[moate]

>>If you want anonymous editing, providing it to some is strictly better than providing it to none.

Objectively: Not always. You're creating a tiered society. The argument is saying "Why do some people deserve freedom but not others?" It's great if you're part of the in-group, but exceedingly unjust if you're non-vandal bycatch due to the blanket bans. You can't have some democracy, it's all or none.

I'm unable to anonymously edit by default because I have T-mobile for my phone and internet services and there is a blanket ban on T-mobile IPs. This is the 3rd largest telcom in the US with about 108 million users. I'm going to assume that less than 1/10th of them are Wikipedia vandals, but a blanket ban has been put in place.

Explain how it's "good" that a random AT&T user can make an edit, but I (or another random T-mobile user) can't? Follow up, explain why making everyone who wants to edit register an account is a net bad if it's the only choice for millions of people?

*edited for typos

[Kim_Bruning]

It is good that a random AT&T user can edit anonymously. It is bad that you can't. The "but" clause is a trap. You should be able to edit anonymously too.

If trends continue, less people will be able to edit anonymously. This trend needs to be reversed so that as many people as possible can edit anonymously.