Talk:Anonymous User Protection Squad (AUPS)

you will fail![edit]

You've got to be kidding. Reminds me of Esperanza. This kind of "gang" never succeeds. Fences and windows 23:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it exists! Maysara 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not much for dragging other people down, so I really can't endorse User:Fences and windows's statement there, but there's two minor issues that come to mind that you should consider. 1) "But it exists" is technically true at best, since you're the one and only member, and 2) wouldn't the rights of IP users be better served by making changes to our core policies to better reflect our mission and a commitment to make it easier for new and unregistered users to edit? Also, a minor point: logged in users are more "anonymous" than IP users, assuming they take some basic steps to protect their own identity. I wrote an essay (in a very loose definition of the word) regarding proper pseudonymous editing and identity protection online. Mind, that's mostly born out of learning from my mistakes. Kylu 02:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The right path does not necessarily need to be only one path. "making changes to our core policies" is a full time job, and I would be glad to see someone stopping them lowbrow short-sighted closed-minded people from cutting the nuts of anon. users! It's remarkable because core policies are initially with this kind of position; but the wikis got so famous or something, dunno what! Members have not been joining AUPS, dunno why! It ain't so active in here anyways, and the whole thing is relatively new. I thought with time maybe would change - gotta put a flier in WP itself, but i don't want to do that .. it stinks of schisms and disagreement and users cracking down on users with the scripture of policies and guideline-pages in Wikipedia these days. Na! Maysara 04:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an inexperienced and infrequent editor I have found it like this also. :]