This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Several Anons like to troll because they think they can get away with it such as the one a this IP here; 75.47.237.140 the one here began trolling me simply because I said that Osama Bin Laden being playable in a CoD game would cause controversy due to him being responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center, afterwards he told me I was dumb because Laden was allied with the U.S and there was no proof he did it. Afterwards I proceeded to correct him and then he begins insulting me and telling me I will end up with a dead end job and calling me a "15 year old fanboy" for listening to my teachers in school(WTF how did SCHOOL get dragged into this?)now before you guys start telling me I am stupid I know that not all Anons are like this but a lot are because they think that we have no way of tracking them and unknown to them their IP adresses are recorded so we can block them, but even those that do know that does not stop them so I feel this wiki needs stricter policies concerning Anon posts. TheEpicShot 20:22, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what we could do, really. Most people with account don't bother to read policies, let alone anonymous editors. -- Sactage ^(talk) 20:32, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Block the Anons for a period of time? The basic solution? TheEpicShot 20:37, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

We already do that. Making a policy regulating it would be a waste of time. -- Sactage ^(talk) 20:39, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Lmao, i dont read the policies, i learn by experience and common sense. And i was there when that specific anon started trolling, it was just annoying as hell seeing his idioticy shine.DrkDragonz66 ^Talk 21:14, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Since it's on the same topic, I'll reply to the message you left on my talk here. Anonymous users are most likely not aware of policies. I'm sorry you got flamed, but you shouldn't take such offence from a flamer, because being offended is giving them what they want. We can easily deal with offending comments. It takes 2 seconds to delete them, and most are deleted quite quickly after they are made. There is no reason to restrict posting by all anons because you felt offended. I strongly oppose any segregation of usergroups when it comes to blog comments. --Callofduty4 20:39, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thing is if you read the posts he made you'll see WHY I was offended. TheEpicShot 20:41, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

All I can really say is this tbh:

— N7[T|C|P|A] 20:44, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Look, when it comes to anon posts that are flamebait, leave them alone.Unless you can think of a witty putdown which will silence the anon, don't do that. Like I do.AdvancedRookie 20:45, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Uhhhh... there's a tonne of users with over 1,000 edits who haven't even read the policies, what am I supposed to say? Block anons and new users until they read our policies? There's nothing like that which could or should be used in that manner; if a wikian doesn't want to make an account, that is their choice. I'm not going to even try to punish them for that, remember that "A wikia contributor" can take the shape of anyone, be they a troll or a honest editor. There's a few anons with more mainspace edits than some of the people on here with accounts. So, as CoD4 said above, strong oppose. Smuffin^{[citation provided]} 20:47, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Smuff and Callofduty4 said it all. — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 20:51, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have noticed that you do comment on blogs quite a bit, best thing is to read and not to get involved on them, as it can only start of trouble. Also, please remove the 'People I hate' section on your userpage, i'm not quite sure but it might count as a personal attack or something. — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 21:06, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree, having a hate section on your page probably isn't good. Unless those listed isn't anyone on the wiki. You should just have a friend section, like I do. Except nobody signs my friend list. Why do you people hate me?AdvancedRookie 21:10, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

I'm your friend now AR! :D — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 21:25, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yay! I have a friend!AdvancedRookie 21:29, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

w00t w00t! — Doc. Richtoffee ^{TALK | EDITS | CONTRIBS} 21:33, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

This whole debate reminds me much a a fourm we had ages ago, i will not dig for it but i remember only vaugly last time we tried this it did not work. Many good users begin as annons as i as well as many admins such as ImrllyBord did. 21:38, April 13, 2011 (UTC)~

Not a good idea. I started as an anon, and alot of other users did too. If anons are restricted, they may not feel the need to make an account. CoaZ^Talk 01:04, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Wait... if anything, shouldn't anons feel more pressure to create accounts if they're restricted? Poketape ^Talk 05:00, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'd imagine that would be the case in most circumstances. But we shouldn't punish all anons because of a few trolls - why tar them all with the same brush? I edited here as an anon for almost a year before I made my account, and I was always on my best behaviour (except for a brief incident involving the ATEFI which I won't go into ATM). Sgt. S.S. 20:54, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Per Callofduty4 and Smuff. As I've pointed out in a different forum, this is a very stereotypical thing to do, as I've seen many anons make fantastic, constructive edits. Nikolai Cannot Die 07:08, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

There's already a process for this problem to be handled with. The point of policies isn't to stop people from being non-constructive. It's a reference point for all editors to know what the boundaries and guidelines are, so that any action taken by an admin is consistent with the extent of the problem. You don't have to read the policies to be a productive editor, just as you don't need to know the law inside out to function as a citizen in the real world. Where people break the rules, however, they must handle the consequences regardless of whether or not they knew about the rules, which are clearly referenced on the wiki and shown in warning and block templates. In any case, anon posts are treated the same as posts from a registered user. That a few unregistered users break the rules does not mean they should all be regulated. --Scottie theNerd 18:35, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls is the only advice needed to be given here. 9/11 is an extremely controversial topic, and I would advise staying away from discussing it in the first place.

I will also echo what Scottie said about treating all blog posters equally, be they anon or registered. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:20, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

That's a problem to some users though - they feel an unduly need to comment with something stupid and patronising like "Wow, a smart anon!" whenever an anon makes a good point, or they like to assume all flaming and all trolling is done by anons. --Callofduty4 00:06, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

You see, the problem is that our policies cancel each other out. I mean, blocking them from blogs (I mean that only Registered contributors can post) and that would breach all editors are equal policy. However, letting them post and then start a flame war would be a breach of Don't feed the trolls. But, If they vandilise pages, we can't do very much against them, as that would breach the user treatment policy. And [vandilism] would breach the article policies, but then if we treat them harsh, that would be a breach of the User treatment policy. Or was my post just nonsenes?Reznov115 ^Talk 19:25, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following what you're getting at. Blocking from blogs? --Scottie theNerd 06:21, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

blocking these anons kinda screws up the motto "the wikia that anyone can edit" just stop them from going on talk pages and blogs and to only contribute to the actual mainspace. psn=clawdenx^{leave message here} 01:58, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself there. You say anons should be free to edit, yet you want to stop them commenting on blogs and editing talk pages. Also, with blog comments, the only option is "all or nothing" - anyone can comment, or no-one can comment. Sgt. S.S. 20:55, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Blogs and Talk Pages are areas where they often are in a positive and negative presence so stopping them from posting there kind of punishes those who do actually contribute positively to the conversation. Carbonite 0 15:46, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the wiki and administrators don't have much power on anons. There isn't really anything that we could do technically - it's simply the case where wiki users have to regulate and teach anons about certain restrictions and guidelines. I have no idea if an IP block or whatever could be a 'Final Choice', but as of now, only we can stop this sort of behaviour. Tsunami Volt 12:59, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

AGF violation much? Pierogi^Talk 11:17, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

You can't violate AGF... It's your personal opinion... _Sp3c^Talk_ 22:35, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

1. this will stop (mostly) the trolling since we can see who was trolling,
2. it will keep the blocked pages up to date
3. and it will stop anons stating that they said something when it was another anon, or when the others dont believe him

Ramirez! 21:42, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Then I assume you said that just to troll, and want Bohater to quit the wiki by telling him he's not right. I didn't violate AGF. You just said you can't violate it.
Enough proof you can actually violate it? Joeytje50^{talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA} 00:54, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

how about we stop anons from commenting/editing at all? and make a section where anons can make notes on pages that need editing, which could also be usefull for 'members' when a page is locked, like upcoming games, for editing—Unsigned comment was added by RemmeltFNFAL

COD:AEAE. elmo's ramblings 22:02, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

They don't fucking edit, they fucking chat with other people on the blogs... -- CakeMix^Saturday 07:09, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

No. I've seen anons edit plenty on the mainspace. Also, whether or not they chat on blogs is none of your concern, nor is it the concern of anyone. And please watch the profanities - this is the War Room, it's meant to be a serious discussion. Sgt. S.S. 21:13, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Anons do edit, and if they can talk in a civil manner with other people on the blogs, then there's no need to prevent them from doing so. Any offensive comments are just deleted anyway, eliminating the problem. This is why a usergroup dedicated to the removal of offensive comments should be created, it would simply make the whole deleting blog comments easier and more efficient, as more offensive comments would be caught in the "filter" of users dedicated to removing them.

I understand why people may think that anonymous users only seek to troll and flame and start problems, because plenty of anon comments are just that. However, I have seen poorer behaviour from people with registered accounts, so the problem is not only limited to anons. It's simply unfair to remove their right to comment just because of offensive comments which normally don't last long anyway and always are eventually deleted.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  12:40, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

DFTT, that is all. — -- mr_expert talk 21:35, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Forum Closed - Very old forum that died and then was revived, then died again. No consensus met to regulate anon posts.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  03:29, July 5, 2011 (UTC)