Forum:We CAN Stop Vandalism

Forums: Index > Village Dump > We CAN Stop Vandalism

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6183 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I have been on Uncyclopedia long enough to know how bad our vandalism crisis is. On average, over 50% of the Ban Patrol entries are anonymous IP users who have no registered accounts. Many IP users also vandalize to the point of CVPing articles. An anonymous IP has also created Fisher Price, a prime example of our hipocracy when it comes to vandalism. By letting a one liner with the words "go eat shit fuckers" exist, we should logically abandon HTBFANJS and allow any vandalism from this point onward to continue to exist unreverted. However, by requiring registration and only allowing two accounts per IP, we can curb anonymous IP vandalism. We should also agree to screen new users as often as possible to avoid sockpuppets. We can slow down the waves of vandals, ED loyalists, and Wikipedian trolls by simply not letting IPs vote or edit, being stricter on existing users, and increasing the number of admins. Just 45 sysops is not enough to stop vandalism. We should also look into using a VandalProof-like counter-vandalism program and an AntiVandalBot to ease the strain on vandalism patrollers. With enough change, WE CAN END VANDALISM. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Starnestommy (talk • contribs)

This is all very well, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. What we really need is a fifty foot fence round the outside of the building where the servers are, to protect them from vandals. This should be patrolled by lions, killer bees and guards armed with nuclear weapons. Inside, all servers should be disconnected from the internet as this is where the problem is coming from. They should then be switched off, wrapped in foam and buried at the bottom of a kilometer-deep tunnel, where they should be protected by a series of pyramid-style traps in case some future archaeologist vandal happens to stumble across the place. Only then can we truly hope to end vandalism. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument about Fisher Price uses slippery slope logic. We let one article like that exist, in part because of the retrospective article. Most important, however, is the fact that it is the only one of its kind we allow to exist. But I digress from the main point. Thus far, Uncyclopedia's anti-vandalism policies are working just fine. No matter what policies we implement, vandals will still be there; there is no magic bullet for stopping vandalism, short of locking down the whole wiki and not allowing anyone to touch it ever again. The only way for a janitor to keep a building totally clean would be to lock the door and not let anyone in, but that would defeat the purpose of the building. Don't lock people out, just keep sweeping. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 08:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "slippery slope logic" an oxymoron or something? —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why yes, it is. A contradiction of terms intended to suggest that someone has "proved" a point by sliding, so to speak, over the reality of the situation to smoothly get from a premise to a conclusion. </nerd> --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well remember, there is a Why?: article with the reasons for deleting an article that now can't be deleted --Advertising Rights for this space is available.(Terms} Wildy I'm jumping on the bandwagon @You have something to say? 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote: Should we approve a new vandalism policy?

Score: -lots

• Nom and For -- Nobody likes vandalism except vandals. --Starnestommy 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against Insert reason here. —Braydie 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes you say "insert reason here"? --Starnestommy 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been brought up many other times, most (if not all) will disagree. The front page says "Welcome to Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." We've also had some of the best users start out as IPs. Vandalism from IPs is a problem with all wikis, and that's just something we have to deal with. —Braydie 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. However, the people have a right to vote. I say, "Let them vote." --Starnestommy 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• A☭AINST, 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

been discussed at length [[1]] the vandalism's not that bad here, any vandalism that happens is reverted momentarily and the ips banned. opinion on the subject of forcing registry to varying degrees is split closely enough that we'll never reach a conclusion but to agree to disagree - jack mort | cunt | talk - 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least we didn't go as far as ED did. They even blocked account creation. --Starnestommy 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Against --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 00:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against. Innocent until proven guilty.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• FUCK THAT SHIT. Not only am I certain it's against Wikia's policy, but it's also not exactly in the spirit of a wiki community. This has been discussed before--in fact, one of discussions is on the first page of the Dump right now--and every single time it's crashed and burned. Thank you, have a nice day. —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 03:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm waiting until RC votes -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. —Braydie 06:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Super-motherfucking-against. Not this "block all IP's shit" again. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against One of them 'with freedom comes responsibility' things, innit? {{RabbiTechno 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)}}
• Against. The vast, vast majority of IP edits are legitimate and constructive, as far as editing Uncyclopedia goes. Allow me to quote an old Russian saying: "Clean is not where there isn't garbage, but where there are garbagemen." Join The Grue Army! --Medvedev ^(scream) 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against Without IP edits, we would never have Fisher Price. --General Insineratehymn 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against Without IP edits, we would never have Fisher Price and Uncyclopedia is the worst. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against I don't think we should try to make it harder for people to get on uncyclopedia, assholes will always try to find a way in, sometimes vandalism can be funny lol, anyways admins can just protect highly vandalized pages. If you give up liberty for freedom then you have neither --Uncle J 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• For I fricking hate those gosh-darned IPs. —rc (t) 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote: make Every Topic in the Universe Except Euroipods (Dot Com) the new vandalism policy?

Score: 1

• Makes sense to me. --Fictional <insert name here> 06:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I SAY WE JUST KILL THEM ALL!!!! ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE MATEY!

Score: +3

• ARGGHHH MATEY!!!! ~ 07:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• *cough* argghhh matey. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• I am in favor of this proposal, but I'm not saying that. I do have a reputation to uphold, y'know. —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not saying all, but we really should hire a hitman to find Serial blanker before he finds an admin and does whatever he is craving for so wildly. -- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I say we lock all of uncyc so NO ONE can edit at all, then we varnish it and put it ina cardboard box in the attic, and just take it out on boxing day or when ex-servicemen are visiting for eclairs

• For. i would have so much more free time to waste - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Amen --Kenvalyi 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• For ex-servicemen and all having left over turkey butties together. It'll be just like the olden times. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I say we initiate a proxy holocaust

You want to know one of the main causes for all of this vandalism? Open proxies. Open proxies ruin our crops, poison our water, and deface our monuments. I say that we go forth and start a mass proxy genocide. We shall not stop until 6 million proxies have been put the hatchet. Kill the open proxies, and we solve our main problem at Uncyclopedia. --General Insineratehymn 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• For Who's with me!? --General Insineratehymn 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Way ahead of ya. It looks blank because I've banned every one of them I've found, but the history shows a different story. If you want to help, then by all means... —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

help? what? how? where? - jack mort | cunt | talk - 16:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Against, only because proxies are used by people who have ISPs that block Uncyclopedia and they have to use a proxy to get around that. I think some schools, colleges, government networks, businesses, and even some nations block Uncyclopedia as part of their Internet policy. Proxy servers help people express their freedom of speech from censorship. If you block all proxies, you will block the people who normally cannot access Uncyclopedia except by proxy. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• For. Open Proxies are hell. Minor vandalism is usually done using a normal, semi-permanent IP, but when we get vandals that attack every day, sometimes more than that, they are most certainly using open proxies. As for you whole anti-censorship thing... I really doubt many people use proxies to access Uncyclopedia from School or Work. In fact, my school doesn't even have uncyc blocked, and it has to have about a kajillion site blocked.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

there are some blocked schools, but they're blocked because people from there were vandals, so it's their own fault really. most people have pcs at home now, so even if someone can't get on from school/college/work they should still be able to edit at some point. shouldn't be editing uncyc at school anyway, should be learning stuff, and starting small fires - jack mort | cunt | talk - 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I am against censorship in any form, unless it is to be used to protect people from hate crimes or protect children from things they aren't supposed to see which might lead to psychological damage. What I am for is holding people responsible for what they say, while they have the right and freedom to say it, they are still liable under slander and libel laws and if they make threats and use hate they are to be held responsible for that. Then we use their speech as an example of what evil people say and why we shouldn't say it. This censorship, blocking all proxies, would punish those who aren't vandals because some of the people using said proxies are vandals. I equate that to banning all video games because the Columbine shooters simulated their high school attack using Doom, or banning all music because someone committed suicide from listening to Suicide Solution by Ozzy Ozborne. I mean it is the abuse that is the problem, and not the medium itself. Even if you ban proxies, you will still have vandalism because vandals will just go to a friend's house or a relatives house and use their computer. Then what are you going to do? Ban whole blocks of IP? Like ban AOL, MSN, Netscape, PeoplePC, etc because a bulk of the vandals are using IPs from that network and can reset their modem or router to get a new dynamic IP every time you ban one of their IPs? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is a shame we have to do this - the censorship thing is kind of a good point. But then I suspect China (getting straight to the point) have blocked more proxies than even we have. I won't bother to place a vote, since this is already policy. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We should call our proxy policy the "CDT" (Chinese Decency Test). "If it fails the CDT, it automatically is blocked."--<<>> 04:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Against as per Blastar. goshzillacorrespondence 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Give Temporary Special Executive Powers to RadicalX Until This Crisis Has Passed

For Strong Rad (Holla!) 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

An anti-vandal bot?

Vandalism is certainly a problem with politics and religion related articles (which I usually work on). I’m sure it’s a problem elsewhere too. Is it possible to make bots in Uncyclopedia? Would it be possible to create one that:

• Automatically reverts an IP edit if it contains certain words (curse words etc) and then sends a warning to that IP address and notes it
• Do exactly the same for IP addresses when blanking
• IP addresses Have to request permission from admins or experienced users whenever their edits are blocked (for using curse words etc)
• Maybe an automatic banning (for a week or so) for an IP address after a few warnings and a little more lenient for registered users? Strictness is up to you.

These are just suggestions and I don’t know if it’s possible to make bots here, and if it is, I’m not sure anybody could be bothered making one, but just a suggestion. If it can be made it might serve as Cainad’s forever unreachable “magic bullet”. Weri long wang 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

End to crazy scemes to end vandalism!

Okay, wheather you like it or not vandalism is hear to stay, all of your retarded scemes are completely pointless as they all beat the point of this site being a wiki, with it being a wiki you must except that there will be vandalism, besides lets give vandals a break, after all today is national vandalism day. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Random turnip (talk • contribs)

Frankly, I have trouble taking someone named "Random turnip" seriously. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you see, there is actually a very good reason for my choise of name, as i was creating my account, my little brother threw a turnip at me, which i though was quiete a random thing to do, aswell as this, i always thought this site was not supposed to be serious, maybe you should go and check out Wikipedia, i hear its very good for those who have no sence of humor! im willing to bet that you will get mardy and block me now, well if that is the case, see u in a few weeks! – Preceding unsigned comment added by Random turnip (talk • contribs)

Why would I block you for that? Your username makes more sense than mine. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

eh, most admins get mardy easy, and then block you with some pathetic reason, like Random Turnip is gay. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Random turnip (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts using the signature button or by keying ~~~~. Strong Rad (Holla!) 12:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why whine about vandalism if anyone can edit a page? Seriously, waht you moderators, editors and register users really want is your own private "comedy club". Just make it one. Stop pretending to be anything else. I mean, it's the one real thing you share with Wikipedia: pretentiousness. At least they want facts (though bias remains), you snobs have decided what humor is and is not. Perhaps "go eat shit fuckers" is pretty accurate summary of Uncyclopedia's policies. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.54.130 (talk • contribs)

Um, did you miss the vote above in which basically everyone voted against more stringent editing regulations? Cries of repression don't really work when you can scroll up and see what's actually going on. —rc (t) 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote to make it official Uncyc policy that fuckers should go and eat shit

Score: +0.5

• Nom and half-for The IP makes a good point. All who fuck with Uncyclopedia should go and eat shit. It only gets half a vote from me though, because I'm not entirely sure how it could be enforced. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)