Hi Jim. Thanks for your reply :)
Jim Cecropia wrote:
I don't think there is an issue of anons being "lesser-users" and I support allowing anons to edit because I believe it encourages new editors to try out the Wiki through its openness.
No-where have I implied that I don't want anons to be able to edit. The problem is that I see an increasing number of sysops rectify unilateral bans by saying something like, "They should create an account to make their edits look less like vandalism!" That's just ridiculous.
HOWEVER . . . if we don't think anons bear watching, why do we have an option to show only anons on "Recent Changes"?
Anons are indeed worth watching, because for obvious reasons vandalism tends to be from anons. This is not the point.
The point is that no matter what an anon does, they should *not* have a higher chance of being classified as "vandals" or even getting blocked than a logged-in user. Currently they do because the prevailing... let's say "convention" among sysops is to regard anons as lesser folk who are less worthy of tolerance. I don't think I like that sentiment.
Greetings, Timwi
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:38:12 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
The point is that no matter what an anon does, they should *not* have a higher chance of being classified as "vandals" or even getting blocked than a logged-in user. Currently they do because the prevailing... let's say "convention" among sysops is to regard anons as lesser folk who are less worthy of tolerance. I don't think I like that sentiment.
I for one will never block an anonymous user until I've dropped three warnings on his or her talk page. I know some people are reluctant to use this form of communication (perhaps due to a generalized lack of feedback from the anons themselves :) but I view it as more of a place to document problems with the user, rather than purely for communication.
With the new skin, people get a Bright Orange Notice when they have new messages. I think this increases the response rate.
But with regards to a "lesser caste", I will note that it is well within the standard scope of sysop actions to block anonymous troublemakers; however, blocking logged in troublemakers is far more of an issue and is much, much more liable to cause controversy (depending on the type of the trouble made).
I for one will never block an anonymous user until I've dropped three warnings on his or her talk page. I know some people are reluctant to use this form of communication (perhaps due to a generalized lack of feedback from the anons themselves :) but I view it as more of a place to document problems with the user, rather than purely for communication.
I won't block a user either, until three warnings that specifically state what they're doing wrong, and that are 5 minutes apart, so that I can expect them to have read the warnings (exceptions can be made for suspected bots). That's why I made {{test2}}, {{test3}}, and {{test4}}. I've been frustrated in the past sometimes, when I'm in the process of working my way through this sequence, and another admin decides that no more warnings are necessary and blocks the user, when I really haven't been minding cleaning up after them. I think we should standardize the process. That way the series of warnings can be fine-tuned, and any admin going to a talk page knows what has been said to this user and what to do next.
moink