Forum:Remove IPs Newpages Privilege

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Remove IPs Newpages Privilege

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6230 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Proposal to Remove IP Page-Creation Privilege

Special:Newpages is full of IP-crap. Talking on IRC, I'm not the only one who thinks so. Solution? Force IPs to register to create a page.

Yes, yes, yes, this is controversial. Blah blah everybody should be able to make new pages blah blah whine whine. But, in this case, the reward is worth much more than the penalty. Not having QVFD being so monstrously large? Score one for the good guys.

Yes, IPs would still be able to edit, just not create pages and spam spam spammity spam spam that way.

sannse says that it is possible, and not terribly difficult to do. But we need to get support behind it before any action can happen. Are you with me? Or are you an asshole? cautious user?

    EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   18:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)  

Discussion

• Andorin's sig seems to be the end of the page for me. There might be a glitch. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  Something to do with his expanding sig. I subst:'ed it in and added a to fix it. Firefox here showed it properly, though. Funky.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)     

  Yeah, yeah, I fixed it. --Andorin Kato 02:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sporked from Voting

"The content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." There are useful and productive IPs who either don't want to register or feel they don't visit us often enough to bother. It'd be a shame to cast out the baby with the bath-water, as it were. RabbiTechno 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They'll be able to edit, just not create new pages. The difference is pretty big. Besides, it takes a whole 5 minutes, tops, to register, and a decent article should take some thought before it gets created.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)  

I still disagree with the idea. Editing the site, to me, includes creation of new articles. RabbiTechno 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that Wikipedia also has "anyone can edit" in their slogan, but IP's can't created newpages there. -- Kippy the Elf Talk Works ☃ 21:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

...but Wikipedia doesn't need pages like Fisher Price. Well, they do, but theirs is riddled with facts. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Starnestommy proposed this once. It was unanimously declined.--Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This vote isn't unanimous, and vote on merit, not on history.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)     

I said no on that vote, too. Just sayin'. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's more for the up-above-the-voting bit, then...     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)     

Also, featured articles were written by IPs! 4'33" was totally written by an anonymous contributor! --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Let's count. Number of articles created by IPs that have been featured: Less than 10(no argument here, right?) Number of articles created by IPS that are QVFDed daily: Over 100(no arguement here, right?)

A small price to pay for a lifetime of less huffing.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)     

A quick check shows that 54 featured articles were originally created by IPs. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:01, 06 Nov 2007

Maybe, but I bet that a lot of those were featured back in '05, when standards tended to be a bit lower. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:03, Nov 6

Well, our standards are much too high. I say this in the name of inclusionism. Rickyrab 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion already. Too lazy to find the pages. Results were: you're wrong. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 04:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess this discussion has been reopened again. Want a cookie? If so, what flavor? :) Rickyrab 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1. go eat shit fuckers -- 4.252.99.182 12:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

   Invalid. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 20:29, November 6, 2007

   Oh, you're no fun! : P -- Kippy the Elf Talk Works ☃ 20:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your logic

• Alrighty, so, I'd like one of our gung-hoe For people who keeps making that case that "users who can't spend the amount of time that is required to register, can't spend the time it takes to make a good article" to explain this position to me. Over the past year, I've deleted thousands of articles. There was no clear pattern to show that users who could take a minute and register then went on to make good articles. So, all I'm asking for, is someone to explain to me how this logic works? -- The Zombiebaron 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  It takes five minutes to register. In those five minutes, most of the IPs who write one-liners will lose interest as it takes "too much effort" to put up their one-liner. Average quality holds constant, quantity goes down. Same ratio of keep/kill, but the total numbers are smaller.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)  

I just made an account in about half a minute. Sure, that's half a minute that I wasn't making pages about how I am much taller than you, but still, its barely an effort at all. Seriously Eugene, that whole facet of this discussion makes no sense. Just thought I should point it out :) -- The Zombiebaron 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense? Hi, welcome to Uncyclopedia. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that IP votes should count for this poll Fou-Lu 21:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do IP votes count? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 04:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1/2 of a vote, as usual I presume. --EMC ^[TALK] 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, how much are admin votes? --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 01:28, November 7, 2007

I assume the same a regular user votes. Not like it really matters at this point, though. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:29, Nov 7

I'm lazy and shortsighted

I know this is mainly an argument for not blocking IP edits in general (due to the fact that we have that handy N next to the new pages in RC) but it's easier to see which articles are crap if they aren't all created by people with actual usernames. If an article's created by an IP, you always check it out, but if the person's spent enough thought on their username and you're incredibly busy you might skip it. Obviously, it'd be more of a problem with totally blocked IP edits, but I think it applies a bit here too. -- 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I look at all new articles less than a few thousand characters in length, regardless of who wrote them. (If they're a few thousand characters than length, they're probably valid articles, although sometimes they're the word PENIS written exactly two hundred and forty-two times). --SPY Administrator (Complain|I rock|In memoriam) HMRFRA WH 12:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You got my old job! Fun, isn't it?  :-) -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 16:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very, although I'm wondering just how long it will be until everyone realizes I'm living up to my name (literally, man) and promotes me to Sysop. --SPY Administrator (Complain|I rock|In memoriam) HMRFRA WH 13:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but you've now scuppered your chances under Uncyclopedia Promotion Regulation 22: "Any person or persons expressing desire to be promoted to sysop status are by definition unsuitable for the job and henceforth ineligible in perpetuity". Better luck next lifetime. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DAMMIT! Hey, wait a minute, wouldn't this policy eventually lead to the entirety of Uncyclopedia being run by some crazy old guy in a monsoon-y rainforest? --SPY Administrator (Complain|I rock|In memoriam) HMRFRA WH 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What's meking the difference?

Last 1000 time we had this the against votes won by far, now for the first time we have a tie. ---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the n00bs, I tells ya. They just don't know how things work 'round here. Why, back in my day... • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:49, 08 Nov 2007

That's 50 votes so far. How come there is never this sort of turnout for VFH? --140.211.14.1 16:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Logiks

Don't you think it's only rational that users get the links to HTBFANJS and the like before they create a page? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:40 Nov 07, 2007

HTBFANJS and the beginner's guide are also there at the bottom when you edit any page and at the top when you create a new page. Whoever chooses to ignore those prominent links is likely to ignore them when you leave them in his talk page too.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you get swept up in the happiness of an idea for a page, I doubt anyone would be too inclined to break their train of thought, even if it is a bad idea in the first place. If it were linked to them on their talk page when they weren't writing, well, who knows? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:22, Nov 7

Also, nobody really pays attention to the links at the bottom of the edit box, well, because they're at the bottom of the edit box. Getting something that says "you have new messages" in an orange box, however, is far more eye-catching. Besides, a policy doesn't apply to you unless it's pointed out that it does. People're stupid like that. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:31 Nov 07, 2007

A point

Every admin that's voted has voted "against". Now, I'm not saying that admins are better than the users (although, lets face it...), but we are the ones who ultimately have to deal with the cruft. If we're prepared to continue monitoring our influx of IP creations, I don't really see a problem here. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin votes should count double. --Not an admin, but Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think admin votes should count for 1000. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:47, 08 Nov 2007

Realistically, there's hardly a consensus for change anyway, which I thought was what we needed for stuff as big as this. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Admin votes should count as 1 per Oscar Wilde quote" ~ Oscar Wilde

If admin votes count double, mine count triple. --The honourable Misleading Username, Esq. (Communications Dept.) 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing

I really didn't think this topic would last so long. Heh. Oh well, it seems to have been shot down. Somebody remind me to suggest it again next month.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   19:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)  

I would remind you this has been brought up many many times before, and has been shot down every time. You probably shouldn't bother trying to suggest it again. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:42, 11 Nov 2007

I would point out that request for a reminder was sarcasm, but then the joke would be lost. Wait... who's that co-OH SHI-    EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   01:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)  

An Idea: Let's keep this to votes instead of starting arguments eh?

Score: -7 IP page creations prevented

For

1. I'm with you. --Andorin Kato 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
2. For (Bonner) (Talk) Nov 5, 18:30
3. For     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)  
4. For oh hells yeah! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
5. For
6. For, considering it's only page creation. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:38 Nov 05, 2007
7. For, --Winstanley1 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
8. ₣or! If you're too lazy to register, then you definitely are too lazy to create good / decent / tolerable articles. --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
9. For - After Wikipedia did this, they've been doing fewer deletions and vanity has beeen harder to find. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 20:21, November 5, 2007
10. For --  Le Cejak • <-> 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
11. For - Wikipedia did it. ED did it. The benefits are obvious. Some who are against this have noted that we are "The content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", despite that we already have restrictions in place as to who can edit (new and unregistered users can't edit certain pages; unregistered users can't upload files) and what they can add to the site. All we're saying is: if you want to create an article, register. Yes, I think that everybody should have the privilege (as it's not a right, you see) to edit, but page creating is a whole other bag of shrimp. By registering, they can be greeted by the Welcoming Committee where they are subsequently introduced to HTBFANJS and the Beginner's Guide, something that I feel anybody considering creating a page should read. I recognize the fact that great contributions come from IPs, but honestly, how many great articles as a whole come from IPs, especially in contrast to how many articles get deleted from IPs? Face it. The ratio of good IP-created pages to bad IP-created pages is 1:500. IPs make up a majority of those in the Ban Patrol. Considering that a lot of vandalism and shit article are created by IPs, I'm all for this. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    HTBFANJS and the beginner's guide are also there at the bottom when you edit any page and at the top when you create a new page. Whoever chooses to ignore those prominent links is likely to ignore them when you leave them in his talk page too.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Very much per Jack Phoenix. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:49, Nov 5
13. Strong For - *Ahem* It's the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not create pages. Besides, Wikipedia does it (who also say anyone can edit), so why can't we? --AAA! (AAAA) 22:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Circumstantial for - Though most admins seem to be against this, I think it still can help with the low number of active admins we have. However, if enough active admins are created, either by admins returning or users given sysop rights, this will quickly change to an against. And, a word of warning for for those that, like me, support this only because there aren't many admins around. Be aware that, even if we get more admins, if this is passed and anon page creations are blocked, there is no going back. Once they're blocked, they have to stay blocked. Just make sure you think about whether or not IP page creations are that much of a menace. We are trying to grow, after all. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
15. For - It makes work here a lot easier. Then I have time to do Battlefield 2 also. --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
16. For - Anyone can edit, because anyone can get an account, right? Unless they got banned or something, but then I suppose they very likely had an account at one point. If it's too much of a pain in the ass to register, they can go edit Wikipedia instead. -- Spillin Dylan 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
17. For. There isn't much genius that came from IPs, including me at one point. I want humor that extends beyond a single one-liner. ~

    Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

    7/11/2007 @ 01:40
18. For Tolerating crap just to keep from alienating potential contributors is exactly what makes both pop music and Encyclopedia Dramatica so eminently shitty. Do you really want to be like that? --140.211.14.1 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
19. For The new pages around here shit me up the wall, and I don't spend much time looking at RC as some people. -- — Sir Manticore 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
20. For Per all the arguements above. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Fore. This may be controversial, but I think this will help us. Besides, Wikipedia did it, it takes little time to register, etc, etc, etc. - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
22. For I decided. It would be really stupid to put up wih all this vandalism just because you could alienate 2 "good" IPs in every 1000 "annoying vanityaholic vandal bastard" IPs. <3 .talk.work.?pedia.$A_{ward}^{waits}$
23. For They have just been creating really pooor pages recently. They should still be allowed to edit though. -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 16:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
24. For - Everyone should be able to edit, that is key, but creating new pages takes some knowledge of our practices and policies; adding a small barrier to entry is probably a good idea. --Sir gwax (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Unsure I'll decide at a later time...they both have good and bad qualities that could be good or bad for us...I'll let you know at a later time. --Razorflame 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Me too both sides have some pretty good reasons. Might decide later. <3 .talk.work.?pedia.$A_{ward}^{waits}$

Against

1. Against. "The content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." There are useful and productive IPs who either don't want to register or feel they don't visit us often enough to bother. It'd be a shame to cast out the baby with the bath-water, as it were. RabbiTechno 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Against, it's "The content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" not "The content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit...mostly...except for this...and that, you ignorant brute. Also, you parked on my child. Well, not my child, but he followed me home so I kept him. Well, not followed me home, unless 'followed' can mean 'stuffed in the trunk of my car'. I've said too much." Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Against Starnestommy proposed this once. It was unanimously declined.--Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Very much against. This is a wiki. Free. Available. This is not a private party. ~ 21:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Against. Some of the best (and worst) contributions have come from anonymous IPs. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
6. Against Let them dance in the fields. Let them play with the sparrows. It is their England.The Oblong Lobster 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Weak against. If we as much as that idea might decrease the number of new pages we get in a day, people can just as easily create an acount in under 5 minutes as someone said, and create just aws much cruft/vandalism/vanity pages as if we never created the rule. besides, without the mass flod of newpages to QVFD what else would I do to try and become an admin? General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Very Against It's a step in a direction I very much don't like. Maybe it is a little daring of us to allow random people just off the boat from teh internet to create pages, but they're easily deleted. The real problem is the beginner users who submit something terrible, but not terrible enough that you can just delete it with a millisecond glance. But I'm not proposing getting rid of them, either. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
9. AGAINST As always. —rc (t) 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Strong Against - Just no. -- The Zombiebaron 00:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Dejavu---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Against. Not worth blocking IP privileges just for a little convenience. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Surprise against! Yes, from me, of all people, the guy who spurred Quality Control fever, Mr. WiPs Must Die. We need IP microstubs for two reasons: to give regulars something to report, and to give admins something to delete. These two reasons outweigh anything the other side could come up with, easily. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Against Mostly because I only have so much time to quickly create a page and get off uncyclopedia before someone (in RL) catches me doing something so stupid as visiting and/or contributing to this site. Signing in creates a time delay which I can't really afford. --75.136.131.42 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

    When you say someone might catch you, you really mean they might see you write a one-line article about how gay they are, right? :P • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:05, 06 Nov 2007

    Actually, that's kinda what the for-voters are talking about. If logging in takes more time than can be afforded, how long did it take to write the page? If it takes less time than logging in, I'm guessing it's not the best page. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:10, Nov 6

    Firefox logs me in automatically... it can't be too tough. --Andorin Kato 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

15. Against I'm too lazy to log in sometimes...Severian...yeah...so there. Vielen Dank!--134.155.99.42 05:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Against. All the reasons above and more. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Against. I'm all for the individual freedom to write articles without having to register for a website that you may or may not ever visit again. These are people sitting at their computers, not AI driven vanity machines! I'm sure there are quite a few (I was an IP until I decided I did want to visit again) anon users who want to create legitimate, and, if they're intelligent for 10 year olds, good articles! I know I would be pissed off if I wanted to write an article without making any long-term commitments (FU Wikipedia, my IP could've written Waxwork too!), and as one of these anons may be an transdimensional version of me, I don't wanna piss them off. Mr. Briggs Inc. 13:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Eh?
18. Against again, and always. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:02, 06 Nov 2007
19. Against Watching Ip's be dicks can be amusing, but also, an IP created Euroipods!!! Fou-Lu 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Extreme Lesbian Against - This has been brought up n times in the past, and n times, it has been rejected. Who am I to argue with history? —Hinoa talk.kun 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    One hopes that you were being ironic in your reasoning, Hinoa. Because the very nature of that argument rejects any capacity for change. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    This is not the place for debating the reasoning behind a user's vote. If you really feel the need to challenge someone's motives, please confine such discussion to User talk. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

21. Against I can definitely see the benefits of having to login to create pages, but sites where you have to register in order to do things have such a closed feel about them - there's a much more obvious 'in crowd'. Besides, I like deleting IP dickery. What I hate doing is making difficult decisions about stuff that's still crap, but not quite crap enough for instant deletion, or waiting for the tag on something to expire so that I can delete it once the creator's forgotten about it. The true crap acts as light relief. It turns into a problem if no-one patrols Recent Changes, but that's a separate issue... -- 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Strong Against. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
23. Aganist Prehaps we can shove our vanity policys in there faces? That way, no more shitty vainity garbage. Elassint Throw things at me 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Against. Per Codeine's point above about the admins - if they're happy to continually delete tons of IP-created vanity one-liners, good luck to 'em! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 10:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
25. Against - If we're worried about crap pages, the solution is more admins. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 14:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Against Reconsidered. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    Traitor! I'm not gonna share my cookies with you no more! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

27. No, no, no, no NO! Not letting IPs edit a wiki ANYBODY can edit is like asking a stripper to not have sex with you. (Paints a red X on idea) --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, they're still allowed to edit, just not create pages. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:25, Nov 9

28. This proposal has been brought up too many times to count, and all of those proposals have been shot down. So, against --General Insineratehymn 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Against If we remove their privileges, are we going to change our motto to something like, "Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unless your signed in, which means you can't create anything or if the server goes down, in which case no-one can edit it." What a load of bull crap. --RandomDie 18:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
30. Against "Wow, This is such a great idea, Why not also force IP's to register to edit pages genuis!!!". And by the way, the sentence was in massive sarcasm quotes. --NXWave 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

    What about the capitalized "The" in the middle of a sentence? Does that symbolize your lost childhood or your defective navel? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Experiment

I say we do an experiment. We collect stats for QVFD over two one-week periods. During the first, IPs will still be able to create pages. During the second, we silently disable anonymous page creation. After both week-long tests, we compare the data and present it to the Village Dump and let people decide whether or not anons should still be able to create pages. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 08:47, Nov. 12, 2007

Damn good idea. But, will the admins let us do it? Probably not, the bunch of Nazis loving, caring people that they are.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)  

If we don't test the theory, we'll never be able to correctly decide what to do. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 08:51, Nov. 12, 2007

I think I heard something about disabling IP new pages being an irreversible process. --Andorin Kato 08:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long discussion about it here. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 08:55, Nov. 12, 2007

Configuration is always reversible. I don't know where you got this information, but it is bull. I've worked with mediawiki many times, and when I was working with Satiropendium, I managed to disable creation priveleges through LocalSettings.php. Since Mediawiki developers aren't smart enough to create the usergroup "anonymous", the way to disable things is convolute (you must disable everyone's priveleges to create pages, then enable the users group to be allowed to create pages), but it works. ~

Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

12/11/2007 @ 12:41

You may also be thinking about my for comment. I was saying that you can't block IP page creation, realize your mistake, and turn it back while keeping any kind of good reputation. However, if it's a test and you already plan to reverse it, then the point is rather invalid. However, I don't think we'll be able to "silently" block IP page creations for a week. It will be noticed. We'll probably end up getting a bunch of new users that sign up just so they can make a topic here asking why they can't create. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there are massive against votes for this move, I don't see the point for the experiment. ~ 08:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If we don't do some sort of test, we'll never know what the outcome would be if we did permanently disable anonymous page creation. If people are pleased with the results, we'll disable anonymous page creation permanently. If people aren't pleased with the results, we can just keep letting IPs create pages. However, if we do not test it, we will never know whether or not it is really a good or bad idea. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 20:40, Nov. 12, 2007

Like the Bush regime, we're into faith-based testing. (More to the point, the admins are huffing & the admins say "Nay") Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's try imagining IPs as illegal immigrants to Uncyclopedia. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 21:03, Nov. 12, 2007

Starnestommy, we can't just shoot the IPs and make it look like an accident! We need a solution! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:21, Nov 12

Besides, what will we do with the ones already here? Deport them? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mhaille. -7 means nobody even wants an experiment. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 00:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but on one condition: All crappy pages made by IPs that don't even deserve ICU/WIP get deleted within 24 hours of creation. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 00:16, Nov. 13, 2007

Removing Page Creation Priveleges != Removing Page Editing Priveleges

This is Fact. IPs make better contributions to pages than actual pages. I've seen some IPs make genius contribs to pages, but when it comes to making them, the fall flat on their face because they're incapable of making more than a paragraph, or, at least, something that will avoid the ICU tag or otherwise. Dedicated users usually follow through on a concept better than an IP or new user. Many of you think registration is rediculously easy. It is rediculously easy, but people are lazy, and the newest people that would create the worst pages that are completely unfamiliar with MediaWiki would be affected most because they don't know how easy registration is. Thus, I feel that this would benefit the site. Plus, I don't think we'll have to go through so many admins. It feels like just yesterday that we had fresh blood added to the force and now we're adding more blood. ~

Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

12/11/2007 @ 21:36

Bloooood. Yes, add more blood. Sweet, sweet blood. Aunt Gertrude 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Since it seems that the general consensus on this issue is to let IPs continue creating pages, I think we should close this discussion and avoid posts about disabling anonymous page creation in the future and let anons continue creating pages. But, there are 2 conditions: From now on, all crappy articles made by IPs that aren't worthy of ICU or WIP get deleted within 24 hours of creation and we have at least 7 admins who are active daily watch Newpages, QVFD, ICU, WIPs, and Ban Patrol. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 00:22, Nov. 13, 2007

You're arbitrarily attaching conditions to closing a suggestion/vote that clearly failed? Uh... no? What're we going to do, if we don't agree to the conditions, just keep the vote going forever? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:08, 13 Nov 2007

Let's! That way, when somebody next suggests this, we can say: "Yep, we know; we're currently voting on it here. Please add your vote and a comment about how much you hate anybody who hasn't registered, and we'll get back to you when the vote closes." No seriously, let's do that... -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)