Forum:BUTT DRAMA!!!!

Forums: Index > Village Dump > BUTT DRAMA!!!!

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4832 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I'm actually not here to cause more drama about BUTT POOP!!!! No, I'd just like to find out people's opinions on how well VFD works. And with that purpose in mind, I'm asking you the following question:

Do you think BUTT POOP!!!! was deleted fair and square? (I'm talking about this VFD vote.)

Remember, I'm asking whether the process of deletion happened fair and square, not whether you would've voted keep.

No

Score: +3

• It was deleted after just a couple hours and was whored on IRC, so No. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:02, 31 July 2010
• Not in the least. I'll comment below. Aleister 21:10 31 7

p.s. And I didn't know it was whored on IRC. That's a whole new level of. . . (no drama, no drama, count to 10. . .)

• Articles should have at the very least 24 hours to get a fair hearing. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Yes

Score: 0

I couldn't care less about this shit

Score: +3

• ehhhh--HM (T)
• Ditto. Even though I'm pretty sure I voted to delete it. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 22:52 Jul 31 2010
• Didn't follow it closely but it seems clear that personalities were a factor. Spıke Ѧ 10:24 1-Aug-10

Alright, so I've seen some people have pointed out a couple problems and ways to solve them.

Feel free to propose your solutions in this section. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:18, 1 August 2010

Possible Solution: at least 24 hours

Score: +11

• Per Mhaille, make a new VFD rule that all articles should be given at least 24 hours on VFD, regardless of how many votes it has. Other than that, whatevs. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 00:01, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
• For. this new rule -- Sf13 20:07 EST 31 July, 2010
• For. This gets my full support. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:22, 1 August 2010
• For. Makes sense to me. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 00:46 Aug 1 2010
• For. Aleister 00:58 1 8
• For... coz I modified the template to show the creation date -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 01:03, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

and if we want to make this official policy, I'll modify it to show the expiry date -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 03:22, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

• For., at the very least 24 hours as we have a global userbase it means that everyone has a chance to voice their opinion... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• For. A person who logs on daily should never completely miss a VFD life-cycle. I like well-defined rules, but not enough to support the other Proposed Solutions below; Uncyclopedia doesn't need to become more like the US Senate. Above all, designating "mainstream Uncyclopedians" is a way for personalities and rank to further enter the picture. Spıke Ѧ 10:24 1-Aug-10
• Comment.VFD now specifies whether an article is within the 24 hour period or not, of course that's not to say you can't vote after it becomes Burninatable. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 12:42, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. For at least 48 hours. Some of us have lives you know... not saying I do mind you, just some of us.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  03 Aug 2010 ~ 01:44 (UTC)
• Phwoar --SadisticWolf 09:04, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
• For. 24-7. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:17, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
• For. --Mn-z 23:47, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Possible Solution: A VFD page with six legit Keep votes is saved (VFG winners counts as an automatic 5)

Score: 0

• For. Fairest solution I can think of, in the world of "fair and square" (i.e. Wonderland) Aleister 00:57 1 8
• Against. A target of 6 people makes whoring to friends to get your article kept fairly trivial. I am strongly against VFG having any influence whatsoever, people aren't mentally retarded, they can vote on VFD if they care. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 01:01, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Against. VFG is not an official page. If the five people care enough about the page, they have 24 hours (in a fair system) to vote to keep it.--HM (T)
• Against. Per Oli and HELPME. Also, I don't understand why everyone is so binary about things like this. What happened to discussion, compromise, and initiative to change things on this site? You're aware that you can save any article/template's destruction on VFD by correcting the reasons people are voting to delete it, right? --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 01:17 Aug 1 2010
• For. Why? My articles gets deleted a lot. At least 7 votes for "For" needs to come in, as a good solution. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 06:01, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

If you simply deal with the reasons the article is on VFD you can get it taken off, failing that you can opt to have it moved to your userspace where you can continue working on it. If there are any articles of yours that have been deleted and you can remember their name, I can restore them into your userspace if you wish. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 07:02, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

• For. I don't intend to suggest that VFG is official, but if it's obvious through any channel - whether Facebook, or a forum, or somebody's talk page - that an article has the support of five or six active Uncyclopedians, that article should not be deleted. And if it should happen to be deleted, it should be undeleted when the fact that it had that support comes to light. pillow talk 07:11, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

This begs one blindingly obvious question: if those users actually support it, why are they not explicitly voting for it on VFD? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 07:44, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Also, It's totally unimplementable to permit it through *all* channels because it would result in rampant sockpuppetry with no means of detection whatsoever -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 07:48, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

You're misusing the phrase "begs the question." More to the point, the answer is: "Maybe because some people have better things to do than to constantly monitor VFD." I don't think "rampant sockpuppetry" is a concern given that I'm talking about active Uncyclopedians, not "anyone with a nickname who wants to chime in." pillow talk 08:32, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing when a question gives way to another "begs the question" and circular logic or "begging the question" - either way, it's not relevant so I'd prefer if we could avoid potentially inflammatory accusations. Now, moving on... someone has to spend the time verifying the account on facebook/twitter/whatever is actually that of the person on Uncyclopedia. My question of why we need to do this when people can just Vote directly on VFD still stands -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 08:43, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Few people actually vote on VFD. It has its regulars, and we all meet for coffee and scones on Tuesday over at the pub to discuss the week's accomplishments. So indications of an article's popularity from other sources could be used by one of the voters or an admin, and then an admin could call a halt to the vote and save the page. Aleister 11:21 1 8

I think this is something to be dealt with on a case by case basis: if a user(s) demonstrates (themselves, not someone else doing it for them) that they wanted an article kept and their vote(s) would have changed the outcome, that should be grounds for undeleting the article and modifying the VFD result, doing it any other way is simply not going to work because nobody's going to have the time for that sort of burden, also given the undelete ability of the wiki, there's no need. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 12:14, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

You know, if a person doesn't vote on VFD if they are given adequate time and then complains when something is deleted, that's their problem, not ours.--HM (T)

• Against. for reasons that I will take to the grave. lol jk I think its a bad idea. -- Sf13 01:26 EST 2 Aug, 2010
• Against just to be sure this doesn't pass. If we're going to automatically count an unofficial user-run page as 5 votes, then we might as well count admin votes as triple and my votes as instant kills/saves. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 08:02, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
• For. what Hype said. --Mn-z 23:48, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sub-Solution: If someone strongly objects, it can have an "appeal" round of votes where you only vote to keep/delete if you feel strongly about the article in question

Score: 1

• Strongest possible against Oh boy. Filibusters. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 02:43 Aug 1 2010

No no, there'd only be one appeal stage permitted -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 03:28, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

• I'm For this, but I don't think it'd be necessary if people were just given enough time to vote. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:31, 1 August 2010
• For this one, though as a substitute for the idea below. A discussion-based atmosphere is the best kind of atmosphere and one that our policy should gravitate towards. I've also been approached with a novel idea similar in nature to this for VFH which sounded just stellar to me. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 08:04, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Against. If VFD is working correctly, an appeal shouldn't be needed. --Mn-z 23:50, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Another Possible Solution: A VFD vote with 4 or 5 well argumented Keep votes is saved

...If there's strong indication through whatever channel imaginable that there's quite a few regulars who want it kept, that's a pretty good reason to give it some more time before it is deleted.

Score: 1

• For. The header says it all, really. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:47, 1 August 2010
• For. The header that says it all. Aleister 11:12 1 8
• For. Of course. pillow talk 11:28, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Against. The existing rules (as stated at the top of the VFD page) suggest that votes are already weighted based on the quality of the argument, so I don't see a need for a new rule on this beyond the proposed new 24-hour rule above. If so, I would have "well argumented" mean a good rationale based on what's in the page, not personalities, history, heritage, or who voted how in past VFDs. Spıke Ѧ 11:35 1-Aug-10 post-edited

  Though with the current system, I get the impression admins are more prone to just count the votes than actually check the quality of the argument. And I don't mean that badly towards the admins, it's just the impression I'm getting. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:43, 1 August 2010

• Against. Define "well argumented". Man, these ideas are getting weird. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 17:47 Aug 1 2010

  "Well argumented" refers to a vote with a valid argumentation. Good arguments for voting keep might be "I honestly think this is pretty funny." or "The article is well-written and while it's not laugh-out-loud funny, it's good enough." A bad argument for voting keep would be "The delete voters stink." A good argument for voting delete might be "I think this article contributes nothing to Uncyclopedia, even worse, it makes it even worster." Bad arguments for voting delete would be "I don't care about this article so I'm voting delete." or "I HATE HAET HAT this article so I'm voting delete." The worst argument of all, however, is the "Per X" argument. Please people, shape your own opinions for once, will you? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:43, 1 August 2010

  "Well argumented" sounds like something they're concerned with at Wikipedia, where they agonize over whether every article follows WP:N, WP:RS, WP:BLP, etc. Here, people vote up if they like it and down if they think it sucks. What's to argue? If it's cyberbullying or somehow illegal, it should be QVFD'ed without discussion. If it's neither of those things, it should be kept if a half-dozen or so Uncyclopedians like it. Seems pretty simple, honestly. pillow talk 21:48, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

  I prefer WP:HOTCAT. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:54, 1 August 2010

• Against. Per Spike entirely.--HM (T)

  HELPME doesn't timestamp his messages, but this one preceded Socky's attack on "Per X" arguments, above. I'm flattered when other people think I've stated something so well that they can't add to it, and do it myself when appropriate to save space and reading time. I don't doubt the existence of cliques, but "Per X," per se, doesn't mean the writer took one look at another signature and decided to step in line. I see "Per Spike" voters who have loudly opposed me on other issues. Spıke Ѧ 22:45 1-Aug-10

  I agree on this issue. That doesn't mean I will in others. Also, you took the words right out of my mouth, so I didn't see the need to say them again.--HM (T)

  Also, as Spike says, gotta timestamp those messages Helpme. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 08:05, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Clearly we were desperate for something to notch up the drama levels to an acceptable level. Its clear this was "rushed though" the system, having said that I would probably have voted to nuke it but that isn't the point. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

• Since this is a no drama page, just the facts, sir. Mn-z loved the page, others liked it, and it was on the Vote for Good list as a winner. When it was put up, voted on quickly, and then was gone, it created drama resulting in Mn-z leaving our site. Some of us miss him. And some of us honor and respect VFG, and so this ran directly over into the validity of deleting a VFG page. To me this brings up the question of why don't we have a process of reviving deleted pages? There have been a few I've seen, like an "Unhuffable Kitten" page, which seem to deserve mainspacing. Aleister 21:14 31 7

That isn't relative to the matter in hand, lets just try to focus on that for now. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

The VFG designation, at least, seems relevant to the question. And the fact that its deletion was whored with the purpose of nuking it also seems relevant to "fair and square". Aleister 21:23 31 7

A more philosophical question

Should an article be deleted if:

A) Virtually no mainstream Uncyclopedians want it kept, and some want it deleted;

--or--

B) There are more mainstream Uncyclopedians who want it deleted than kept.

In my view, I prefer A). I think that if five Uncyclopedians vote "keep" and twenty Uncyclopedians vote "delete" - that should be a keeper. Which is why I think VFG should have ensured BUTT POOP against deletion: it meant there were at least five keep votes out there, and as far as I'm concerned, 5 keeps should mean keep.

But, VFD seems to have actually been retooled to favor B) - what with the "score" box, deletion is being treated basically as a straight up-and-down vote now. pillow talk 22:36, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as stupid as Wikipedia's policies are, "consensus" works for controversial issues like this rather than votes, which can be swayed by whoring.--HM (T)

I hate Wikipedia's way of handling deletion - "Here, let's everybody argue pointlessly for a few days, and then a single admin will come along and decide for himself what he thinks." Lame. Let's not do things that way.

The policy I favor is: if at least four or five regular Uncyclopedians want an article kept - we keep it. pillow talk 22:42, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I was saying- I was agreeing with you and saying that if quite a few regulars like it, it should stay.--HM (T)

This works both ways, if it's 5 vs 20 in favour of deletion, I would find it far more likely that the 5 on the keep side are the result of whoring than the 20 being involved in a conspiracy to get it deleted -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 23:05, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on those 5 having either good reasons or bad reasons to vote "keep" and the same for the delete voters. Then again, which reasons are "good" and which ones are "bad" is another area of dispute. But I basically agree with Hyperbole, though the 5 vs 20 example might be a bit extreme. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:28, 31 July 2010

Unless you can give a simple concrete formula for when to apply the rule of "Keep despite more deletion votes" this is going to either be unimplementable or implemented vis a vis admins using their discretion on whether to ignore the minority -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 23:37, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well, for example, if people were obligated to explain their votes (just a small but intelligible comment attached to the vote) and the admins were obligated to "devalue" the votes that aren't explained properly (make it count only half or just remove the vote), it would result in a more sincere outcome. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:30, 1 August 2010

I take your point, but that appears to be what the majority of the delete voters did for buttpoop, the same can't be said for the opposing side. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 00:55, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well, since the system we're talking about isn't yet in order, we can't expect past votes to adhere to the principle. Besides, I wasn't talking about BUTT POOP specifically. But since you seem to be asking, here's my key issues about the BUTT POOP case:

1. It should've gotten more time.
2. There might be something inherently unfair about the VFD process (besides the not getting enough time part I just mentioned).
3. The role IRC played in its deletion isn't exactly comforting either.

—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:16, 1 August 2010

Several options

The options are:

1) Hold a revote on VFD, subject to sufficient contention about the original result.

2) Discuss the merits of a VFR (Vote For Restore)

3) Do nothing, maintain the status quo.

I also think some facts about the template should be mentioned:

a) The template was only being included in a couple of places, by the people that created it, the purpose of a template is to store something that is being widely used or for technical reasons such as frequently changing content - being as it wasn't it should clearly be included inline.

b) Given the above fact it was essentially a personal in-joke amongst a few users, if they *REALLY* want it to be a Template they can store it under a page in their userspace, If at some point in time its usage became widespread enough it could then be moved over to the template namespace.

So this is not just an argument about lack of quality, it's about lack of relevance and necessity. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:56, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Last year, I nominated a few dozen templates for VFD. Numerous templates were kept that were of poor quality and had neither relevance nor necessity. They would realistically never be used on any page, and they were kept simply because people liked them. A good example is Template:Elephants. It's certainly not our policy that something shouldn't exist if it serves no purpose, considering that our entire project, really, serves no purpose. pillow talk 23:49, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that BUTTPOOP was deleted because nobody liked it? also, I'm going to VFD that template right now because you're right, it's shit. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 00:46, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that you're sending a very mixed signal; you're openly stating that you are of the mindset that template similar to BUTTPOOP should be deleted because they go along the same lines and you yourself submitted such templates to VFD, so your reasoning is essentially "those templates got to survive so why shouldn't this one" that's curious logic -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 00:51, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oli, I'm gonna leave the thread now because apparently Flammable's readying the banhammer, but I just have to ask you: when you said "so what you're saying is," did you actually think that I was saying anything resembling that?? I'm not looking for an answer. It's a rhetorical question. pillow talk 01:14, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

it's not rhetoric, I am genuinely asking what you think the reasons were for its deletion. My reasons were simple; it had a lot more deletion votes than keep votes, I was not aware of anyone being desperate for it to remain, nor had I paid any attention to the time it had been on VFD, if someone wanted to give it another round on VFD I would have no objections. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 01:17, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Generally, Olipro, "so what you're saying is," followed by something that would make the person you're addressing sound like they were either completely conceding their point or making an insanely stupid argument, is not a "genuine" request for information. But of course you must know that. Like I said, I'm not gonna argue this point further. Have a great evening! pillow talk 01:23, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Then I retract my original statement and submit the following modification: So what do you think the key reasons were for its deletion, and given that you implied it is on par with Template:Elephants which you submitted to VFD, why do you feel it's unfair that BUTTPOOP got deleted? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 01:27, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

What part of "I'm not gonna argue this point further" do you not understand? You know, that vaguely directed threat is directed at both of you to play nice lest we have another Hype v. Oli shitstorm out of nowhere again.--Flammable 03:31, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: if you wish to discuss this, please PM me. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 03:42, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Stop!

Hammertime. I'm gonna call it now, but I can tell that this is going to end with some people in hammertime-out--Flammable 00:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

VFD Template has been modified

I've modified the VFD template to include the time of creation, this will mainly assist admins/poopsmiths. if someone feels like it they can go and update the current VFD submissions with the time, if they don't feel like it then don't worry, the feature addition does not affect existing VFD tables. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 03:19, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I don't really give a shit about VFD. That is all. += 18:51,2August,2010

We dont give a shit about you not giving a shit--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 19:57, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

VFD

Reading all the above comments VFD can also stand for Vote For Drama. Still, I like the time stamp idea now implemented and the current 5 or clear votes for deletion seem to be fair. I don't think you can make a difference between 'mainstream' and 'other stream' (puddle stream?) users. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:56, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

What the guy with the toga said. 24 hours + 5 for deletion seems like the most balanced solution. You don't want to create a class system of "who is an eligible Uncyclopedian and who isn't". ~ 10:08, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

A purple toga I might add. When Plebs Cry. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:10, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

All I really meant by "established Uncyclopedians" was "those who are eligible to vote on VFD" - i.e., no IPs or people who registered their accounts yesterday. pillow talk 23:54, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

So, let's itemise these rules:

1. article must be given a minimum of 24 hours before deletion
2. if article receives >= 5 keep votes, it is no longer eligible for deletion

clearly 1 isn't in contention but the responses for 2 above show a very mixed set of viewpoints, if enough people are serious about this then I think it'd merit being stuck in a new topic as an official vote, both for reasons of neatness and posterity. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 12:30, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Per everyone in this section. Spıke Ѧ 12:36 4-Aug-10

Meh. 48 hours.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  05 Aug 2010 ~ 05:53 (UTC)

Dramatic Returning Message!

This discussion isn't that good, but this image makes up for it. --Mn-z 23:07, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

• For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:12, 10 August 2010
• Well, right the fuck on. Right the fuck on!! pillow talk 23:30, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

VFD: Guideline suggestion

If the score is -6 (six or more people voting for deletion compared to no one or a few voting for keeping) or more, then the article should be deleted. In other words, articles cannot be deleted if the score is -5 or less. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 06:55, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

De-Op Mordillo

Score: +2

For. It's a clear win-win, and a solution that I believe will finalise this dramathon. --Matfen 19:36, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

For. This should solve most problems on the site -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 06:03, Aug 19

AAAAAAAA!--FcukmanLOOS3R!!! 11:58, August 30, 2011 (UTC)