Forum:VOTE - Do we need oversight in UnNews?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > VOTE - Do we need oversight in UnNews?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4893 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Whilst the frivolities of this thread have been, as usual, frivolous, everything must eventually come to a close, and so has this vote.

This thread is now locked for posterity. Per the vote below, any delegated UnNews roles are janitorial only. Since the vote on putting your own articles was such a close call, any final decision is deferred for the time being. As usual, if you wish to continue discussion, please make a new thread, feel free to move any existing discussion section from here over to the new thread and I'll clean it up where appropriate. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 20:43, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Nearly 2 months ago there was a vote about whether there should be oversight for the UnNews templates (the 5 lead story slots on the UnNews Front page and the Recent UnNews template on the site's Main Page) to prevent self-promotion and to make things nice and clean there. This is the previous vote. Recently, there's been a string of users who have disputed the vote. I think that this community needs to decide, officially, if UnNews should have oversight of its templates or not, whether it's by myself, by another user, or by a committee of users.

The argument for and against oversight has been made plain here and here. ~  Talk 02:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The categories below are kind of vague. Because "no oversight" means that people really wouldn't be able to change others contributions to the template at all, which defeats the purpose of a wiki. I think a better way to describe it would be "community oversight". - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at03:04, Wednesday 27 July 2011 -

Yes, and they're rather tl;dr-ish too... I've cleaned them up somewhat. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 10:03, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Vote

Special oversight of the UnNews templates

Score: +8

• ~  Talk 02:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For: Multi-person oversight

• I think there should be oversight of the UnNews templates, but more than just one person should have the final say on what goes in and what doesn't. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:04, 27 July 2011
• Yup. I'd be all for an editorial committee. I think it's too much work for one person to do, and the idea of a project hinging on a single user's activity makes me kinda squeamish. Besides, then it won't be one user backed up against a wall valiantly fighting off mounds of drama, it'd be a team. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 09:07 Jul 27, 2011
• I dont know about a committee but the sys-ops should be doing oversight, same as with the other articles --Funky Monk 09:11, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• It could be compared to HowTo, where the featured articles are determined by the Editor. So what is the good of having an editor if he has no power? Then he just becomes a formatting gofer - and that is not very glamorous. Otherwise it's a free-for-all, and how would HowTo look without an editor? The editor of every publication decides what gets featured (usually exactly what the Elite order them to feature) so the UnNews needs an editor, not just a gofer.--Funnybony  18:52, Jul 27

• That's it, I'm reporting you for insulting The King, you filthy Kathoey. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 20:06, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

• Until someone becomes very dedicated to unnews (that is at an absurd and inhuman level of dedication), one person shouldnt have all the control. (i.e. editing, feedback, blah blah blah). --ShabiDOO 17:00, July 28, 2011 (UTC) Yes --ShabiDOO 23:54, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
• --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 16:56, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
• Multiple persons, including Humbucker. Mattsnow 01:22, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
• For. Most of the projects that anyone cares about have some sort of editor. Ideally, I'd like an admin to be in charge of UnNews, but that isn't going to happen. --Mn-z 12:21, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Against: no special oversight

Score: +14

• Fuck no Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 03:06, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Against The community as a whole should be able to regulate the UnNews templates. If users have disputes with other users they should try to solve the issue themselves, or if they can't then they should bring it to an admin for arbitration. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 06:47, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• NEVER--FcukmanLOOS3R!!! 07:55, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• No Too much drama. Contributed to this in my humble opinion. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 08:56, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• This. - and to be clear; by "No Oversight" I specifically mean that oversight of UnNews should be identical to the other UnProjects - namely, everyone reverts abuse as and when they see it; highly granular "quality control" whether delegated to one person or a committee is a no-no for me, there are already sufficient technical barriers to prevent noobs from spamming the place up with shit, and that's the way it should be. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 09:54, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• This option, per Zombiebaron and Olipro. --Funky Monk 10:04, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Against mAttlobster. (hello) 11:09, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• "Whoever wants to does it" with the one caveat of no self-noms. Simple enough. -- 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 11:42, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Very against. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• This. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 16:22, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Enough with the bureaucracy. -- unsophisticated Ape (bamboozle) (Riot Porn) 19:46, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• RINGRINGRINGRINGRINGRINGRINGBANANARCHY - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at23:12, Wednesday 27 July 2011 -
• Against. →A (Ruins) 23:30, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 02:58 Jul 28 2011

No self-noms for UnNews Templates Vote

I think this has wound up people more than anything. There's no real official rule in place at the moment which means we all do the kung-fu. So let's paintball:

For: Noone can put their own article on UnNews Front page or Recent UnNews

Score: +8

• Seems fair. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:56, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly for this. The only bit of "oversight" the system needs. I can write another long thing about dicks but I think you all get the picture -- 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 12:06, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• This is, in fact, the monster behind this issue. Article whoring in UnNews is like a way of getting on the Main Page without the inconvenience of a vote. It encourages writers by telling them that they don't have to write what others agree is a good article to make the Main Page. ~  Talk 15:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• The UnNews editor should control it.--Funnybony  17:12, Jul 27
• Even if we don't get a committee, please institute this one simple rule. It goes a long way to prevent crap from getting on the Main Page and maybe even motivate users to keep one eye on UnNews, even if it's just to find good stuff to nominate. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 17:49 Jul 27, 2011
• --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 16:54, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
• Mattsnow 01:33, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
• HauntedUndies. 04:40, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Against: People can put their own articles on UnNews Front page and the Recent UnNews

Score: +9

• PROTECT FREEDOM.--FcukmanLOOS3R!!! 11:58, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• The only single restriction might be not editable by IP. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• Encourages people to bother writing for UnNews in the first place. and frankly, UnNews needs all the incentives it can give. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 14:37, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• I just did it with my own piece. What's the big deal? Isn't the whole point of the recent UnNews template to show pieces that have recently been written, or am I missing something here? —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 16:21, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• "Isn't the whole point of the recent UnNews template to show pieces that have recently been written?" Yes. That's why it's called that. Against. -- unsophisticated Ape (bamboozle) (Riot Porn) 19:44, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Agree.--Funky Monk 21:03, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Per above. I think waiting on around on someone to nom UnNews would take too long. However, I would like a rule that if someone removes your unNews, don't revert the removal. --Mn-z 21:07, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
  • Second that suggestion about removal. Revert warring admins (and b'crats, not naming names) is just silly. It's this common respect that we ought to give other users and articles that separates us from the animals. -- 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 22:11, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• bowchickawowwow - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at23:14, Wednesday 27 July 2011 -
• Against. →A (Ruins) 23:28, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry, but the current editor should doing a lot more editing and overseeing work and become a lot more flexible about the articles that are put up there before he should become the ONE and only person to choose which articles go up. --ShabiDOO 16:54, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

What about {{Recent}}? Isn't that pretty much the same thing, but with regular articles? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:31, 27 July 2011

If you honestly think this is important then set up another vote. mAttlobster. (hello) 12:26, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not quite sure it's that important. Hence my not starting another vote. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:31, 27 July 2011

Life is fractured. mAttlobster. (hello) 12:37, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

You people are all idiots.

I just thought I'd come out and say it. Now I just need to figure out how to get this taco costume off... 1234 ~ 21:34, 27 July 2011

You stole my comeback header! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:36 Jul 27, 2011

I'm sorry. Now will you help me take off this giant costume? I think the zipper is stuck.

1234 ~ 21:37, 27 July 2011

This is sort of awkward, can't you just... I don't know... scissors or something... – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:39 Jul 27, 2011

Who needs scissors when I have a chainsaw? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:39, 27 July 2011

We already had the discussion about disguising your penis as a chainsaw. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:52, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

We had? Weird, I don't recall that. To be honest, I don't recall us having any penis-related discussion recently. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:54, 27 July 2011

That's lovely, but could someone bring me a scissors or something? I'm a little too tangled in this thing to move.

1234 ~ 23:36, 27 July 2011

Hi, stupid question...

We already have a template that automatically lists all the recent UnNews on the UnNews mainpage. If you want to allow them all on the Uncyclopedia mainpage, anyone adding whatever like on the mainspace articles thing further down, why is doesn't it just use the automatic one, save everyone the trouble? Why is there a separate, manual template at all? 1234 ~ 23:35, 27 July 2011

That's actually a great thought, Lyth....→A (Ruins) 23:39, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

The current does template system does allow for some quality control. Listing everything will put all articles that are not quite QVFD bad on the main page automatically. --Mn-z 00:45, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

You people are all brilliant geniuses

I just thought that had to be pointed out :) --ShabiDOO 16:56, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck is wrong with you? - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at05:22, Friday 29 July 2011 -

One thing

Regardless of the outcome of this, I think we should all acknowledge that Humbucker has been doing some great work on UnNews and that any decision shouldn't be taken as a negative reflection on him. -- unsophisticated Ape (bamboozle) (Riot Porn) 23:25, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Now I can go back to being a dick to people. -- unsophisticated Ape (bamboozle) (Riot Porn) 23:25, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Right

Two things, or rather, what I already said but with some explanation.

1. You people really are idiots, but I'll come back to that.
2. Oversight - that is the only way to maintain quality control, others looking over what one person does. And there is a separate template specifically to the end of quality control. Any one person editing it is silly, and likewise everyone editing it and reverting on it is silly, but this is a wiki. Some people edit. Some people check those edits and change them. Others ignore the entire process.

But on a wiki, for it to work, people have to try to use common sense in doing so, and to edit in good faith, and it works. It works almost everywhere else on the wiki, and on any other functioning wiki. If you think something will be an improvement, be bold and go for it (if it's a small change/addition). If someone else disagrees, they can revert with a specific reason why they disagree or talk it over on the talkpage, same as the changer should do first if it's a larger change or more ambiguous. That's what talkpages are for, after all, talking things through. Likewise, if you think something would be a good addition, but aren't sure, ask. Likewise, for this, it shouldn't matter who edits it so long as they do so in good faith, and in doing so accept that they may be wrong. Or, if they prefer, they should be able to just ask someone for an opinion - good enough? What could be improved? - without fear of the other bloke attacking them.

Which brings me back to my first point - turning something that should have been common practice into a vote is just idiotic, and I don't mean starting the vote so much as all of you actually voting on it, even after realising how dynamic and multi-faceted the issue really is. We already overregulate the site; putting into place further specific rules for things that a little common sense would resolve will only cause more problems. It's already helped cause the only guy actively overseeing the functioning of UnNews as a whole to up and leave, thereby possibly nullifying the entire idea of oversight, anyway.

I, for one, can hardly blame him, considering the reception he has received, and while there is no denying he is as involved as anyone in it coming to this point, is he really responsible? As a relative new user (though also unusually astute), he was learning as he went for much of it. Attacking people when they do something you disagree with is not the way to bring anyone around to your way of thinking, but it is especially devastating with new users, as they are less familiar with the place and usually actively trying to learn, and also more likely to leave. Saying they're wrong in a belligerent manner is more likely to solidify their views, which only makes it worse, so if you think someone is wrong or should do something differently, especially if it's someone you don't know, just tell them why, and carry out whatever dialogue ensues. A little respect goes a long way, and who knows, they may even be onto something. Or you may bring them around and generate a little repoire in the process. I'm looking at a few people in particular, I might add, regarding this. Won't mention names, though. Not now, anyway. Don't see it helping matters.

Anyway, enough ranting. Enough of this. A lot of us have screwed up here, some more majorly than others, but what's done is done. Could we all please just start thinking things through, now, before launching into further votes? 1234 ~ 15:12, 29 July 2011

Oversight is cool. Special oversight by some guy with special powers (particularly someone who spent a lot of time (when they weren't doing janitor stuff) throwing their weight around to make themselves feel important) is less so. There's no reason why people can't do the stuff that needs to be done on UnNews without being given a special hat to wear. -- unsophisticated Ape (bamboozle) (Riot Porn) 15:46, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is some of what I said. Thank you for agreeing. The problem is that other people such as yourself and that lovely gentleman below who, while recognising the issues, instead of trying to resolve them insist upon making things worse due to a somewhat terrible way of approaching things. I will now proceed with an example, as I do not know you and thus should probably at least try to uphold my own rantings: Saying 'Fuck you' is no way to get someone to change their mind about something, unless it's directly related to the use of the term 'fuck you'. Neither is saying you're not reading something then disagreeing with part of it when it already addressed that part in the very same sentence as it brought that up. While you seemed to realise the one directed at you after it happened, Ape, what about Olipro and the one directed at him?

1234 ~ 16:03, 29 July 2011

Herp derp. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 16:57, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I think you're actually probably right. I think I could have behaved somewhat more constructively. He's a very good writer, I think that's indisputable. mAttlobster. (hello) 17:06, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr

Derp -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:34, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Herpes. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:56, 29 July 2011

Fucking. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 16:00, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Drama

Since creating top-level headings for one-person diatribes is all the rage, I'll go ahead and do one too.

Apparently, Lyrithya, darling, you seem to think that blundering in at the approximate conclusion of a vote and proceeding to:

1. Slate everyone for being stupid enough to participate in a vote which you claim is wholly unnecessary.
2. Spend a good portion of your diatribe supporting TheHumbucker
3. Ignore the fact that TheHumbucker instigated the vote in the first place, including his rousing support of the secondary vote as the issue that was the "elephant in the room"
4. Fail to add anything of value to the dialog other than reiterate that oversight is A Good Thing™ (oh, and telling us we're all idiots)

...is an acceptable thing to do.

On the other hand, perhaps you might like to open yourself up to the possibility that maybe conducting votes such as these are a useful way of having a constructive resolution within the community for unaired issues such as these; *especially* considering the consensus has largely been railing against any sort of unilateral authoritarianism - and on both sides of the vote. Although with that said, your views on "oversight" are distinctly murky. The fact does remain that just as Ape unilaterally stuck his article on RecentUnNews, so TheHumbucker also unilaterally removed it - with the latter person being construed as the agressor, and thus, incurring aggression. This needn't necessarily have been taken to the Village Dump and turned into a vote, but it was, so we address it.

To be perfectly blunt however, claiming that these issues could be resolved with "common sense" is an insult to the people on whichever side you're not in unison with and simply shows that you aren't interested in or willing to take on any opposing views as you're clearly far happier to simply disregard them as mere idiocy; whether someone wants a special oversight of UnNews or not, their opinion is still perfectly valid and deserves to be given an opportunity for adoption. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 17:50, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr version

Lyrithya, the only idiot here is you. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 17:50, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Back to what Lyrithya was saying

While Lyrithya is obviously defending Humbuckler, I think (and tell me Lyrithya if I am wrong) she is making a bit of a stand against people who instead of dealing with a problem, giving leeway, compromising, shuting up and listening for a second, that a few people are making the situation either worse or even impossible to resolve. She has a point. A good point and she wrote it really well. The most revolting thing that ever happens on this website is when some users, both regular users and admins completely discredit what someone has to say by telling them "to shut their whinny fucking mouth shut" or the likes of that and then runs around in a tantrum and then never relents or admit they went over the top. Maybe we should re-think the UnNews situation. Just look at what Funnybonny has said (who is actually a regular contributors to UnNews and one of the biggest). He seems to be happy with the editing and Humbuckler's choices so far. Lyrithya is right, who started what vote, who voted, said what, how things have worked, blah blah blah is not worth talking about, but how to work it out now, put some faith in Humbuckler, give him some space in terms of learning curve, how all of us could become a bit more compromising about recent news and give him some more time to give UnNews some "direction" is not unreasonable. Or just forget it, and let UnNews become a free-for-all because a few people who write 2% of the UnNews articles want more say over what happens. I myself change all my votes above. --ShabiDOO 18:00, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

1) It's Humbucker. 2) Give examples. 3) No, you're contradicting yourself, evidently you think it *IS* worth talking about. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 18:10, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

"a few people who write 2% of the UnNews articles"- Who exactly are you referring to here? (this whole not naming names thing really is more trouble than it's worth) -- unsophisticated Ape (bamboozle) (Riot Porn) 18:30, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I just went ahead and collected the names of users who have had UnNews featured, articles of the last few days and 40 more random articles of the last two months. Only three users wrote more than three, two users wrote three, and everyone else wrote one or two (most of them...one). The users who wrote more than three where Funnybonny who had 16 articles, Romartus with 6 and Humbucker with 5. They are three of the six users who agreed to oversight. Of the 14 users to votes against oversight, one of them had a featured article or were included in the 40 other articles I selected in the last few days and a few randomly selected over the last two months (that does not guarentee that they might have published an article...I myself am not on that list either). In terms of the vote as to being able to put your own article on the template, all users who had written at least three articles [five users in total] (in my selection had voted for minus one user). Of those who voted against, only one user had written an article included in my survey.

Notice that those who write a large amount of the articles are those who are most willing to submit to the "direction" of an "overseer" and to not be allowed to nominate their own articles. Including Mattlobster who himself had a reverting war recently (though Matt is not for oversight but against self nom on templates). Funnybonny who wrote over a quarter of the articles himself, seems aghast that editors are driven away and clearly believes in there being direction with unnews. Those are my examples as per UnNews.

As per examples of users telling each other to shut their winny fucking mouths shut? Well...peruse the forums until you see a flame war ... and you will find them.

Yes...the name is Humbucker. Sorry. Humbucker has agreed to ride with me in my spaceship to the centre of the moon. Skullthumper will come if I provide cheese. Most other users will come if I bring my biatch along! --ShabiDOO 00:43, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

So, using your research, we can see that by and large, the most prolific contributors to UnNews are in favour of the status quo. Is this meant to come as a surprise? Clearly if you are a prolific writer whilst under Controller X you would have an interest in things staying that way, do you think Goldman Sachs CEO votes for the Communist party? 'nuff said... Except I must now stress that you shouldn't get the wrong idea from what I'm saying; I'm purely stating it's not significant in any way, not that there's a conspiracy/cabal/cliqué/whatever you crazy kids think. Also, obligatory "here's some cheese to go with your wine." included free! -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 02:13, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Olipro, you asked for examples and I gave you them. Thats all. If you are going to stomp your foot into the ground and not move an inch...why are you even engaging in this conversation? We know...we know...we saw how you voted and that wont change your mind. Its clear. Its Understood! But for, you know, anyone who might be open to hearing other ideas...or speculating about how to deal with this situation...well...theres a lot more in the various texts above other than news writer stats and the spelling of Humbucker's name. --ShabiDOO 02:56, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

No no no, that wasn't what I was getting at, at all. The point I was making is that what you're examining isn't a justification for one side or the other; prolific writers are going to carry on being prolific regardless of which side is adopted, what is more of a concern is who gets marginalised. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 13:10, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Sort of like Hyperbole and Spike were marginalized? --Mn-z 00:00, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

It's a clique, not a cliqué. Get your French right, noob. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:17, 30 July 2011

That's not a diacritic, it's actually a tiny piece of dirt on your screen! -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 13:24, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Well then, stop shitting on my screen, Olipro. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:40, 30 July 2011

Shabidoo pardon me if I tell you that you may be the smartest man on this forum and you have my vote for UotM. -- 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 01:20, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Also Lyrithya is also doing a great job in this forum, except she already won UotM. And you also basically did a little in-house UncycloStudy. Probably got the same flaws as Matt Lobster's FFW ministudy but damn, Uncyc sure is getting good at researching their issues. We should have some sort of a science department or something. -- 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 01:48, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Reading a little bit closer, it sure would help the argument of "Y'all need to sit down and start speaking like civilized gentlepersons for a change," if you didn't call everybody stupid in each sentence. Sure, I mean, like, comedy site, but clearly nothing on this page is funny, so who's getting the joke? -- 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 02:27, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a joke. Irony aside, conventional means weren't working; whenever folks tried putting out less targeted arguments with logic and sense and stuff regarding this previously, they had this tendency to promptly get ignored when a bunch of others decided to run off with some random specific issue that mattered more to them, something that often shouldn't even have been an issue in the first place, but that didn't stop folks from turning it into one, kind of like this. I guess I had to try something. It's like sometimes you have to drop a bomb on civilians to bring folks to the table; it's horrible, but there it is. In this case, instead of warring sides it's a bunch of random people trying to get some very specific and yet undefined things turned into Rules for some reason, and instead of a bomb, it was a large insult. Not exactly a very insulting insult, for Uncyclopedia - which was also kind of the point. Sometimes it seems to be the only way folks here know how to communicate. I don't like it, and as such would prefer not to use it, but as much as I hate to admit it, it has rubbed off on me as well. I get the feeling you don't like this one any more than I do, however.

Frankly, I'm glad.

And Shabidoo, thank you for looking into specifics and whatnot. It certainly sheds some interesting light on who is voting, although if folks aren't apt to be affected by it, it would be nice to hear from some of those why they feel as they do, and why they care however much they do.

1234 ~ 07:09, 30 July 2011

So all of that is a great attempt to de-legitimate the result of the vote and all, but since when do the people with the most featured articles in an arbitrary timescale get special attention. I've always written most of my stuff for UnNews. I don't write loads of stuff all the time but when I do it tends to be of better-than-average quality. But according to your survey, I'm just some prick who has nothing to do with UnNews sticking their nose in, because I've only recent become active again. Basically what I'm saying is, as interesting as all that crap is, it isn't a license for people to ignore the results of the vote. -- unsophisticated Ape (bamboozle) (Riot Porn) 08:33, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

But why was there a vote at all? Allow me to theorise, perhaps.

In this case, Shabidoo's sample is only a sample. As with any sample that attempts to be representative, there will be outliers, and it will only represent what was studied, but that's all it was, an idea of the apparent proportions. It was, however, enough to put you and your stance on the defensive, to put you into a corner of sorts, and so you retaliated in turn in such a manner apt to put the other fellow on the defensive, and potentially in doing so, back him into a corner. But when backed into these metaphorical corners and put on the defensive, people defend. They have to, in a way; if they don't it is as if their entire thing loses credibility, even when it's only a single piece questioned or whatnot. Thus what they're defending is all they have at that point, whatever they said last that is now put on trial, and in turn, whatever put that on trial is put on trial, and so on, and if more people get involved, it gets bigger and it leads to a vote, not necessarily on anything that was originally involved, but on whatever the subsequent corners and defensives and trials led up to.

But maybe there wasn't even necessarily an argument in the first place, simply a misunderstanding, in such an instance... mind, it's just a theory. Sorry if I'm misconstruing; take it how you will.

1234 ~ 09:19, 30 July 2011

You're one user Lyrithya. One. A good one, but for fucks sake just vote. mAttlobster. (hello) 09:22, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

You don't want my vote. My vote would be to lock this page and then tell you all to stop caring and just act like that one template is any other page on the wiki, and just like anything else - distinct main contributors who will probably change over time, and anyone else adds what they think will help and they all get reverted if they're obviously wrong. If folks disagree about being wrong, they should talk it out, or whoever starts revert warring will get banned just like anywhere else. And yes, this takes something some people like to call 'common sense adminning', but if we can't even do that, why in tarnation are we admins?

Seriously, in the long run, most people won't remember this anyway and it'll just settle into the same equilibrium state as every other thing here invariably settles after everybody gives up caring. Meantime, maybe I can try knocking some sense into some folks whilst trying to figure out just what the hell is even going on with this particular thing, if it's even worth it.

1234 ~ 18:00, 30 July 2011

Im going to have to disagree with you on that one Lyrithya. While...it is true, in these discussions, some users will go on ignoring parts of the conversation they either can't reply to or don't have any way to reply to (thus nitpicking the unimportant stuff and leaving out the bigger arguments) I don't think everyone drifts off as always without "caring". Other wise people wouldn't waste so much of their time on a wiki parody website...where people have no idea how many people actually read the articles. Or so...it seems to me. --ShabiDOO 00:36, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, plenty of people don't. I suppose what I'm saying is maybe it's the folks doing that that have brought us to this general, vague and inspecific 'here' at which we now are, regardless of what others may have been involved. But this speculation is more than a little digressy, so, uh... what were we actually talking about?

1234 ~ 01:11, 31 July 2011

I think we were talking about some shmuck who got voted out of a job that next to no one thanked him for doing in the first place (myself included). Or were we talking about the spelling of his name? Well...maybe in a few months there will be another kind of vote...and we will see where your "here" ends up. --ShabiDOO 01:44, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not everyone was in agreement on the direction to take UnNews in, I think that the sheer volume of opinion has made the necessity of the vote clear and whilst there were off-wiki scuffles, that didn't filter through to this topic and cause mudslinging, so I really still do not understand why you felt the need to come in and start rattling the bars on the cage, also, what mattlobster said. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 13:20, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

tkf reply

dicks on rye -- 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 00:59, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Which one is your favourite TKF? Do you prefer fermented elephant penis on german rye bread or do you like pickled baby dicks on good ole American rye? --ShabiDOO 01:15, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

gotta go for made in america shab, i dont dig on no nazi bread -- 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 01:42, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

I be livin in America, we spell it favorite, stupid English fools...and killer, notice the nice little flag.on the right of my sig...→A (Ruins) 02:42, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

you are an abomination of society's most decadent facets. consult a blunt knife immediately. -- 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 02:47, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...but while on the one hand its nazi bread...the penis in that sandwhich is fermented! FERMENTED ELEPHANT PENIS! I mean...come on, ever tried that with a bit of Czech pickled relish?--ShabiDOO 02:58, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

How about all of you with your food fantasies go to Russia, where everything they eat is either polluted or poisoned. →A (Ruins)

YAY DRAMA!

Hey guys. I've been inactive for two months and just randomly wandered in here. I won't dare vote because of that, but I think most of you already know my views on the issue anyway...so...

Did anybody go watch Cars 2 yet? It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 05:50, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Drama is tasty fried. Don't you agree?

1234 ~ 07:18, 30 July 2011

I like fried things. As a matter of fact, I'm going to order some fries right now. Mmm, fries. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:25, 30 July 2011

Remember, Jazza, Cars and Cars 2 were both designed for an age group that should not even be able to use a computer yet. Seeing as though you've seen it, you must be exponentially more smarter than the next guy, who happens to be 8.

--→A (Ruins) 14:18, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion with a Bit of Ranting and Side Tracking

Perhaps we should go back to having an admin arbitrate which articles are on the UnNews template. In order for the template to "work", there needs to be someone authorized to make decisions in a timely manner about what is on the mainpage, since unNews is too time sensitive for a VFH system. Someone needs to have the power to remove a bad entry quickly. I think a "don't revert when your article is removed EVAR" rule might be helpful, it will run the risk of good articles being removed, and involving the whole wiki in a fight over whether this or that article should or should not be on the mainpage.

I don't think there is a way to get "consensus" to work there. It will basically turn into arguing back and forth until one side gets bored.

Although, to put the template issue in perspective, a person can put any decent page on the front page via the Recent Articles, and anything whatever under DKY and the anniversaries. For example, I unilaterally decided that October 15 is Preggo Appreciation Day, which sadly, is much better than what was there before. The anniversaries need to be de-2005-ified, but I digress. --Mn-z 02:27, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

The anniversaries were going to be fixed by compiling entries from the Timeline rebuild project thing, but since that idea died, no one cared anymore. I'm still all for reviving the timeline thing. -- 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 17:36, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were in charge of the timeline rewrite? What happened to that? --Mn-z 17:41, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Gwax was in charge. I was just one of the contributors. It died because Gwax didn't care and a lot of the potential contributors left or stopped caring too. But this is honestly one of the parts of the site that needs the most improving. -- 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 17:43, July 31, 2011 (UTC)