Board Thread:Site Policy/@comment-4750363-20130703214523/@comment-5643552-20130704044553

Mr.Zalgopasta wrote: Princess Platinum wrote: Mr.Zalgopasta wrote:

Princess Platinum wrote:

Sloshedtrain wrote: I still think we should still have anon editing at an extend. We must always assume good faith which this wiki hasn't really been following. Most anons that have edits so far were non-malicious and helpful.

I think were moving to hastily just because a few anons messed up some pages. Like Ben said, we have better tools and a large admin/mod/VCROC team to handle these kinds of things.

We should at least have anon editing for a month before we decide to get rid of it. I agree completely. A month may be a little long. Besides, call me a cynic, but the AGF thing is bull. We assume good faith, and the chat gets nuked. We assume good faith, and vandalism spikes.

It's not as if our actions aren't unprecedented. You only assume to an extent There's no real gray area here. No "extent" to which we assume good faith. One either makes it so that anons can edit or not.

Vandals will attack anything. It doesn't matter if it's an article, talk page, user page, or user talk. Whatever they can get their hands on, they will fuck up. It's their modus operandi. It's how they work. Disruption is disruption and that's their ultimate goal.

We have a thing called an "abuse filter", meaning we can filter anything and everything that anons do this wiki.