Forum:This is just a thought...

Forums: Index > Village Dump > This is just a thought...

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5661 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

NEW FORUM ON THE TOPIC CAN BE FOUND HERE. IT'S A LITTLE MORE SRZ BIZ, JUST SO YA KNOW. A MUCH BETTER FORUM PROVIDING AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO FIX A NON-EXISTENT PROBLEM HERE. IT'S MAGICAL, JUST SO YA KNOW!!

And I don't really support it, I was just hoping to get your opinions on it. Have any of you thought it would be easier if we locked the wiki so IPs couldn't edit it? On one hand, nearly all of their edits are shit, and the block, huff, and protection log is mostly due to them. On the other hand, how are we any better than Conservapedia if we stiffle anonymous users (suckish) creativity and dictate Uncyclopedia? Discuss. Saberwolf116 17:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No. As wonderful as an IP free Uncyc would be, I'm afraid it'll have to remain a dream. Most editors begin as IP's. Blocking them out would effectively kill our growth. We have to allow the multitude in so we can weed out the majority of idiots and keep the few that don't suck. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:18, 20 Jun

I blocked the whole world once.....good times.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Could we just block France? -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:25, 20 Jun

Keep it serious, please; no thread hijacking just for a few days. Saberwolf116 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As stated above most serious contributors started off as lowly IPs, trying to make their way in the world. I appreciate that it doesn't take much time to create a username but many people prefer to remain anonymous at least to begin with. Having said that isn't there talk over at Wikipedia that they are going to stop anonymous edits? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Seriously? -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:46, 20 Jun

They already blocked anon page creation, so I wouldn't be surprised. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:26, Jun 20

IPs don't suck. They only pretend to, so as not to raise any suspicion. You see, they are planning an interwikial revolution. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Shut up Socks! Snakes is gonna get pissed if you blow our cover! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What if...

...we just gave it a try first? Like, for a month or so? If it kills out growth, we can always just switch back to the old days, but I doubt that it will, because those who are really serious about making edits will make accounts, and those who just want to add some stupid one-liner to their favorite actor's page or whatever will bugger off, as they should. I say let's try it. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya, Modus is right. Staircase CUN^t 03:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Fisher Price. —The Zhel 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Against  per Modus and Zheliel. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're using Fisher Price as a reason to keep IPs editing?   Le Cejak • <14:19 Jun 21, 2009>

Most certainly. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 14:19, 21 Jun 2009

Ah, I see. A reiteration of our stupid, baseless slogan totally changed my mind. And "anyone" would still be able to edit, provided "anyone" makes an account first and is held responsible for said edits. It's not like blocking anon. edits would be limiting free speech or anything, "anyone" would still be able to edit provided they were serious enough about making edits that they actually went through the effort required to make an account. Why everyone is so vehemently against this idea I don't understand. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 14:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Stupid? Baseless? You do know that this is Uncyclopedia, right? We're against banning IP edits because, simply, the idea sucks. What next, banning brown people? Jews? Mhaille? This isn't Nazi Russia, man! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We should ban everybody who doesn't like Fisher Price/ —The Zhel 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea sucks why? —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it's too Conservapedia-like. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My take

...is that, since we're a parody of Wikipedia, we should follow Wikipedia's policies pretty closely. So unless they ban IP edits, we shouldn't, either. pillow talk 10:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were 'beyond wikipedia' so what they do is their own business. Anonymous IP entries can be a pain and a task for admins to check out but I think uncyclopedia works well enough as it is. I also believe everyone here as started out as an anon contributor and then joined up after they have spent some time looking round. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 11:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And I am using Fisher Price as my defense. —The Zhel 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. <badidea> And then we should invade Wikipedia for thier sins! </badidea> <truth> I use Wikipedia to research on Exoplanets </truth>—Flutter (Talk•Games•Fun Pages•Awards•Help) 20:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I sure hate to belabor the obvious...

...but I will anyway.

The difference between anonymous postings and registered ones is night and day. At the best, it is the difference between what might be anonymously wrote on a bathroom stall door and what might be submitted to The Onion. That's the best case, and damn effing rare. I give as an example an amazing number of articles that consist of about four lines, no links, no pics, and a humor level that would scarcely bring a smile to fifth grader. Sometimes I can hardly believe it was worth the IPs time at the keyboard, though given even a wpm of 10, such could be done in under two minutes.

Worst case, and it most ALWAYS is, is that the anonymous IP is simply vandalizing, in a large and obvious fashion, or in a subtle and discreet fashion.

Nothing is more annoying than to have worked hard on an article, and going back to look at a week later see that someone inserted some line like "I love big cocks" or something similarly stupid and pointless.

No person who honestly wants to contribute to real humor as opposed to mindless vandalism will care about having to take all of 100 seconds to sign up and sign in.

Also, though it pains me to have to point out the even more obvious - though again, I will - most vandals are NOT strangers here, but rather those who are well familiar with the place, are members, and simply wishing to do that which they don't want any blame for.

I don't say that's massively frequent, but it seems obvious that the number of those who would wish to attack an article would be greater in the set of those who actually are here, than the infinitely larger set of those who are not.

IPs should be able to see, but not be heard. --Clemens177 01:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. My cunt of a stalker ex-wife is somewhere here now, lurking about, that's what prompts this. --Clemens177 01:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that you do love big cocks. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, self-love being an important facet of my personality, I certainly DO love my big cock. But that's besides the point! --Clemens177 01:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Really?

What are we? And besides, the only people who still horribly suck at editing are RBD's stalker (who makes an account every time when he wants to vandalise) and Cajek. Everyone else (including IP's) are at least capable of actual thinking. But we should ban Cajek a few more hundred times. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that you do love big cocks. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I love small cocks. That's why I love MrN. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To Clemens

Your my fucking hero. Thank you so much. Yes, it is that obvious (or at least it should be). It's funny how the greenhorn new user acts like a four year admin, while the four year admin, on the other hand, is here posting things about big cocks. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing that you don't understand is that this has come up before. We're used to IP hating. The problem is, we used to be IPs. Ergo, IP hating hurts us deep down where being hated hurts. I'm not being serious this time, because on this subject I have been serious several times before. Also, it should be pointed out that you do love big cocks. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Guildensternenstein. Modus, the only way that we were "all" IPs is in the sense that when we first came and looked around we were - of course - not signed up yet. I don't know what world you live in, but in mine, bad people enjoy doing things anonymously - and that others who have registered names like doing bad things doesn't change it. We can't make a utopia, but we can slow down a bit of the trash. --Clemens177 01:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying: "IPs always do bad things. IPs are the problem. People who are IPs who register and do bad things don't count, even though there are a lot of them. They don't count because I'm trying to make a point." Also, the difference between an IP and a registered user is very little. They're both humans, using technology, and the anonymity of an IP is only very slightly more than that of a username. On Uncyclopedia, if you name yourself "Bob_23", still nobody knows who you actually are, and they still don't care who you are, as if you were an IP. Nobody's going to come arrest you for vandalizing a wiki. There's no need to make a concentrated effort at editing as an IP. -RAHB 01:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RAHB, if it's so darn easy to register, than why were you worrying elsewhere about it detering all those anonymous editors who do such great works that you spoke of? You can't have it both ways. And let's not be exagerating, no one claims that all IPs are all bad all the time. I'd just rather that someone have to go through some smidge of a milli-effort before effing with my work. That can't be that hard to understand. --Clemens177 01:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't lump me in with the other reasonings in favor of my opinion. I'm not worried about deterring anyone from anything, because I honestly don't care who uses this site, as long as I still enjoy it. For the reasons I've laid out though, I don't understand why it's supposedly logical to just get rid of all anonymous users. Also, we have watchlists for a reason. -RAHB 02:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How kind of you, RAHB. You don't want to put a poster through ninety seconds of trouble, but "we have watchlists for a reason". Would that reason be, "To ceasely have to monitor and correct the pointless vandalism of those which you let in so easily"? --Clemens177 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For me this isn't about the convenience of the guy who won't have to sign up, it's the fact that there are a number of people who edit Uncyclopedia who simply do not want to, or never get around to it. I don't care if the anonymous user's Uncyclopedia experience is hard or easy, although I have to say I've rarely encountered anything in regular Uncyclopedia use that is particularly difficult. People can simply register or not. It's such an insignificant thing, some don't even have to think about it. I won't put that anonymous user over the regular user but I also won't put the regular user over the anon. They're all people who want to use Uncyclopedia. That's the common ground, and it's a very important one. -RAHB 02:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse Me

Do you patrol recent changes and take note of every piece of content that any IP has ever tried to add to an article? Have you ever read some of the fantastic anon-submitted articles such as Grandpa's Stories? Have you taken into account that, like Wikipedia, hundreds of anons edit here just to make little corrections to spelling and grammar and continuity that nobody will ever appreciate due to their lack of notoriety, but are certainly welcome and needed contributions?

Have you also taken into account that the ban log is probably about an even 50/50 between anons and user accounts? A person editing as an IP and a person editing as a user have the same potential to be equally disruptive or helpful, and I can think of a countless number of situations where a particular user has been disruptive and/or shitty enough a writer to warrant ban and get on my nerves.

Some of our most well-noted nuisances have been registered users, such as NXWave. Yet anonymous IPs continuously contribute the little edits that make a difference. And once or twice every year, somebody comes in and says "we should make this a 'members only club'" and that "IPs have cooties" and that they should know the secret handshake and all that shit.

Let me finally say that this is a wiki. A wiki is an openly editable website by definition. If you want a place on the internet where only you and what you believe to be the more civilized members of society can edit and contribute, I believe you're looking for a standard website. One with a single discernible entity as owner, and a structured, scheduled, and less community-oriented mode of operations. As the welcome message has told each and every one of you, the door's right over there....no, a little more to your left....yeah... -RAHB 01:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As someone that does patrol recent changes and takes note of every edit everyone makes, I must say RAHB is right, even though he likes big cocks. Also, I have cooties. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Call me cynical, RAHB, but I hesitate to embrace your assertion that the banning of IPs would result in a horde of anonymous do gooders being unwilling to clean up all these spelling errors and such you refer to.

And let me see if I get your reasoning - we may as well let IPs post as they can so easily register and harm us anyway...but we'd best not forbid IPs as the good anonymous posters would be detered by the massive trouble in registering?

Seems to me that if someone intends to do all this good work you speak of, they'll take 100 seconds to register. It is people who's hearts are inclined to destruction that are more easily deterred, not those who wish to help and create.

Banning IPs - as I told Modus - doesn't solve all problems, but does slow some bad guys down. --Clemens177 01:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Again Clemens, thank you. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If we should ban all IPs because some IPs are bad, why not ban all users because some suck? If we're going to spite our face by cutting of our nose, why not cut of our face while we're at it? That'll show us. That'll show us, good! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. I've edited Wikipedia since I discovered it in 2005. I usually do the sort of work I mentioned above. I didn't register for an account until 2008. Because even though it's so simple to register for an account, not everybody thinks that way. People are lazy. Not everyone wants to just register for an account. Also see my remarks in the below section. I also don't understand the logic that banning IPs is supposed to be such a miracle solution. Especially since dealing with IPs takes hardly any time on the part of the regular users and admins. And if we were to ban IPs, people COULD still just easily register for accounts to badger us. Nothing is going to be the ultimate final solution. I think most people are just fine with the way things are and so far I've seen no valid reason to change them, because anything you all have pinned specifically on IPs are things that registered users do just as often. -RAHB 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, RAHB. If we call for banning IPs, then we must also use the same logic to ban users at once. Which logically makes as much sense as hearing me say, "Why not incarcerate rapists?" and you respond, "Huh duh, but than we might as well incarcerate lousy lovers!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clemens177 (talk • contribs) [diff]

No. To untorture your tortured analogy, banning all IPs because some are bad is like imprisoning all men because some are rapists. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes ninety seconds to register, and if your intent is benign, it's a one time register. If it's bad, you must do it over and over, and that deters. It is about that simple. As to your Wikipedia editing, know this: I vandalize Wikipedia all the time, I enjoy it thoroughly, but I'd stop if I had to register each time. And no, can't say I've ever been struck by the urge to do some good deed over there, while taking no credit whatsoever. So there! --Clemens177 02:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, straight from a vandal himself. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Start another forum about how people who don't register are idiots or something. This isn't about who chooses to or chooses not to register, this is merely about whether banning IPs is a solution. And countless users DO take the time to register several times over here. I doubt you've had the time to take notice of it, but vandals find a way to vandalize. It's just what happens. And it's such a minor issue most of the time, it hardly warrants such an extreme measure. Also, your example makes absolutely no sense. "Lousy lovers" do not commit a crime. Saying "IPs do bad things so we must ban them, meaning we must ban users for doing bad things," is saying "the 'bad things' is the constant here." I don't know where you got your lousy metaphor, but I'm sure it was made in just an attempt to make it openly sound as though I'm some sort of bad guy, opening a discussion on as controversial a topic as rape and insinuating that I'd support it. -RAHB 02:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RAHB, that stuff above you're talking about isn't mine; I didn't post that, and don't know who did. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Clemens did, apologies if I made reference to yourself, I don't believe I did. -RAHB 02:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Lousy lovers do commit a crime. Lousy lovin'. It's a misdemeanor, I believe. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RAHB, you made a mistake when you said, "If we should ban all IPs because some IPs are bad, why not ban all users because some suck?" You were comparing apples and oranges. NO ONE has ever said here, "Let's ban IPs for writing poor quality articles", though I've seen that many are. No, VANDALISM is the key issue. And that, not lousy writing, is the crime. My analogy was just fine. One can wish to incarcerate rapists, while not wishing to incarcerate lousy lovers.

Banning IPs doesn't "ban them", they can read the stuff, they'd just have to sign up to edit or write. Ninety seconds, and a one time ninety seconds if they have pure motives. They can then write all the lousy articles they want. Is it true that some vandals do not mind coming up with registration after registration? Of course that is true. But it's also true that SOME would be deterred. That can't be denied either.

No one is trying to establish an Uncycloparadise of Perfection here, just weed out a few of the more random vandals. This should not be that hard to understand. --Clemens177 02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Modus said that actually. -RAHB 02:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I does! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not comparing apples and oranges. The only difference between an IP and a user is signing up. Both can be vandals. Thus, my logic is sound. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No. To untorture your tortured analogy, banning all IPs because some are bad is like imprisoning all men because some are rapists. Sir Modusoperandi Brute! 02:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC) - That point I think best sums up this section of the discussion. -RAHB 02:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a case of "banning all IPs", they could still read. It is simply a point of making one register before editing or writing. How many times must the obvious point be made that it is ninety seconds to register ONE TIME if you are up to good things, and dozens of ninety seconds if your motives are bad? And yes, infinitely yes, I know that some vandals don't mind constant registration - but I know also that SOME do. It would help some. That is all that is being claimed. -- Clemens177 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

My Retort

If unregistered users are going to spend hours writing and proofreading articles, chances are they can also spend 90 fucking seconds to make an account. Someone who's going to write a full fledged article will, 99 times out of 100, take that 90 seconds. Someone who wants to be a dickhead and blank the day's featured article won't. Yes, some registered users are also asses, but they're either banned (like NXWave), escape into sockpuppets and banned again anyway (like, um, someone, I'm sure), or continue editing as IPs (like Gouncyclopedia), the later problem would be also be solved by banning IP editing anyway. So there.

I'm not going to continue on this subject, because I'm obviously not going to change anyone's mind, and I certainly know where my thoughts stand, so yeah. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The simple counterpoint is that what is logical to you is not logical to everyone. People on the internet are lazy. They don't want to take 90 seconds to register. In fact, we even had a guy here once who we encouraged to register, who refused to because of some sort of moral dilemna or something. Like, staying an IP would make more of an individual or something. Flawed thinking to be sure, but there are people who simply don't want to tie themselves down to a username. -RAHB 01:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. That one example that happened once and will likely never happen again totally changed my mind. Thank you. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I know of 12 IP's that did that. And there will be more. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, there will be blood. On a side note, I drink your milkshake. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Your sarcasm in lieu of trying to make serious, meaningful conversation on the matter because of your bias toward one side of the argument has totally changed my mind. Thank you. -RAHB 02:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, my sarcasm that I used to bring attention to the weakness of your point is unwelcome becaue of your bias towards the other side of the arguement, but Modus's infantile one-liners that bring nothing to the conversation are. I understand completely now. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Touche. That's what I'm trying to say though. This is a discussion, a debate of sorts. What should matter is the points being laid out, and not the accusations of intentions and reactions of the different sides. This is the problem that most gets in the way when any sort of thing like this happens, on the internet, in real life, anywhere there's conflict, people try to take attentions away from the actual points in play, playing to human emotions and motives instead. -RAHB 02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Very true, RAHB. Though I disagree with you in this matter, I certainly respect you (and Modus, for that matter) a great deal; don't get the idea that I don't. I'm going to start another forum topic where this can be discussed with civility, so we may actually come to a conclusion, or something. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll get the same answer in another Forum topic as you've received here, just with less mentions of cock, probably. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Modus. Always a help. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Infantile"? Hardly. I'm all mature 'n' shit. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree Guildy. Of the newer users I probably have the most respect for you, and I certainly have respect for anyone who wants to make a difference with their ideas, especially one willing to go up against the voices of the authoritative in the situation at hand, without hesitation, for what is hopefully the greater good. The way I see it, we're all trying to go toward the same result, we just have different ideas of how to attain that result, and unfortunately when different ideas clash, there tends to be an air of conflict. Naturally none of this is personal, it's all about the issue at hand. -RAHB 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, RAHB. I started a new forum topic as well, just so you know. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And the most blindingly obvious point of all....

...is that while it takes ninety seconds or so to register, and so the difference is small....it's forgot that if someone is here to do edits, correct things for us, write original articles, or otherwise do good, that they are only going to have to spend that ninety seconds registering ONE TIME. These vandals, if they had to register, they'd then be booted each time they did bad, but they would then be spending that ninety seconds over and over again. In other words, it's effing deterence to the bad, but in NO WAY inconveniences the good. To quote Will Ferrel, "I feel like I'm taking stupid pills here". (See Mugatu in "Zoolander") --Clemens177 01:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've thanked you enough today, but I'll do it again, Clemens. Thanks. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty, I say. The reverse results in Conservapedia. What, you think they started off insular and paranoid? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Conservapedia, I'm banned from there for a few years for being a dirty liberal though every edit I made was more conservative than Bill O'Reilly. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Hi, I'm an IP. I soooooo want to do great work here, but having to register would deter me. And just because that ninety seconds is toooo much effort for me, please know that my articles and edits would have been great because I'm all about effort! As long as effort doesn't mean 'ninety seconds spent registering a name that doesn't even have to be mine!' Just thought I'd share that!" --Anonymous

Straight from an IP himself, ladies and gentlemen. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, just cause they ban me once didn't mean I wasn't going to make several accounts to vandalise for the past 5 months and counting. It doesn't deter me that all. In fact, I may just start making all of the vandalism appear to be the same guy so as to gain notoriety like most repeat vandals (the people who are the real problem). Also, most vandals here are EDians who have it out for us and will gladly make accounts to vandalise. It'll encourage them more because it'll show that they are stirring our nerves. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Guilden

Thanks for the thanks! But you and I are missing the one blindingly obvious thing that makes their missing the blindingly obvious make sense. Managers love having activity, and are fearful of doing anything that slows it down. True, making people register wouldn't slow it down in any truly meaningful way, but the very ones who accuse us of paranoia clearly think that it would. In fact, the biggest arguement that I've seen them use is their strident claim that it WOULD slow things down. Sad to say, some just love activity, good, bad or indifferent - even destructive. Like a perverse Blackstone, they figure that it is better for ten articles of members in good standing to be vandalized, than let one solitary edit of an article by an IP escape them. --Clemens177 02:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We're here to discuss the pros and cons of a decision that has been proposed numerous times before, and all you can make of it to try to support your way is some petty accusation of conspiracy. I believe this is one of the stages of denial. -RAHB 02:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Clemens and I have made far more of it than this one "petty accusation of conspiracy" (see all above comments). —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And this section is titled "Guilden". Nobody was actually addressing you, RAHB, though your silliness is amusing and welcome. Was it you who had said something earlier about "paranoia"?

And it does not make a person a conspiracist to point out the Community Theatre managers like their to be plenty of auditions, no matter how it offends people with some training in the craft. --Clemens177 02:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned nothing of paranoia, though I seem to remember seeing it, I see the section title, though forums are openly editable in any section, the points are clearly being spoken about the elder users and admins, and I have full respect despite disagreement with your legitimate arguments, but I can't stand when people try to bring accusations and emotional extras that are irrelevant into a debate that should merely be about facts and possibilities relating to the topic at hand. That's all. -RAHB 02:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Modusoperandi. I read that thing he wrote that one time. It was awesome. 131.137.245.207 02:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. 71.14.38.10 02:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you used the word "paranoia", I asked. But to help you out, here's a way to deal with that problem you have with seeing accusations made about "elder" users and admins - get over it. I also said you were welcome to post there, anyway, so your speech about it being an open forum was pointless. As have been your rebuttals.

I wasn't, by the way, making an "accusation". When seeing a group of people being obtuse over some blindingly obvious points, I can assume that they are really that stupid...or I can charitably assume that they have another motivation. Me being such a nice guy, I flat out state that they have another motivation, and the same old motivation that every group manager I've ever met has - that yearning desire for activity of any sort.

If hearing that is something you "can't stand", then I'd suggest you've lived a very sheltered life. The kind that lets you see one person talk to another...and assume that they mean you. --Clemens177 02:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And I never said that you said I mentioned paranoia, I was merely answering your question. I see what you mean when it comes to assuming that there is an ulterior motive or simply an intense stupidity behind this. The way it appears to me right now is that neither is the case on either side of this argument. It's merely two sides who believe that two different ways are the right one to go about in reaching the most ideal situation. The contention comes in in the essence of the debate, that the two ideas are drastically opposed to one another. Normally for that very reason I like to stay out of these debates because I know that they are perpetual, and that neither side will ever win, or ever convince the other that they are correct. However, now I'm pretty deep in it, so I'm going to end up following it through. -RAHB 02:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In addressing me, you told me, "I mentioned nothing of paranoia" which to those raised in English speaking nations implies that you believe that I thought that you had. Since the only point being made is that making IPs register before editing would decrease vandalism "some", and since that cannot be logically disputed, then you "following it through" will take you a darn long time. Unless I and others get bored, figure you as a troll, and give up.

Now, to try and end this, answer this, "Do you honestly believe that what I said would not deter at least ONE vandal?" If you can say, "Yes", then my point is made. If you can say, "No", then there'd be no point in addressing you further. --Clemens177 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, no one is paranoid. Both of you, go here. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to return to the key point you are making, of course we love activity. This is an internet website, without activity and a regular flow of new people editing the site would just die over time. New blood, and a purpose for being here are a key part of what oils the machine. As RAHB and Modus and others have already stated we have had this same conversation many time, and its far from black and white, so no doubt we will hold this debate once again in the future. And that is as it should be, and may produce a different result in time. But for now, as before, I think the arguments in favour of unrestricted access outweighs any benefits a carpet ban of IPs may or may not give us. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Fuck you saberwolf

For starting this debate. There is no way I'm going to get through this tl;dr nightmare any time soon, so allow me to say in the meantime that your mass-blanking vandals(grawp, etc) are usually far more persistent than your IP spellchecker. IPs fix spelling errors precisely because it's so easy. If I had to go through a log-in process just to fix one error I found on some foreign wiki, I wouldn't bother. It's just not worth it. And in my experience, the error fixing stage is one of the first steps toward becoming a user.

One of the things I love about Uncyclopedia is that it's not complete humor gold every single time. It's about taking the bad along with the good, and seeing each lame joke as a chance to swoop in and fix something. If IPs have to make a bunch of shitty jokes while logged out before they can log in to make their shitty jokes, that's fine with me. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:45, Jun 22

It should be pointed out that you do love big cocks. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[SERVERS] and IP BLOCKING

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?