except that we do not know who is using which IP. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If it bothered them they would tell us. -- Mei (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
And that is not to mention that anonymous editors are not actually users. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course they are. We're a wiki. We allow anonymous editing. Any anonymous editor is potentially as vital a member of the community as you are. -- Mei (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of that is true, but an anonymous editor is not a user. S/he has no user number and no edit count, and does not add to the list or count of users. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Being allowed a userpage is an issue of courtesy, not a technical issue. They edit pages, they talk to people - they're a RWian. -- Mei (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Going around saying who is and who is not a user sounds like something a Red would do. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 22:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
(EC) You are erroneously conflating user with RationalWikian or member of the RationalWiki community. "User" is a technical term. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I said 'user', I meant only 'member of the community', as you could have inferred easily. -- Mei (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that. I didn't even say 'user'. I said 'Being allowed a userpage is an issue of courtesy, not a technical issue.' and that continues to be true. -- Mei (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
If the BON wants a userpage let them make one, we have anonymous editing here, if they want to remain anonymous let them. - π 22:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with LX on the "it could be anybody" part. For example, my IP addy changes every few months, and there's a good chance some other comcast customer would end up with my old one. My "IP user page" would not follow me with the change, and it would sure be weird for the new person to have a user page saying stuff that doesn't apply to them. Oh, a similar problem applies to people who block their own IP to "force" them to log in... We might need to move this discussion to the SB or a forum, it's an interesting issue. I disagree on the "not a user" part. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm going with no user pages. A user page represents someone in particular, which an IP address does not. But they are users (which I believe is an irrelevant point of contention). — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 22:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My argument was that the user page referred to "user" in the MediaWiki sense, and that the idea of a "RationalWiki community member" is entirely separate. I will not quibble any more on that point. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a precedent for this. - π 22:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
1. Thanks whoever moved this discussion here. 2. We might need to ensure people who have blocked their own IPs still have those IPs from time to time. Easy for them to do it, of course - log out and see what the software says their IP is. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Would it be appropriate to have a template on IP address userpages stating that they are a proxy (if they are) to help reduce confusion? I am pretty sure Wikipedia has something similar. Just a thought. - π 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I like it. It makes sense. -- Mei (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Same here. That way, if said proxy was binned long ago and wants out, we can consider that easier. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a look at the WP template. - π 02:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be awesome to have something like the MW message that appears when you edit a red link IP talk page, except make it the actual page. "This talk page may be related to many users due to Ip address reassignments or sharing" or some such. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)