Board Thread:Site Policy/@comment-4750363-20130703214523/@comment-23780813-20130704050327

Mr.Zalgopasta wrote:

Princess Platinum wrote:

Mr.Zalgopasta wrote:

LOLSKELETONS wrote:

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. Alright. I'm all for a trial run. How does the filter work? Does it work as group thing? Erm... hehe it's very... particular about how it works (and rather mysterious too) as there is no technical documentation. Meaning there are no directions on how to use it. But I have devoted almost a month to learning how it works... and could (in theory) stop every single person from doing anything on the site in one line of code. Which is why you need to be SUPER careful when touching anything I make. Doing something wrong could bring all site activities to a screeching halt. But if careful it can be used for good. Believe me, I have no intentions of touching it. I'll glady trust you with that shit. Question, though. If we only let anons edit talk pages, how is that "assuming good faith" if we're restricting their editing "rights"? I ask this only because I don't believe in AGF. It is a warm up procedure, like getting used to the temperature of a swimming pool. We are slowly wadding in bit by bit. Right now anons can edit up to 150 bytes of a mainspace page.