Forum:Suggestion: No more IP votes
Now, let's try to talk without arguments as "ED does it", or "This is a wiki". IPs already can't upload images and move articles - in my humble opinion, this is blessing for our beloved wiki. So I believe voting is also something too much important to be left to the unscrutinizable desires of IPs and n00bs. What I am suggesting is tagging all voting pages with autoconfirmed. So you have to spend at least a week registered here before start casting your wisdom at the ballots. This would also make much more difficult the life o sockpuppeters and you will not have to expain to your friends: "no, you can't register just to vote on the article I've shown you". -- herr doktor needsAshuttle 
[scream!] 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
For autoconfirmed vote (users registered at least for one week)
F☭RA☭AINST, Rc is right. I'm even more ashamed.
21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)- Ford Mustang -- 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- For —Braydie 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- For 192.168.0.2 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) That was me. Don't you know how to follow links? -- herr doktor needsAshuttle
[scream!] - Against How will I get any features this way? --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Against.
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC) - Partially for I agree with the sentiment, but I think an outright ban might be discouraging. IP votes are aleady only worth half a vote. Maybe we can make them worth 0.25, and anyone registered for less than a week worth 0.5. --Composure1 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- For, and I'll tell you why. Voting pages are always dealing with peers. Registered voters are peers, and IPs are generally viewers that don't write as much. I don't believe IPs' opinions are necessarily less important, but given that we want our awards to be given out by Uncyclopedia peers, and we discourage sockpuppeteering (which this would do), I think this is a good way to go about this.--<<
>> 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC) - For -- I agree. We want legitimate votes from people who know and love our site. --Señor DiZtheGreat
CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) - Strong against! -- "From those who know and love our site?" Is this site some kind of cult now? (well maybe the Bensonists...) I don't think you have to be a registered member and wait a week for confirmation to know what humor is and isn't! As for those who vote on Uncyclopedian of the month or whatever, either they have a good reason for voting or they don't, but one vote for some biased IP usually doesn't make a helluva difference. Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Eh?
- For - 69.205.231.252 22:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Hahaha irony. My browser must have logged me off last time I closed it :-P.
Prof. Ahh(to the)Diddums[FUCK-A-DOODLE-DOO!] 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC) - Very for. And keep them out of Benson's House of Pancakes while you're at it. --
22:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC) - For. getting a user name costs nothing and takes no time, and theres no one arriving at the site who wouldn't benefit from reading through the site a little before editing - jack mort | cunt | talk
- 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC) - Super ultra mega anna grue FOR. They're IPs. Nobody Cares Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines
- AGAINST Mr. Briggs said it all. Banning IPs from moving pages and uploading pictures is the unfortunate result of the demonstrable danger of vandalism and shock images. As far as I'm aware there is no weighty reason, no significant precendent for banning IPs from voting. The few times we've had sock problems it has usually been evident that something fishy was going on in the first place. Blocking IPs is pointless and - yes, I'm going to bring this up again - elitist. Add the fact that IPs account for a tiny fraction of votes as it is and...well, this is a meaningless measure. Open editing, in case some people have forgotten, is sort of one of the hallmarks of wikis. —rc (t) 00:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Against. Why? Exclusionism is only permissible when there is a significant risk of assholery. Plus, some of my best friends are IPs. Also, they're invisible. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Against. Someone fix the score so it shows both fors and againsts.--Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 01:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Against. because i'm a an asshat IP. 69.20.225.131 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Against. per Rcmurphy. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 01:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Against per RC. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Against per people who made good against-type points. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Super Ultra Maga Anna Grue Against Thought about it.
- For IP votes premote sockpuppeting. If an IP wants to vote that bad, they might aswell just register. -- The Zombiebaron 01:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- For 84.69.175.112 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Against, where the voting is on an article, as per Mr. Briggs. As for the awards where's you're voting on a person's actions, it would be reasonable to assume that only active registered users know enough about them to vote correctly, but I don't see any real need to restrict those right now. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:06, 28 Feb 2007
- For --GAMESPOT=666 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Against per Rcmurphy. Although this sounds like a good idea, it would probably just be difficult to implement and would discourage potentional non-gobshites. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 06:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Very much against. Uncync wouldn't be the same without some sort of anarchy. No all IP's are worthless sons of bitches. ~
10:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC) - Against: this falls under my "only respond to a demonstrated problem" rather that "making rules based on what seems fair or good in the abstract" rule. Anything else leads to rules that backfire, rules that are elitist, rules that just express moral sentients or rules that cause the 34th caller's underpants to catch on fire. Plus what RC said. ---
Rev. Isra (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC) - Two Cents Against, though each time they vote they should have to register (via credit card #) to "win a free laptop." --
CaputosistheHorrible 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC) - Strong Against. ~Sir Rangeley
GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC) - For - For all we know, registered member's own IPs can be used as sockpuppets. --AAA! (AAAA) 04:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- You got that right. --203.94.129.158 04:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against ... I think... Yes... Universal Suffrage for the IPs! --Kenvalyi 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Against --27.42.123.456Strong against --34.56.221.666Against67.121.230.209 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
More discussion
Let me just me remember you something. Except by internet polls without any practical value, there's no voting system in this world without some form of identification, even when the vote is secret. We are dealing with official prizes, not just getting oppinions. Bradaphraser said that in other words, but I'm reinforcing. And let me add a practical example: yesterday I've shown my article which is currently on VFH to a friend of mine. I told him that article was being voted for being displayed at the main page. He told me "great, let me vote on it!". And I replied: "No! You can't. You can't register just to make a vote. That's not right". As he is my co-employer - and so shares the same IP as me - if he had voted, had he registered or not, you would be accusing me of sockpuppetery. And anyway, I think this vote would be invalid. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle [scream!] 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course no form of voting is perfect. We will get sock votes, we will get people's buds voting on their articles. But how many times has that gone unrecognized to the point that a flat-out unworthy article got featured? If there are significant discrepancies, we can investigate for puppetry on a case-by-case basis. The vat majority of the time there is zero problem with IP votes.
- And I wouldn't accuse you of sockpuppetry in that instance. As an active member of the wiki community I would give you the benefit of the doubt - there is one of the advantages of registering. Of course I want people to register, but the more we restrict IP editing the fewer contributors we are going to get. —rc (t) 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
NaB vs RC
- Oh, Murphy, now you're talking as a college gate marxist. Give me a break. Is giving some advantages to the ones who register for free ELITISM? So, we, the registered users, are the Petit-Bourgeoise of Uncyc! DOWN WITH THE ELITISM! We should just abolish all acounts. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle [scream!] 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- A-Ha! I always knew you were a freedom-killing communist tyrant! :D -- herr doktor needsAshuttle [scream!] 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Besides that registered users already have some advantages, is withholding access to a website that is supposed to operate on the principle of open editing, when such an action provides essentially no advantages, logical?
- And I prefer the term "social equalist." Or "rock star." —rc (t) 01:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would still be free even if it required registering. I guess that IP editing will be removed from other wikis with the time - it is just an excess made on pure ideology. There's no point in it. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle [scream!] 01:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is not place of Wiki to being force IP to be registering for any contribution of all type. Is place of KGB for this. Is all comrades to be treats like criminals? I am saying "No!". Each citizen of collective is for having a voice of each! --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- One of the most helpful and hardworking Uncyclopedians we've ever had used IPs for most of his edits. There is a point to it. Why don't you just GET A BRAIN MAN OK. —rc (t) 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- A-Ha! I always knew you were a freedom-killing communist tyrant! :D -- herr doktor needsAshuttle
Everyone just stuff it.
Right, sorry, but I think we need to quiet down a bit and look at this realistically. While I personally agree with the sentiment that IPs are primarily useless, I am of the (completely non-Marxist) opinion that rejecting IP votes is unnecessary to maintaining the quality of Uncyclopedia. I am personally unaware of any major decision on Uncyc being heavily influenced by IP votes; in other words, IP votes do no harm. Denying unregistered users the right to upload pictures and move articles is much more important, and already acts as a safeguard against vandalism. I am in favor of preserving the current policy because it will have the least impact. Rejecting IP votes raises the issue of elitism and that, whether a valid issue or not, disrupts the wiki. The real answer here is not to fight over the best theory, but to determine the net value of the decision to make a change. By net value, I am referring to the end result of the change after it becomes reality and people react to it. The net value of rejecting IP votes is that it raises tensions between those of us who believe in taking only the best from the internet, and those of us who believe in giving every IP a chance in the hopes that some of them will be good. Tensions cause people to spend way too much time in the forum. To sum up: acknowledge the issue, then put it aside as having no desirable solution. --
17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- yeah, whether we ban ip votes or not will make very little difference either way, it's not worth arguing over. for now lets leave things as they are, until cirumstances make us reconsider, if they do, which they might, but probably won't - jack mort | cunt | talk - 11:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
An Alternative?
I'm very much against the idea of disallowing IP any rights including voting, lots of IPs happily contribute to Uncyclopedia, and have even managed Featured Articles! However I do think there is a case that we need to address in that there are examples of individuals contributing nothing to Uncyclopedia other than their votes within VFP/VFH. Could we set a minimum contribution rate before voting rights are allowed? Although it would leave the system upon to the same abuse it might make them have to work a little harder to do so. Any thoughts on this? -- Sir Mhaille 
(talk to me)
- I worry that such a system (which allows IPs to vote, but not users with a small number of contribs) could actually DISCOURAGE registration. Maybe have small number of contribs equal a half-vote like an IP, maybe?--<<>> 14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, I meant that IPs would be limited by the same rule. If an IP only comes on to vote a couple of times and contributes nothing they should be treated the same as those with accounts. If anything I would hope it would inspire people to contribute. -- Sir Mhaille
(talk to me)
- No, I meant that IPs would be limited by the same rule. If an IP only comes on to vote a couple of times and contributes nothing they should be treated the same as those with accounts. If anything I would hope it would inspire people to contribute. -- Sir Mhaille
- For, I am for making it so that users must have a certain number of edits before a user can vote. Apparanlty there is some Special page that counts edis or something. The number should start low though. -- The Zombiebaron 00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- C☭MMENT & F☭R, hence the votin' below but we communist love votin'. 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
100 Edit Limit Before Votin' To Smash Sockpuppetry & Proxies
- F☭R, Mhaille has a damn good point on this. 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For. Yet again. But this, in practice, will ban IP votes. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle [scream!] 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: No it won't. IPs would be under the same "rule" as people with accounts. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- Against. Pointless. This will ban IP votes and is far more restrictive than just putting the user in the fridge for one week, as I suggested. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle [scream!] 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against. Rules are for chumps. More rules are for more chumps. Yes, it's annoying getting the occasional "against" from some young buck who has never made a 'chop or a page of his own. Suck it up.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against as per MO. ~ 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm really super duper surprised that no one used a sock puppet for this vote. That would be the epitome of irony. User:Mrthejazz/sig 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You said it. 74.38.132.248 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- For a change, if it'll do some good. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- FOR. maybe not a limit as high as a hundred, but i think it'd be a good idea to require both ips and registered users to at least contribute before they start voting, at least write a goddamn article before slamming other people's on vfh and vfd - jack mort | cunt | talk - 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against During this whole debate, no one has put forward a single example of a low quality article highlighted due to IP/n00b interference; nor a good article voted down by it, for that matter. All I can see this rule doing is making a lot more work for the admins, without benefitting the site in any discernable way. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- C☭MMENT, Pay close attention to the VFH & VFP & you see new users at their shenanigans. And how is havin' a contributor to have 100 edits blockin' 'em from votin'? Or bannin' the IP as people keep on sayin'; which is not the case here. Maybe you all like sockpuppetry but not I. 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I do indeed see votes from IPs and unfamiliar users. They are inevitable buried amongst the much greater number of votes from crusty old uncyclopedians like us. This is my point - the voting patterns of noobs may be objectionable, but they are also negligable. There's more to rules than just making them; they also have to be enforced. So what proponants of this change are suggesting is making what I suspect will be a substantial amount of additional work for our already harried admins, all just to solve a problem so small that, realistically, it needs no solution. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 02:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- C☭MMENT, Pay close attention to the VFH & VFP & you see new users at their shenanigans. And how is havin' a contributor to have 100 edits blockin' 'em from votin'? Or bannin' the IP as people keep on sayin'; which is not the case here. Maybe you all like sockpuppetry but not I.
- Against unless you can think of some way around dynamic IPs where the user couldn't accumulate edits because they changed all the time. Ditto (only in reverse) for popular proxies, which would accumulate edits and give voting rights back to the sort of people who want to hide their IPs from us... -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 01:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong AGAINST.---Rev. Isra (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:23, 6 Mar 2007
- Another comment Will 100 contribs change anything? So a new user makes a userpage with the phrase "kitty" on it and edits it 99 times. Will that actually change the user from behaving like a fucktard? Just sayin'.User:Mrthejazz/sig 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also a comment. Someone has been to my userpage. Hurrah! --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against the annoyance that it would be to count the edits of every single IP who votes. And why 100? What about those with 99 edits? What disqualifies them? What if the vote itself is the 100th edit? And how will I be able to use IPs as sockpuppets anymore? Again, sounds nice, but too many problems come up. Until IP votes become a serious problem and start organizing themselves to feature crap (which we would probably just ignore), this probably shouldn't be implemented. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 04:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Against. I don't think I would meet this limit. And y'all love me, don't you? goshzillacorrespondence 16:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Against Surprise. —rc (t) 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)