Forum:IP Editing

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > IP Editing
Note: This topic has been unedited for 5593 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


This is a continuation of a debate that was started over here. This forum's purpose is to discuss--seriously, mind you all--the advantages and disadvantages of allowsing IPs to edit here. Some of the various points and counterpoints already given can be found in the prior forum topic--go there for details.

I have made three sections, Pros, Cons, and Debate. Arguments supporting allowing IPs to continue to edit will go under "Pros," those that argue against allowing IPs to continue to edit will go under "Cons," obviously. Debate between the two sides will go under "Debate." Please, only serious posts, if you all can manage. Debate away. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pros

The current President of the United States of America started out as an IP of the United States of America. True story. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • An IP is just a user without a name. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • IPs are known for contributing just as much good as they are purported to contribute bad. -RAHB 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The "problem" attempted to be solved by getting rid of IPs is hardly significant, and the "solution" is far from all-encompassing. -RAHB 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As a wiki (and to a lesser degree, a Wikipedia parody), Uncyclopedia should remain openly editable to all. -RAHB 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The ease of registration and assumption that any good-intentioned user would do so is irrelevant and unfounded, and also has little influence on whether an IP will make a good contribution. -RAHB 03:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Banning all IPs because some are bad is grossly disproportional punishment. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Not all vandals are IPs and not all IPs are vandals. Vandals, and only vandals, earn a ban. Hence, banning all IPs hurts those innocent of any crime just as much as it hurts the guilty, making a mockery of the very concept of Justice. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Users who start out editing as IPs might never become users at all if IPs are banned. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Banning IPs does not ban vandals. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For some unknown reason, a good amount of internet users feel uncomfortable with registering for an account. Perhaps it's that they don't want to tie themselves down to a single identity, as one Uncyc user said once. Perhaps it's a number of things. The simple point is that not everyone who will do good things necessarily has the desire to register. It's merely a choice. -RAHB 03:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A username provides just as much anonymity as does an IP address on Uncyc. Those who are afraid of being found out have no possibility of being sabotaged by their registration, and therefore are unthreatened by concept of editing un-anonymously. -RAHB 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Welcome to Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Uncyclopedia, like comedy, sinks or swims based on how open it is. Comedy, like Uncyclopedia, chafes under the Iron Heel of authoritarian authority. Comedy, unlike Uncyclopeda, thrives under that chafing, as it gives Comedy a Tragedy to satirize. Uncyclopedia should not be one of the Tragedies that Comedy needs to satirize. Ergo, to prevent chafing, to avoid being a punchline to its own jokes, to avoid being meta in a bad way, Uncyclopedia should (nay, must!) be free and open to all. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Per all of the above pros, + one of the best articles I've read here has been written by IP:s - not mine, I just added the images quickly. What mars it a bit is I couldn't come up with anything better. -- Style Oranssiviiva.jpg Guide 10:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cons

Paragraph Version

The current President of the United States of America was thought to be foreign, and so quite properly was asked for his credentials before being sworn in. He provided them with little effort. True story. --Clemens177 03:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If we do not let IPs post or edit, it would then take them ninety seconds of effort to post or edit, IF and ONLY IF, their purpose was legitimate. But if their purpose was to vandalize, it would take them that same ninety seconds over and over again, each time they were banned.

Yes, I do understand that some lifeless dips have time to register endlessly. And yet I know that some who vandalize do not wish to spend that much time. So having IPs read only, would deter SOME vandalism.

I have heard it claimed, with a straight face, that there are hordes of anonymous elves out there who love to come by in the night, and without registering or signing in, correct all our articles out of the goodness of their hearts. Somehow, it is claimed that if we made these "brownies" register, they'd all scream in horror and never return.

We are thus to simultaneously believe that those who are about destruction love to register endlessly...and those who love to create are frightened to do so one time.

Truth is, registration will deter some vandals, and the only do-gooders it would deter would be those who found ninety seconds of effort to be too much. Which if it is too much for them, I wonder then how much good they were actually doing.

--Clemens177 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulleted Version

  • Banning IPs would almost certainly reduce both vandalism and the low-quality articles that clog up the VFD queue. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Considering the fact that VFD hasn't been filled up in a long time, that isn't even a valid point. Plus, if an article was vandalised, that doesn't qualify it to be deleted. And finally, ICU and QVFD catch 96% of all bad new articles. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If vandals had to make an account each time they vandalized something, they would be much less willing to vandalize. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There is one really bad vandal here right now, and he makes accounts. I don't see why you're even mentioning this, since it isn't really a big issue. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Most IP edits are crap. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Or they simply don't have your superior sense of humour. Or it could just be that you don't like anyone editing your articles. I know that feeling. We all do. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, many IPs do make postive contributions. However, any IP who is willing to take the time to make a significant, positive contribution is also likely willing to take the 90 seconds it would take to make an account. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Really? Well, any IP that is willing to take the time to vandalise is also likely willing to take however long it is to make an account (or several hundred). Plus, where the fuck are you all getting this 90 seconds? Quit saying an exact time cause you can't fucking prove it! Also, I like numbers that are divisible by 7. Say 91 seconds if you must say an exact time. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If users had to make the additional investment of making an account, more might actually stick around, by virtue of having made that investment (an admittedly weak hypothetical point, but at least it beats out "an IP is just a user without a name"). —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh... Statistics indicate there are 109,979 registered users. Only 1,890 are active. They aren't more likely to commit to editing at all. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In short, banning anon. editing wouldn't solve everything (not by a longshot!), but it would reduce many of the site's problems enought to warrant serious consideration. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't even a point, but I'll elaborate. I realize you've created this whole rewriting project thing and all, but you aren't one of the ones who deals with vandals when they're actually in the act. I am and it isn't really an issue. You guys are blowing it way out of proportion. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A test run and/or beta version of the wiki in which a temporary run-through of the proposed changes were to take place and be thoroughly tested for pros and cons would hurt nothing, and provide needed insight into the situation. -RAHB 03:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • My theory of banning the top contributors is proven. It's called the extinction of the dinosaurs/rise of the mammals. We should try it before we try this other thing. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Let's do both. Seriously. I'm more intrigued about whether or not this will yield any solid discovery, not necessarily the ones we predict, but more whether anything in general will happen unexpected. -RAHB 03:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Your dinosaur theory is flawed, or at very least superceded by another, much more all-encompassing theory called "Survival of the Fitest," the tenets of which would support my side of the debate moreso than yours. If an IP isn't fit enough to take the time to register, they're not fit enough to edit on Uncyc. So there. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
          • But my theory isn't superceded, since that isn't the proper spelling of that word. American spelling is wrong. Webster changed the spelling of words just as an act of rebellion towards Britain. Seriously. Also, you misspelled fittest, too. Now that the unbelievably minor issue of correct spelling has been addressed, my idea suggests a "Survival of the Fittest" kind of scenario as I suggest the remaining editors after the first week will not be vandals but good writers. Vandals have three reasons why they vandalise: Spite, Notoriety, and Humour. Requiring the IPs to register won't stop the first to reasons at all. The third reason implies they think they're being funny, even if you don't think they're funny. They are the ones you seem to have issue with, just because they like memes and whatnot. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to edit. They're simply misunderstood and probably won't edit if they get reverted more than two or so times. Just saying. Your sense of humour isn't any better than theirs. I'll stop now before I piss everyone off. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 04:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Troublingly, an extinction would lead to an flowering of the vandal population, much as the KT event lead to the rise of mammals. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
              • None of this matters of course, since we'll all eventually die out anyways. And then this planet shall belong to the cockroaches! -RAHB 04:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
              • You're wrong there, Modus. In my theory, most vandals will get bored and quit after a week. Either that or they'll quickly learn that they aren't funny, and they'll become great authors, as if they're adapting to their environment. Also, after humans die out, felines shall rule (as long as we don't kill them when we kill ourselves). MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 04:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More Bullets

  • The points "some users are uncomfortable..." and "a username provides just as much..." of the oppostion's arguement are contradictory. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    It's not your choice whether they do or don't sign up. Nor should it be, any more that it should be your choice to ban them from editing before they've done anything at all, much less anything wrong. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    By those two points, my meaning was not that users are uncomfortable due to lack of anonymity. I clearly state that "for some reason" they are uncomfortable. I don't know why it is, but it is merely a decision people make, often without having to think about it. It has nothing to do with conscious thought of the difference between editing as an IP or as a registered user. The username providing as much anonymity is an entirely different point that would matter to a group of people who do worry about that sort of thing consciously. -RAHB 07:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If users had to register before being able to edit, the entire "some users are uncomfortable about making an account" issue would be nullified. To give a bad example, in high school gym class, when given a choice to swim, 50% of the kids opt out because of the mild inconvience and discomfort. When everyone is forced to swim, this problem is all but solved. Having spent four of the last five years of my life in high school, I know all about this example. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • A fantastic point and metaphor, but I wonder whether we really want to be forcing people to do things like that on Uncyclopedia. It feels more authoritative, and less like a community that way. -RAHB 03:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the opposition claims that vandalism is insignificant. However, one of their arguements in favor of their position is that registration would scare away users willing to edit and yet unwilling to make accounts. This is something that happens far less often than vandalism, and is therefore, logically, far more insignificant. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't understand where any of this "scaring away" stuff is coming from. If people are scared of Uncyc, so be it. They should probably not edit. That's really not a problem at all. The argument is that the people who want to edit as IPs should simply be able to. The argument that some people are uncomfortable registering is not trying to say that we should not make them so we don't scare them away, but it is merely justification for why they don't always register. -RAHB 03:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • When I first came to Uncyc to try to edit an article I was blocked - Range blocked by todd. Even account creation was blocked :(. I was scared away. Then I came back. Then i changed my sig. Several times. Then, yah. User:Zheliel/sigz2 04:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Debate

Clemens, can we have big paragraphs like that down in the debate area and keep merely the raw points in the pros and cons sections? That's why they're there. -RAHB 02:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a legitimate debate elsewhere, in which you had big paragraphs yourself. Having pandered to you to the extent of Guild creating another forum, and me actually repeating myself here, the coddling now ends. Debate if you can, or whine about more unessentials if you have nothing constructive to say. My cons were cons, and were listed in the cons quite succinctly. If they were longer than needful, it was due to me knowing my audience. You. --Clemens177 03:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, you're hardly making your point any more desirable to follow by simply insulting anyone who disagrees with you. I never told Guildy to create another forum, he merely did. And I think big paragraphs and lengthy explanations are all well and good, and are very necessary, but in the interest of keeping the page clean and easy to follow, I figured we may make things more well formatted this time around. Do whatever you want though. I suppose it's not my place to police this forum anyways, being it was created by Guildy. -RAHB 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Dammit, this is meant to be civil. Now be civil! —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, RAHB, it was not your place. I see that besides complaining the more, though, you've yet to address any of my points. But I am the rude one. Uh huh. In any case, I'll answer the stuff in the "Pro" section, now.
  • An IP is just a user without a name.

No, an IP is a person who doesn't care enough to take ninety seconds of time to register, but is then assumed to be willing to spend endless amounts of time doing good works for us. Hardly likely.

  • IPs are known for contributing just as much good as they are purported to contribute bad.

I doubt that. But let it be true. They then need only invest ninety seconds of additional time, and only once. If that's too much for them...than how much good were they really doing?

  • The "problem" attempted to be solved by getting rid of IPs is hardly significant, and the "solution" is far from all-encompassing.

The problem is noticeable, and obviously of concern to some members, and clearly from the discussion, an issue of concern for a LONG time. I think things that trouble a variety of members for a long time are significant, but that's just me. The solution is not claimed to be all encompassing, merely something that will help a bit. And obviously it would.

  • As a wiki (and to a lesser degree, a Wikipedia parody), Uncyclopedia should remain openly editable to all.

I was not aware that a valid arguement was, "Others with the same problem have ignored this obvious partial solution, so we should, too!" I still am not aware that that is valid. --Clemens177 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the last topic, and I suppose I have yet to make my own opinion validadted. I'm not going to wildly insult RAHB for no apparent reason, but i'm going to refute a few of his arguments. I agree with one of Guildy's statements to see how it goes. Not everything has to be completely permanent, and starting something temporarily will give us a better view of what we should do. For example: the domain name change was one of the biggest fuck ups in Uncyclopedia history, primarily because Wikia gave no implication that they were going to do it (in 2005, they even said they wouldn't) until they dropped the A-Bomb on us. If we did a beta of an IP-free encyclopedia for about a week or so, and then unprotected it, we could look at the changes and see whether it did good or bad. Again, i'm not saying we should lock the wiki permanetly, let's just see how it goes. Saberwolf116 03:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Making a beta-wiki of the suggested changes sounds like a magnificent idea to me actually. -RAHB 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To Clemens (edit conflict): "I see that besides complaining the more, though, you've yet to address any of my points. But I am the rude one. Uh huh." - I fail to see how my supposedly not addressing any of your points (which I have actually taken the time to address on numerous occasions today) makes me the rude one, as you seem to be insinuating. What I am trying to bring to this debate is civility, and you seem to be unwilling to allow for the possibility that there is more than one solution, your own solution. While others here are making an honest effort to interact like intelligent human beings, all you've managed to accomplish today is reusing several canned phrases (if I hear the words "90 seconds" again I will snap) and copious insulting and negative insinuation toward those who oppose your point of view. I'm sorry, but I have very little reverence for this style of debate. Truth is, you've brought some very interesting points to the table, but you've done so in such a "high and mighty" flourish, that I really have a hard time allowing myself to commend you for their validity. Not that validity = correctness, and I think that is true on both ends, but you are getting nowhere by conducting yourself in the manner you are. I like this forum more because it allows us to stick to just the facts. To list the pros and cons and let the decision be made over contemplation on those ideas. Not based upon who can treat the other like a smellier pile of shit. -RAHB 03:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RAHB, do you think the community should vote on the idea of a 2 week beta-wiki or somesuch? I think it's an acceptable compromise, and we might be able to have a better debate if we have past experiences to call upon. Saberwolf116 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I doubt there even needs to be much of a vote over that kind of a thing, since it would be off of the main wiki. The thing we've got to find out about is how we would create it. I think sannse might be able to help us out when it comes to creating a beta version of Uncyc. Honestly I have no idea how to work that kind of thing out, but I do think it's a great idea that we should probably go through with. -RAHB 03:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, i'll drop her a line on her talk page and ask her to weigh in. Saberwolf116 03:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
To RAHB - you've been pretty high and mighty yourself, and with less reason than anyone I know. I can smell a troll from here, as you keep harping and whining and pretend misunderstanding what would be obvious to any sixth grader while playing the victim all the while. Buzz off, loser, you aren't worth more of my typing. My valid points, for those with minds, are there to see. Oh, and, just for you "Ninety Seconds". It wouldn't have been repeated so much if you weren't too busy being a troll to have got. --Clemens177 03:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Guild, you're right, their wrong, and you'll lose anyway. Get out now, for mark my words, besides being trolled, you're going to get nothing constructive out of this, for the very reasons I stated elsewhere. You'll note that even now, Troll RAHB hasn't bothered answering any point, though he's wrote a very "big paragraph" on a non-debate issue. --Clemens177 03:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Clemens, that's uncalled for. Even if you believe me and yourself to be right, that's no reason to belittle the opposing viewpoint, or personally insult someone, for that matter. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha, "Troll RAHB", you fucking wish. What the hell am I here for? I REALLY have nothing to add to this conversation..... --Redlips10.gif Roman Dog Bird I hope you know I pack a chainsaw 03:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
(HUGE EDIT CONFLICT) You'll notice that, by civil conversation and logical conclusion, Saber and I have come to an idea that could have very positive repercussions in the furthering of your own cause. I've addressed a few of the points in the cons section, I've spoken numerous times with Guildy, and I've certainly given him a great deal more respect than yourself. I've tried only to make this conversation easy to follow and civil, and yet you have made every effort to continue contention. And now, after all that effort, you've announced an open ultimatum towards yourself and your own side, in assumption that you're going to just lose. "I'm such a martyr for my cause! Wo is me! No one understands!" I can think of a name for that, but I'm above such silly accusations. I'm for finding a resolution to conflict, not for proliferating it. And the resolution right now looks a lot like the whole beta wiki idea. If you can come up with a better compromise, go ahead. Otherwise, go on ahead and wallow in your illusion of a world in which you are the misunderstood purveyor of ultimate wisdom. -RAHB 03:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
RAHB (presumably) talking about penises and a discussion that goes nowhere and wont change anything. I love this place. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent OZ! Noobaward.jpg Wotm.jpg Unbooks mousepad.PNG GUN.png 07:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we just...

...block IPs from editing the main site for two weeks? What will a beta accomplish, besides being a whole lot of work? —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think two weeks is a good amount. Like said above, if any are serious about making good edits, they'll make an account. Staircase CUNt 03:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I know. Pretty obvious, isn't it? —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 04:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm for either a beta wiki or a temporary main wiki change. Saberwolf116 04:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The main reason I'd support a beta wiki over a test on the main wiki is that a test on the main wiki would have a lot more holding it up, what with voting and more contention on the matter. Creating a beta would be quick and simple, there would be no moral contention because it's not an immediate alteration of the main site. A fair vote on making the main site non-IP-editable would take quite a while (which isn't necessarily a problem I suppose). But then again, the beta wiki idea probably wouldn't provide an entirely accurate depiction of what would happen on wiki either (on the matters of both sides of the debate). Perhaps have the beta wiki test go as the arrangements for a main site change are made, depending on how easy/difficult it is to actually make a beta. Also, as far as I know, all of these ideas require wikia staff involvement, so perhaps approaching them on the matter would also help to see which is the best idea. -RAHB 04:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I hit sannse up on her talk page, and i'm hoping she'll respond here. A beta wiki might work, but the main problem would be directing the IP traffic to that wiki as opposed to this one. Saberwolf116 04:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my concern, which is why I think we should just apply it to the main page, provided it isn't too much trouble. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 04:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna turn in for the night, so i'll check on this in the morning and see if we've come up with a conclusion. Saberwolf116 04:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with ya there. Going to read some Against the Day, and then enjoy these next two days off from that hellhole job of mine. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 04:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict: two) We'll see what sannse has to say I suppose. I do think we should give warning of some kind to that sort of thing before it happens. But then again, saying "you have to register to edit now, but that will change in two weeks" really isn't going to influence "normal" and natural simulation of what would happen in that situation. I hate to suggest more of this, but perhaps we should lay out the pros and cons of this idea as well. I think it's the most logical solution to this debate, and an overall fantastic idea in its own right, but it's one of those things that has to be executed in the right way or the whole thing could just be for naught. -RAHB 04:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I also have a comment

I haven't followed this debate...at all, really, but I am dropping by to say this: Whatever the fuck you guys do, chill out. It's not the end of the world if IPs continue to edit or stop editing. It's just the internet. Relax. (Relaxing means not calling admins trolls) - T.L.B. Baloon.gif WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:53, Jun 22

I'm with Leddy. Let's just relax. —Sir SockySexy girls.jpg Mermaid with dolphin.jpg Tired Marilyn Monroe.jpg (talk) (stalk)Magnemite.gif Icons-flag-be.png GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 07:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion: Let's do whatever RAHB wants to do

  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Beta-wiki. IronLung 04:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Either Beta or Main. (also RAHB rocks) -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!)
  • Against Just do what I said to do for a full month. And not just on a beta-Uncyclopedia, either. Once my theory is put to a test, we won't have to block IP editing because the IPs will have adapted and evolved into great writers. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 05:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Against, but in a different way than Dexter, 'cause I'm a insufferable prick. IP vandalism isn't the problem it's being made out to be. Bad IP edits would be exactly as bad if they were forced to sign up to edit (but there would be less of them. Less good edits, too). Uncyclopedia is egalitarian, dagnabit; I don't even want to "experiment" with the Police State. If you want to punish IPs for being IPs, fine, just don't do it here on this wiki that anyone can edit. I've said my piece. Carry on. (Geez, I feel like Rangeley, but against other Uncyclopedians instead of Wikia) Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 08:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Against Let's dance the tango instead! -RAHB 09:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why this is not going to happen before we get some serious voting for this idea

As far as I see we have about what, three - four people talking about this issue, out of them about 2-3 supporting this idea? This idea comes up every six or so months and is being dropped every six or so months. This is a massive policy change that effects the whole nature of the wiki - for the worse. IPs were always a part of this place, and as far as I'm concerend they should always remain a part of this place. Why is that the everyone think it's such a bad idea to have IPs? So what, we have a couple of more idiots to ban? Note that the latest idiot comes back as an account holder, not as an IP. What else? Quality, for the Nth time - screw quality. SCREW QUALITY. We will always have articles that don't appeal to some people, that's not a valid point. VFD? What about VFD? It didn't reach it's limit for decades, the people around here dropped the idea of FFW for nearly two years now. So what about it exactly?


In short, before we get a serious majority for this issue, I'm Against this whole idea and I'm Against any sort of testing, beta wiki or otherwise before we get this kind of support.


And as a final point, although we might some see some decline with disturbances if this is being set in place, but could anyone quantify how many people will say - fuck it, I don't want to give me email and details to wikia, I can live without contributing to this wiki. And yes folks, we're going back to the original argument - this is a wiki. It's not yours. It's not mine. It's everyones. IPs are part of this "everyone".

So please, before we have a vast majority supporting this, no "test wikis" or "test runs". ~Jewriken.GIF 07:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping you would get here soon. I like your new cape... -RAHB 07:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not even talking to you, apparently you're some sort of troll. And to think of all the happy hours we spend together! ~Jewriken.GIF 07:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Pff! People see horns on my head and a bed I'm sleeping in underneath a bridge, and all of a sudden everyone cries "Troll! Troll! Troll!" Did it ever occur to any of them that I could just be a terribly deformed homeless person? /me sobs uncontrollably -RAHB 07:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I so totally agree with Mordillo here. This is something that comes up every once in a while, and goes away again. A couple of people are in favour of it, and have made their views abundantly clear. But there is nothing like a consensus here - apart from those couple of people, hardly anyone has piped up in favour of this at all. I don't want to get drawn into what on the surface of it is a long debate, but essentially seems to have consisted of people re-stating their points again and again with slightly different words. My own perspective is that losing a lot of contributors because we're doing something that might deter a few vandals is counter-productive, particularly while there are people happy to do maintenance, and rollback buttons, and watchlists and the like. I don't intend to repeat that ad nauseum to all the points made above, and all that will be made subsequently. Let's just all go write some more articles, huh? --UU - natter UU Manhole.gif 08:33, Jun 22

Against though I can't be bothered to read what you guys said. Again, I say "Fisher Price". Mr Zhe-mel-talki-signe-singaporel-bling Brute! 08:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Seeing as the General Will Seems to Be Against the Idea...

...I say fuck it. I'm not going to change all of your minds, nor am I going to attempt to. Whatever. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes, the old standby, apathy. Good to see you're back my old friend. Woody On Fire! Wood burning.gifTalking Woody Stalking Woody 14:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

NOW WAIT ONE GOSH DARN MINUTE! I have many opinions regarding this issue!

It's true, I do!   Le Cejak • <14:41 Jun 22, 2009>

[Servers and Blocking IPs]

It is obvious what this place is when one peruses it and thinks about contributing. It's for fun, primarily. It's a writer, or un-writer's playground and dare I say it's a place where lurkers can take what they like for their legitimate commercial pursuits if desired?? "Commons" rights? What rights are those. The more sensitive around here should try to get a real writing job and see what editors, real editors, think of their masterpieces. Just a thought.

Plus, if someone wanted to get around banned IP's all they need to do is use a proxy server, which is what most trolls do anyway, all over the net, every day. Real people also use them to thwart government intervention in their life, which isn't a bad thing, nor would it likely be an uncommon thing for the kind of people attracted to uncyclopedia to begin with.

Isn't the "history" function on each account supposed to help one out if the item is removed?

In closing on this first point, I would like to add that this isn't the place for big egos. I actually saw someone asking for respect of copyright when they sign that away when they agree to the terms here. Hello?

Can you hear me now? Good! Woody On Fire! Wood burning.gifTalking Woody Stalking Woody 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Euu, suh, have in-sulted mah anuh. Oui shail decide thuh mattah ee-uhn the way prescipted bah are four-fathuhs. A dee-uwl at sunrahs. Ah shail meet you out bah yonder outhouse tuh settle thuh mattah.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well spoken. —Sir SockySexy girls.jpg Mermaid with dolphin.jpg Tired Marilyn Monroe.jpg (talk) (stalk)Magnemite.gif Icons-flag-be.png GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My Excessively Long-Winded Opinion

Keep them. I like the IPs. Gives me stuff to proofread and nominate for QVFD. Nameable • mumble? 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep the I.Ps.. don't want to see uncyclopedia closed off. I agree some people want to consider a user name before just joining in properly. They need time to look around the site, consider the pros and cons and then write out their cheque so to speak. So it makes a difference if the website looks good and thanks to recent changes here , I think uncyclopedia is looking a lot more user friendly than before. We just keep the troll spray cans in ready supply that's all....I also do like the admins trying to think of new ways to say get lost loser..I think it sharpens the wits..--Laurels.gifRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 14:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I remember the day the trolls raided our supply of spray cans. Now let me tell you, I've seen art, and what they were spraying everywhere was not art. Woody On Fire! Wood burning.gifTalking Woody Stalking Woody 14:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.uncyclopedia.co/w/index.php?title=Forum:IP_Editing&oldid=3940032"