The thing with anonymous editing is that it's more likely that vandals will edit maliciously because, think about it, if you were intending to just blanking pages as fast as you could, would you really make an account just to do that? Go through the process of selecting a username, putting an email, decoding the captcha, and then verifying your email? It's just not convenient when you're vandalizing wikis. However, it is convenient for users who want to add content to a wiki but don't actually want to make an account because it's just a passing thing. Like, it's the same thing as with vandals. If you're just going to do a few edits it's far more convenient not to go through the whole process of signing up. On both sides it's a matter of convenience, just both sides have different intent.
I think we should keep it so that anon users can continue to edit, because it will bring more people from the forums to the wiki when they want to make a few minor edits. Does it mean we have to look into every anon edit, yes, which isn't a lot of fun. But for the sake of the wiki and bringing editors I think we should keep it on. We just have to check anonymous edits, but I personally believe people should check all edits that are made.
All the bots I've seen are always a variation on the user's username. I've checked it out, though, and DragBot, LagmonsterBot, and DatamonsterBot show no results as being someone's username.
AnselaJonla wrote: A bot sounds good, and what Waxify says about getting a bot flag is something I second.
Bot flags are required for accounts that are meant to be bot accounts. Without a bot flag it will flood the recent changes when it runs.
What program will you be using for the bot? AutoWikiBrowser has always been great when I ran a bot.
Bots are great and I think it would be a good idea, just make sure to get bot rights so the edits don't show up in the recent changes