• A reminder that Forum Moderator applications are currently still open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Anonymous user registration on Bulbapedia

Disable anonymous user registration?


  • Total voters
    22

Zhen Lin

φιλομαθής
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
5,379
Reaction score
8
A situation has developed. As stated on the [bp=Bulbapedia:Administrator_noticeboard]administrator noticeboard[/bp], there is a persistent vandal who has made a sport of making sockpuppets to vandalise Bulbapedia. We know exactly what IP address he is coming from.

Here is the catch: one of the sysops is also behind the same university proxy server. There is no way to block that IP address without affecting him as well.

Therefore, I propose a radical solution. We are going to terminate anonymous user registration as we have done before in times of crises... but this time, we do not have any intentions of turning it back on.

There are about 600 registered users on Bulbapedia. While many of those would have come here by their own discovery, I think some of our best contributors came to know of Bulbapedia by word of mouth.

As Google has done with Gmail, I propose that we restrict user registration to a user-to-user invitation basis only. (Google is believed to have much the same rationale we had: to stop mass-registration of Gmail addresses by spambots.) This is simple enough to implement - a user will be able to register an account for another by going to Special:Userlogin, filling in the username and email address, and then clicking Create by email.

In addition, we are considering allowing users who do not have contacts to request one on BMGf.

It seems as if the terrorists have won - here we are discussing how to limit the freedoms of users for the ostensible reason of security. But I, for one, no longer have the patience to clean up after link-spammers and page-movers and other crude vandals. I am sure the other sysops will run out of patience one day soon.

Discuss.
 
Radical is definately the word here...

Part of me agrees with this and part of me thinks it is a bad idea. Half of my becoming a BMG member was registering to the 'pedia. I only arrived there after hearing about it at Wikipedia. And that was when registration was temporarily closed before...

My advice is to have registration link to an official thread on the forums. The only issue I can think of then is the possibletime factor involved (which can be off-putting). Most importantly, I think the priority should be to avoid alienating prospective contributors.
 
i think that, that would be a more sensible way. I came to join because they told me on Bulbacast. lol.
 
Which is an inteesting thought. I presume we'd still be allowing guest posting in that thread, but it may actually help to increase forum interest and activity.
 
i found bulbapedia all on my own. i would have to have found this awesome wiki that i would love to contribute to, and then not be able to just because it's just a circle of friends who can edit it.

plus people are going to start e-mailing everyone like "oh please please give me an invite" and it'll just be hectic.

NO.
 
Doesn't closing it off mean that it essentially becomes just another Website constructed by a team of staff (albiet a rather large one) and essentially destroy the entire point of making it a tool for everyone to use AND add too to keep it fresh and more a tool for the fandom in general than an actual front for a website and its staff?

Kinda defeats the entire point of Wikis in general if you ask me.
 
That's true.

On the other hand, the ongoing attacks really must be dealt with.
 
Doctor Oak said:
Doesn't closing it off mean that it essentially becomes just another Website constructed by a team of staff (albiet a rather large one) and essentially destroy the entire point of making it a tool for everyone to use AND add too to keep it fresh and more a tool for the fandom in general than an actual front for a website and its staff?

Kinda defeats the entire point of Wikis in general if you ask me.

Are you volunteering to keep it clean?

Did you even read my post in full?

It runs against most of the principles. On the other hand, we're just asking for some sort of human verification. Anyone already in the system can invite anyone else they know.
 
Maybe you can make it so just admins can move pages, because that seems to be the M.O. of the current problem-starter.
 
The vandal in question makes vandalistic edits, moves pages randomly and has recently decided he has a grudge on me.

The worst attack we have suffered involved vandalistic edits as well.

The long-running problem of link spam involves surreptitious edits.

Trust me, moving articles around isn't the only problem.
 
Do we really need to do this? Why not just make it so you have to provide a legitimate and unique email address for each new account? That would slow him down while still making it accessable for most people.
 
Well. Define 'legitimate and unique email address' and get back to me.

(For example, I have three, plus one more from school.)
 
I want a long term solution - preferably one which deals with vandals, link spammers and weird, unexplained accounts in one blow.
 
I think Zeta means that a user is required to provide an e-mail-address at registration and that he/she can't use an e-mail that has been registered already.
I also think that this would be a good idea and maybe it would be enough to stop the vandalists.
And if he/she has a domain which he/she can make new e-mails with, we could probably ban that with a wildcard like "*@domainnamethingy.com", right?
 
Yeah, I think that whitelisting would be good--perhaps a more general whitelist, though, or a policy which isn't quite so exclusive. For instance, adding ISPs to the allowable list, assuming they don't let anyone just sign up for an @.... address.
 
I don't think a whitelist would be good. There are just too many e-mail providers.
And only allowing e-mail-addresses which are at providers that don't make it possible to register a new address fast would block way too many people.
I'm sure there are a lot of trustworthy e-mail-providers that we don't even know of. And users who use e-mail-addresses that are provided by "not-so-trustworthy" providers and e-mail-addresses that they have at their own domain aren't necessarily users who will start vandalising the wiki after they successfully registered.
So please no whitelist for e-mail-addresses. I think we should just try what Zeta has suggested.
 
Last edited:
Please note: The thread is from 19 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom