In the section past trials of this idea were damaging, this sentence is unclear to me and I'm not sure how to fix: "Making it more clear that users could continue editing reduced the damage, but still led to a 15% decrease in productivity." What damage is it referencing? --Andicat (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Value of IP as a heuristic for vandal fighting
This is something I have heard community members use as an argument for the value of IP editing as a practice—it is pragmatically the case that some automated tools use IP edits as a heuristic and so do humans. Not sure this is a relevant argument here. --Andicat (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Clarifying the community response
Benjamin Mako Hill, your page either misunderstands or mispresents the community response.
The idea of blocking anonymous editing has been discussed by the community over the years. While there is a notable minority who advocate disallowing such edits, but there is a clear community consensus to allow users without accounts to edit. The topic is (or was) effectively resolved and dead.
The Foundation plan or proposal to convert IP editing to masked editing has gotten an overwhelmingly negative response from the community. If the Foundation ignores the community, if the Foundation and attempts a unilateral-deployment of masked editing, there is approximately a 100% chance that the community would block masked edits.
Your page says "A major theme of community responses to that proposal are suggestions to disallow contributions from users without accounts". That is incorrect. The community consensus explicitly allows contributions from users without accounts. The community responses were in the context of a reaction to the Foundation's plan or proposal. The community clearly won't accept masked editing. If the Foundation prohibits IP editing and the community prohibits masked editing, the combination would de facto be preventing users without accounts from editing.