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).