User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Anons

Policy on Anons and this page (Archive 11)

I have boldly modified the policy here, so that anons cannot be made administrators (duh) and anons cannot nominate others (new). Of course, we believe in preknowledge of the law, so Wik's current nomination can stand, for what it's worth. But from here on out, I propose anons not be part of the process of voting/nominating here. Fuzheado 05:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support. ;) A long time coming, I think, since it stops not only anon trolls from nominating (and thus reduces clutter) and stops sock puppets... Dysprosia 05:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And Pumpie. Maximus Re x 05:35, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Support in part, Oppose in part. If you can nominate yourself, why can't an anon nominate you? As for anons not being made administrators, duh. -- Anthony DiPierro 05:36, 9 Feb 2004

Anons obviously cannot be administrators as there is no password involved. I think anons should be able to nominate anyone. silsor 05:39, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC) 05:49, 9 Feb 2004

Just noticed the voting clause. Anons should definitely be allowed to vote, there are some excellent regular contributors who have just never bothered to log in. silsor

I think anons should be allowed to nominate. If you want we can have a number of edits minimum though. Dori | Talk 05:46, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

What about nominations that are obvious trolls (case in point...) Pakaran . 05:49, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The problem with anons voting/nominating is that you cannot verify that it is even an individual (proxy server, dynamic IPs, etc.) so it's pretty useless to have anons involved in any meaningful way. This means you cannot even qualify them using the "Sock Puppet Avoidance Threshold". Fuzheado 05:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You can vote them down. You say what about trolls, I say what about those who don't want to register? It doesn't take much for a troll to register. Dori | Talk 06:03, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'd vote in favor of restricting nominations to logged in users. -- Infrogmation 06:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Without commenting on a general principle of anonymous users nominating people, I've removed this particular nomination, as the user's history reveals a good deal of general troublemaking. Update: and he's just now been banned for vandalizing other articles. --Delirium 06:44, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the nomination should have been removed, as it was supported by some people. That it was supported may show some people that that the user is supported by more people than they may imagine, although the peer pressure is to damn him. Secretlondon 07:52, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

It clearly says "Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nor can they nominate others. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system." Which part of that are you saying we should ignore, the nominating part or just the voting part or all of it? Morwen 08:03, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see that bit - I just saw a reversion war with the what feels like a cabal sometimes. Secretlondon 08:05, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure it should be noted that that part was added after the nomination: [1]. Fuzheado also mentioned this at the top of this section. Dori | Talk 13:29, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Morwen 18:22, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Before we get into a massive edit war here, let me remind contributors that any logged-in user can make a nomination. We don't actualy need to settle the "can an anon nominate" question right away as, for a nomination to be successful, there must be a clear consensus in favour if the user in question. That requirement, in turn, necessitates that a reasonable number of regular (i.e., logged-in) Wikipedins vote in favour of the nominee, and that suggests that at least one of those Wikipedians ought to be prepared to make a nomination. In other words, if the nomination is meaningful in the first place, sooner or later a logged-in user will make it. Tannin 07:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

PS: In other words, if a logged-in user cares to make a nomination (of Wik or of anyone else) then I would support retaining it. Tannin

But I now know I'll get lynched for it.... Secretlondon 07:59, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous votes (Archive 40)

Special:Contributions/208.1.137.98 -- this anonymous user has been adding apparent nonsense votes and decievingly signing them as "[[User:Dubya]]". Coffee 18:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed his votes and placed a notice on his talk page. --Durin 19:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Judging by his/her comments on Rx StrangeLove's talk page I doubt it will make much of a difference. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. But, better to treat neutrally first. I've seen vandals turn around and become productive editors. --Durin 19:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course and hopefully he/she will create an account and become a productive editor including voting on RFA's. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have an issue with Tony (he started an article about him, since speedied). Probably not a long term issue. Rx StrangeLove 20:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, probably not but still something to keep an eye on. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

IP 202.58.85.8 (Archive 41)

This vandal ip [2] is casting oppose votes on several rfa,s. Isn't that against policy? One the votes has been struck out already.--Dakota ^t ^e 08:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Since anons aren't supposed to vote anyways, I'd just strike all his contribs to this page, and add a note to his recent ban. The biggest pain however is that the anon voted on most, if not all the recent RfAs. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 08:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (updated 08:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

OK, now I'm on beer number umpteenth... (Archive 43)

but...seriously... What's the obsession with crossing out anon votes on RfAs? Everyone knows they don't count. Why antagonize anons (review WP:BITE)? I would like to recommend that people not strike anon votes by non-"proven vandals", as doing so not only BITEs newcomers, it casts unnecessary aspersions on anon editors' contributions to the process. Yes, we all know anon votes are viewed with extreme skepticism in WP domainspace, but I don't see that anything constructive is gained by slapping anons in the face by striking their votes. Let's just please trust the bcrats to do the job for which they've been selected. They can see an anon vote as such for what it is. That said, I have no problem with people pointing out that "this is X.X.X.X anon's 23rd edit" or "this unsigned vote/comment was made by X.X.X.X", but both of those are immeasurably less hostile than simply striking out comments or votes. WP:CIV applies in WP domainspace equally as it does in article and article_talk space, and this increasing trend toward slashing votes seems to be a violation thereof. Cheers? Catcalls? Tom e r ^talk 13:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Go have another beer :) --Durin 13:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Striking out indicates that something should not be read, but we have no policy of discouraging anons from commenting, and their comments should not be struck (except where the comment would also be struck/removed coming from a registered user). It is sufficient to note that the vote was cast by an anonymous user. It would also be fine, I think, to indent the comment so it doesn't appear in the numbered list. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that overstriking it is not appropriate. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Cheers ~~catcalls~~ Rx StrangeLove 01:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Support. Don't bite newcomers. Just tell them kindly on their talk pages that their votes don't count. --Tantalum T e lluride 18:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Good Idea, Tantalum T e lluride -- Eddie 06:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

/me rants on annons. (Archive 71)

Okay, this has been getting to me lately, before I begin: Wikipedia is not censored, Voting is evil. Recently i've noticed (Well its always happend) users striking out an anonymous users oppion (ie. "striking out anon !vote") -- Efectivley this is censoring and there may be some valid reason why a user would state there opinion anonymously (ie. a) They may want to remain anonymous and not get on the bad lists of those that may support the user up for RfA or vice-versa, b) They may be a some what active contributor who does not wish to have an account and/or has ran into the user who is up for RfA and would like to help build consensus and state there opinions; Are we trying to say only the oppinions of those people who wish to register have valid opinions and annons efetivley dont count?)

Now there are valid reasons for stopping some annons posting to RfA (ie. trolling) but all to often I see good users being stiken off the list; Efectivly if it is trolling then strike it out -- but if it is a good user offering valid reasons to help build a consensus then we should not strike them, I mean come on.. it's not a vote.

Anyway just my 2 cents.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that voting is evil (no matter what Wikipedia says about it), but I wholeheartedly agree that anons should have more of a say, not just in RfAs but the entire encyclopedia. There are good anon users out there like this guy, and I'm sure that there are many others. Just because they don't have a userpage or a long talk page doesn't mean that they are not active contributors. Even if you look at their edit count and see a low number, this does not mean they have only made these many edits. I can tell you that my IP address changes all the time. So, yes, I think we should allow anons to participate in RfA, although if we see an oppose vote such as "this user is a jerk and I'm suing Wikipedia if he becomes an admin" then, of course, delete it as you would any other. But if an anon leaves a vote that says "support. good edit summary usage, and contributions to articles. Unlikely to abuse the tools" why not let it stay? - Mike (Trick or treat) 18:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to tell if one person is voting (or !voting, or expressing an opinion, or whatever) more than once if they do so without being logged in. If someone makes two votes from different accounts which have both been reasonably active, there is a good chance of someone noticing something is up (similar editing habits, etc), but with only IP addresses to go on, no-body would even think to request a checkuser. Anons can comment on RfAs, in the comments section, but they can't vote, and their opinions shouldn't be used to gauge consensus (although others may use their comments to aid their own decision, which will count towards the consensus). --Tango 23:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, then Anons should not be able to vote on XfDs (nor should they be able to nominate anything for XfD...). I think this is very much worthy of a much larger discussion. Any suggestions where/what format? - jc37 23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There are key differences between AfD and RfA. AfD asks the question "do you have anything to contribute regarding the topic of this article?" It is entirely possible that someone who has never edit Wikipedia before chances on this article and knows an awful lot about it: enough to swing the debate decisively perhaps. This is not a function of their knowledge of any of the editors involved, nor of the process nor of the handling of the outcomes of the debate. They could know nothing Wikipedic at all, but still be of value to the AfD.

On RfA, on the other hand, some knowledge of what it is to be an admin, what admins do, how they are made and unmade and, most importantly, of the editor in question or of useful means to evaluate them. Someone totally new to Wikipedia necessarily lacks that understanding. Anons are, in the stupendously large majority, such a class of user. (There are exceptions, but they choose to be so in possession of this knowledge in advance.) It doesn't really matter what they know about Obscure Article X; it's not going to be of assistance to the RfA (except ultra-occasionally) whereas it could very well assist the AfD. The sociological differences are sharp between the two processes. Couple this with the fact that sockpuppetry gets much harder to easily spot once anons get involved and there are grounds enough for excluding them from RfA - making someone an admin is more serious an issue than deleting or not an article. -Splash - tk 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was that, since they cannot be accounted for, how can we allow them to join in the discussion, when so often (for better or worse) voting = "concensus". Of course they should comment, but they shouldn't count towards the final concensus, on either XfDs or RfAs. - jc37 01:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD is less voting based - the reasons given are more important. Lots of people giving the same reason doesn't count for as much as two people giving two distinct reasons (if those reasons are true and valid). I think the source of the difference is primarily the difference in number of participents - RfAs get dozens of votes, AfDs usually get 4 or 5. --Tango 11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)