UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing
|This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.|
Proposed Policy: Abuse of Anonymous Editing
We've clearly had a problem, for far too long now, with editors abusing the wiki's open editing system so they can be disruptive and generally waste the community's time. Second Opinion Please is the latest example; the talk page shows it's not a new problem. Therefore, I propose adding the following section to the Vandalism policy, under UESPWiki:Vandalism#Types of Vandalism:
- Abuse of Anonymous Editing
- Deliberately hiding or falsifying your identity in order to make unwanted, controversial, or inappropriate comments is not tolerated. Regular UESP contributors are expected to contribute using their own account whenever participating in any community discussions. Therefore, an edit can be treated as vandalism if a site editor judges that it meets all three of the following criteria:
- The edit is made by an anonymous IP or newly created account (one with no significant contribution history).
- There is reason to believe that the person making the edit is familiar with UESP (e.g., person refers to community members or site policy).
- The edit has no constructive value and/or is likely to be disruptive.
This would imply that such edits could be reverted on sight, and the anon could also be warned and blocked, if necessary. The wording is deliberately somewhat fuzzy: the targeted editors are already trying to exploit site policy, so they will inevitably try to take advantage of any loophole. As for including it on the vandalism page, as far as I'm concerned, these types of edits do far more damage to the site and its community than someone replacing a page with obscenities, so let's start dealing with them accordingly.
All community members are welcome to provide feedback; it helps if you can start your comment with Support, Oppose (or Comment, etc.) as appropriate.
|Consensus: None. Votes were roughly equal. In the absence of consensus, existing policy stands. ‒ Robin Hood↝talk 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)|