Wikipedia talk:Allow anonymous users to start their own user pages

Nice Idea[edit]

The only problem I could see with this would be the fact alot of people now have dynamic i.p.s or use services like AOL. This could cause the following:

Users getting other peoples user pages.
Wasting disk space with dynamic i.p.s

I personally see no problem with the current setup, I mean if someones going to be a longterm editor they should make a login and if they can't just request a user to make a blank one for them. I don't think its needed that much. - iGod 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is all that needs to be said. Many, many IPs are dynamic, and there is no way to link them with specific individuals. User pages would never really represent the user of that IP. ~MDD 46 96 22:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gggggg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.147.40.77 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crackpot idea[edit]

IMHO, and I'll try to formulate this very friendly, this is a nonsensical idea. It starts from a false premise: most anonymous users don't have a fixed IP. Further it would be a bad idea to "redirect" an IP user page to the page of a subscribed user: even if today you have a fixed IP, and so could claim that IP to be referring to yourself and nobody else, what would happen if in the future you'd change IP for whatever reason? Linking IP's to users is at wikipedia a very exceptional procedure, reserved to a few sysops that operate the "checkuser" functionality, which they can only use in the case of suspected sockpuppet abuse (not all sockpuppetism is "abuse"!) - you'd burden these sysops with checking whether the "claim" you make on a certain IP is justified (and they would have to re-check this on a regular base). No, linking IP's to users should in no case be performed by anonymous users. A few anonymous edits can happen to anyone, best not to try "repair" them in this fashion. What you could do is leave a message on the talk page of the articles you accidently edited anonymously, that you take responsibility for edits with IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, performed between (date, time) and (date, time). Further, if performing an anonymous edit accidently, you'd discover very rapidly you're not logged in: "minor edit" and "watch page" checkboxes don't show up when editing in that mode, etc. --Francis Schonken 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your alternative idea for "repearing anonymous edits" is cute, but would be unlikely to make it easy for anyone to work out who the "repaired anonymous edit" was made by, certainly less easy than a simple redirect, and would rarely be useful to anyone reading the talk page. 2. Most anonymous users don't have a fixed IP, but many do. The top 1000 list of wikipedians includes anonymous IP's (who actually do useful edits). 3. You don't need a fixed IP for my suggested fix to work. 4. There are no real reasons why an IP should not be able to edit their user page, as they were previously able to do, and this was never found to be a problem, and was not the reason for the policy that now prevents it. 5. I'm pointed out this problem not because I wanted policy change, but because it is obviously a bug. —Pengo 16:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you claimed on the VP that you had responded to all the objections, I thought I'd respond to your responses, as I feel they are not sufficient or persusaive. Your fix, as you have explained it so far, would not work if the IP was used by different accounts at different times. If you dispute this, please explain how it would work. In any case, the confusion is that you think you should do the edit connecting the ip and the registered user while identified as the IP. This is wrong; the identification that has a reputation is the logged in account; it is the one who should identify what edits were actually done by (the person running) it. If some IP address made a claim that they were really a logged in account, I'd treat it as more than likely vandalism - IPs have no passwords(on Wikipedia, that is), while the reverse, when a logged in user (especially one with a long, known track record) claims that certain edits by an IP were actually the (person behind) the logged in user, that is meaningful, as it means that the person with the password to the logged-in account is making this claim. Your solution is backwards. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My "solution" was only an example, and of course to verify the identity it would only make sense for both the "IP user" and the "logged in user" to edit the page and verify they are the same person.

Regarding how the continuity would work, it doesn't have to. While IPs have no passwords, Wikipedia does record timestamps, making it possible for an anonymous user to associate some user-related text with a number of edits they have made at some period of time. They would not expect or be expected to maintain it over time. Again: This is not new functionality. It's pointing out an inconsistancy in Wikipedia. There are IP address-related pages on wikipedia that the History page links to, yet the user of that IP address cannot edit that page. Something is wrong. Wikipedia does not behave as a user would reasonably expect it to. I've proposed what I see as the simplist solution (Let the user edit the page). There are other possible solutions (eg. Do not link to the User:xx.xx.xx.xx pages). I don't care, I'm pointing out a bug, an inconsitancy, a broken area in wikipedia. I'm not arguing policy. —Pengo 07:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPs don't need a user page. People who want a user page should register. Registering is an easy and painless process anyway. So there is no need for what is being proposed here. R adiant _>|< 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If someone wants a User page, they need to become a User. — Catherine\^talk 21:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPs already have user pages. If you disagree with that, then complain elsewhere. Whether IPs should or shouldn't have user pages is not being debated. — Pengo 16:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of IP user pages, as is said below - IPs don't have User pages! Accidentally, pages of the form User:123.456.789.000 have been editable, but this no more means that IP addresses have User pages than the fact that Template:Category/Talk_Wikipedia:Usertalk:Talk:Not a page.jpg is editable means that we have a Template:Category/Talk_Wikipedia:Usertalk:Talk namespace. Considering the confusion this seems to have caused you (and probably many other people), we should clarify this (maybe by running a bot across all the possible pages, putting a template on them, and protecting them), but one accident does not require another. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

IPs do have "user pages". Template:Category/Talk_Wikipedia:Usertalk:Talk:Not a page.jpg is not linked to from within Wikimedia's software when "IP" 123.456.789.000 edits a page, while the page User:123.456.789.000 is. (assuming an IP address could look like that). I did not get an IP "user page" by typing the user address myself, but by following automatically generated links when viewing history. These pages are associated with the IP address and are automatically linked tothat associated IP address "User" page. —Pengo 07:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point[edit]

Anonymous users always had the ability to begin their own "user pages". This was not taken away because it was being abused, but by accident when they were prevented from starting new articles.

Please don't let the use of the term "user page" throw you. I do not expect anonymous users to build little home pages or do anything different to what they have always done.

With the current (new) policy: new anonymous users have the ability to edit their user page, but not to start it. Only other (signed-on) users have the ability to start an anonymous user's user page. This is inconsistant and stupid policy.

I'm not requesting for a new feature that never existed: I'm asking to fix what has been broken.

If you want to argue that IP addresses shouldn't have user pages, that is a different debate. Anonymous users already have user pages, they simply cannot be the first to edit them. They cannot edit them due to an oversight when enacting new policy.

Anonymous users already have user pages, and I have already given an example of a use for one. They are not new. Please reconsider this broken policy.

Why should an anonymous user's page work like this? It is stupid and inconsistant. If anonymous users are going to have user pages, they should be allowed to edit them at any time.

—Pengo 16:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view of the community, anonIPs only accidentally had user pages. It never was particularly important to the community that they be able to put anything there, and now a software change has made them inconvenient to use. Not a big deal. I suspect they only had user pages because it proved very useful for them to have talk pages so they could be told to stop vandalising or to get a user account, and the software tends to think in terms of entry-talk pairs. Let the anons register if they want freer editing. --Improv 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"With the current (new) policy: new anonymous users have the ability to edit their user page, but not to start it. Only other (signed-on) users have the ability to start an anonymous user's user page. This is inconsistant and stupid policy." Agreed, it's inconsistant and stupid, and the inconsistency and stupidity should be fixed by eliminating 'user' pages for what is roughly analogous to a phone booth, so they can't be created by signed-on users either. Fixing inconsistency by compounding stupidity is usually not the best plan. Aumakua 09:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]