Forum:Whatever happened to the Democratic Process?

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Whatever happened to the Democratic Process?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5952 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Recently I've noticed a disturbing trend in a few of this site's admins: deletion without consensus when consensus is required. To my knowledge, if an article does not warrant QVFD, ICU or WiP deletion requirements, and it is not FFW, then it must be subject to a run-through at VFD in order to be deleted. However, I've noticed these restrictions being bypassed without much of a second thought, lately.

First, chronologically, I've noticed Tom Mayfair deleting a mass of old rewrite-tagged articles. The deletion is logical, but still technically beyond his (and anyone else's) restrictions, right?

Not over a day ago, similarly, a user named NXWave listed about 180 articles on the Poopsmith's Lounge, which (as we all should know) is the waitlist for VFD. This was a pretty stupid thing to do, and he has been warned for it, but how this relates to the topic at hand is Zombiebaron's response to the flood. He deleted about 95% of the articles (rough estimate, surely no less) from the waitlist for VFD without the consult or consensus of anyone else. Listing them all was stupid to begin with, but treating the Poopsmith's Lounge like it's QVFD is just rediculous (also of note is that, among the articles he deleted on whim, was Hurricane Of Horrendous Destruction and Death, which had previously survived 3 VFD nominations)

Is there some other, hidden rule that makes some articles, or administrators, exceptions to the democratic process? -- 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 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That was rhetorical. Put discussions here.

• I'd first like to point out that the Poopsmith thing was done by gwax and Zombiebaron. Had you been paying attention to either Recent Changes or IRC at the time, you'd know that. Also, yes, you're obviously missing the point that all the articles being huffed in these instances were total crap. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Seriously, give credit where credit is due; thanks ZB. As for the democratic process in deletion, you pretty much have me to thank for giving that to you in the first place and I can tell you, for a fact, that it's primarily there to deal with borderline articles. It's always been the right and pleasure of admins, extra especially my pleasure, to deal with crap unilaterally. --Sir gwax (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, people disagree about what's crap and what's not. And if there's disagreement, then VFD's the way to go. I've been going through and restoring those I think deserve a chance (for example Rosa Parks, Vogon and Goa'uld, all listed as vanity by the way!), and those that have been kept via VFD before - I have no problem with any of them being put up for the vote (again) and the result of that vote, though. That way it's more like wikipedia's prod, in that if there's no contest then nobody cares, but if there is, a vote settles it. Which seems fair to me. Except that only admins are able contest in the first place.

Also, quite a few of the article in NXWave's list are listed as vanity when they're clearly not. He might like to google stuff before calling it vanity. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:52, 28 Nov 2007

R.e. Tom and the rewrite tags - I've just realised: since when was rewrite a timestamped maintenance thing, anyway? Template:Fix is used for 30 day rewrite allowance, while rewrite technically doesn't have a limit and is used by people as if it doesn't. Meanwhile, I think we all know already how I feel about people deleting stuff on their own without a second glance, so I shan't go on about it again. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave all of those articles at least a once over and often a twice over before I deleted them. The deletions were based on the staleness but validated by my personal judgments. If you have complaints with my methods or feel that I have overstepped my authority, please bring it up with me on my talk page; I promise to hear you out. --Sir gwax (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if the Admins want to make a Forest Fire Week sort of event, who is to say they cannot? Also since when was Uncyclopedia ever a Democracy? A Democracy is only an illusion anyway to make people not in power feel that they are important as well by giving them the right to elect other people to a position of power to make decisions for them anyway. The voters don't actually hold office, but the people they voted into office hold office, not the voters. Then the people in office have the power to pass laws and whatnot, but sometimes they hold an election to let the people decide, but not always. An Uncyclopedia Admin has the job of cleaning up the Wiki in the way they see fit. If not, we wouldn't nominate or elect people as Admins in the first place. One of the jobs here that the Admins do, is to flush the toilet on an article if it is crap. Usually we vote on it, but some Admins are a little quick on the trigger on that delete button, before all votes are counted. Can't really blame them when in their judgment the article is crap and had a rewrite tag on it for over a year and nobody edited the page in over a year, etc. But you could always ask an Admin nicely to copy the deleted article into your user space and you can work on it until it is no longer crap and you turned it into a funny article. Then you can attempt to copy it back into a main article name and hope others find it funny as well. I call this process an "Adopt an Article" program, in which the member volunteers to move the article to their user space and work on it from there to make it funnier. Remember even if you are not an admin, you still have the power to edit articles in your user space and fix them up to make them funnier. If someone abandons their old article, you have the power to adopt it if it has been deleted by an Admin, and in doing so you can preserve what you found funny about that article and fix it up to be funny enough to survive the next rounds of deletion if you can. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but every time a new FFW is suggested it's always shot down by the admins. The trouble is, sometimes if you're in a bad mood(ie: you're bored and annoyed after deleting a bunch of shit and doing other admin-y things), even the funniest pages can become dull. Enter the voting process. It ensures(usually) that no pages with redeeming value get deleted. But, as OB said, this isn't a democracy. Hell, it's not even a country! I just think that we users like a little bit of.... assurance that no admin is overdoing the deletions. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:19, Dec 3

Most of the deleted stuff is like 2004/2005 cruft that nobody cares about except for a few members anyway. Yeah Admin Syndrome strikes yet again. Having a bad day of dealing with vandals, spammers, vanity writers, and then taking it out on articles that need rewriting badly. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

2004cruft? Wow, that's gotta be some real crafty cruft. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs plutonium to generate the 1.21 gigawatts... etc. etc.... you know the rest the pages went back in time. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:07, Dec 3

Yes, 88 m/h and all that. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I totally forgot. Uncyclopedia was founded in 2004, before Oscar Wilde went back in time and had sex with his grandfather, while delayed Uncyclopedia being founded until 2005. That is the trouble with time travel, you see, it tends to mess up history. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, but if he went back, why did it get pushed forwards? Oh no, its a paradox. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Einstein time is relative, so if Oscar spent an extra year in the past with his grandfather, it delayed the present by a year before he returned to found Uncyclopedia. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I watched contents get huffed... it was emotional. But I don't see what the big rush is to delete anything. If you're really in such a rush, extend VFD to 20 or 30 noms at a time, but sudden death just doesn't work. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:00 Dec 03, 2007

I've never seen so many whinin', Liberal babies in one forum. You want it then you don't want it. You take but give nothin'. I'll just stick to what I know. I don't get a rush out of huffin' shite. Those rewrites were a headache, an eye sore to review, & embedded a deep seed of hatred when I hacked 'em back up. You all can clean up those messes. Some asked for a clean up, I took the call since no one else wanted to give their 2¢ on the matter 'til I was well on my way to gettin' rid of the garbage. Not like they were goin' to do anythin' 'bout it any way. Have fun with this one.

Person'lly, and this is a minority opinion I understand, I don't want clean-ups. There's not a bleedin' thing wrong with VFD, and I thought Vigilance Week was more than enough to satisfy everyone's whining about the crap. Apparently not. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:46 Dec 04, 2007

So what your sayin' is that you don't want it then you want it in the other form. Hell, I think I took care of most of the {{V}} myself. In my minority opinion, whoever tagged the article for rewrite should rewrite the article 'emselves. The tagger saw potential but then it just sits there collectin' either random IP rants or nothin' at all. Therefore, it isn't worh shite to anyone other than the author & tagger. Otherwise, it would end up on the VFD. Hell, I'm for infinite nominations for VFD within reason. No sense in keepin' crap for new viewers to view & think to 'emselves, "This is suppose to be funny?". But like I said, "Have fun with this one."

Well, there are two "problems" then. First, there's the outstanding problem of {{Rewrite}}. Were it up to me (aren't you glad it isn't?) we would just change {{Rewrite}} into something that was timestamped, like {{ICU}}. The other problem is a back-log of crap. Once again, I'd solve that problem by getting rid of the Poopsmith Lounge, and replacing it with a page that served to list for deletion all the pages without a snowball's chance in hell. We could call it Uncyclopedia:LFD ("List For Deletion", or "Lame Fucking Donkey"). Anyway, that's how I'd solve these "problems". -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Genius. Stop readin' my mind, Zommy.

I can't help it. "3:00 Tommy In Swimsuit Hour" is too much fun. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that LFD is a brilliant idea. It could serve as an intermediary between QVFD and VFD and we could use our administrative discretion to decide between deleting it outright and moving it to VFD. I do think, however, that {{Rewrite}} can serve an important purpose, specifically for articles that are funny and good but with poor English/lots of cruft. Most rewrite tagged articles don't fit into that description but some do.

As for the question of why it's important to delete articles: it makes it more likely that good articles will be written for twe reasons. One, an author is more likely to write an article to fill a blank than replace something mediocre. And, two, higher average quality attracts better authors and discourages poor writers, thus being self-reinforcing. --Sir gwax (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick. Someone make a vote in the Main-VD about LFD, before we're linking to this VD three months from now asking "Hey, remember when Zb came up with that awesome thing?" -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 06:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How would LFD be any different from QVFD? I'm honestly curious. --Algorithm 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that articles can't be QVFD'd after they're a week old. LFD would have no age limit. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 04:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

LFD sounds a bit like the template from V-Week to me. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:42, Dec 7

So LFD would just be like V-Week or FFW without the week. -- 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 12:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of ways we could work LFD. The first way, which LBJ and TKF seem to enjoy, would be as an extended QVFD. I, personally, think that's not the best use of an LFD. I'd rather see LFD as a place where users would list terribly crappy articles, that could either be outright deleted by the admins, or which could then be nominated for VFD, at admin discression. This method would replace the existing Poopsmith Lounge, and, of course, would only work if we could get a couple of admins willing to be vigilant in keeping up with the LFD. This would not, however, stop users from nomming straight to VFD, but this might require and increase in the VFD limit. If anyone's got any more ideas for more acronyms to keep this whole process as acronymized as possible, that'd be great. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but isn't that what QVFD is? You post a page and the admins delete it at their discretion. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:51, Dec 7

Yes, except QVFD is for "new articles". We don't have any real "problem" when it comes catching new stuff. Its the stuff that collects in the cracks between the floorboards that we seem to have a "problem" with. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the LFD proposal--Æ 13:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? Why? Why?!? To clarify, Tom — from back up when you responded to my comment — I don't want it in either form. I see no reason for making a new deletion process or FFW or even that V-week bullshit. What the fuck is the rush? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 19:36 Dec 07, 2007

Then I put you in charge of all rewrites. I want all rewrites on my desk at 16:00 tomorrow.

Perhaps you missed the part of my message that said, what's the rush? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:04 Dec 08, 2007

The way I see it, we probably have something that can easily be expressed as around 100 new people visiting Uncyclopedia every day. Sure, it may be less or more, but bear with me. I'll bet you cashmoney that the percentage of those people who find something that makes them laugh before they leave is 50%. Of that 50%, about 50% will go on to edit, as IPs. Then, about 4% of those 50% of the first 50% of the 100 will register. And maybe 50% of that 4% go on to be real contributors. Sure, I'm terrible at math, but you get the point. I like to think that by deleting stuff that is terribly terrible, we're increasing that first 50%, and making all sorts of shiny sparkily things and stuff. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my case but it seems they rather read unfunny stuff & work real hard to not edit it & save it from deletion.

You'd be surprised how far that one little nugget of comedy in a shitty article can take someone out to rewrite it. I rewrote Volcano a while back, and took one phrase in the page, something along the lines of "Volcanoes are just mountains that are making a fuss," and turned it into the concept behind the page. I'm all for deleting shite, I just think that the whole point of this is that a lot of the time, rewrite tags are added for a reason. Sometimes it's that the page is notable enough to be given a chance, and even more often it's that the page has a nugget of brilliance in it. I wouldn't mind VFD getting 5 or 10 more slots, though. Of course, I don't go over there much... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:21, Dec 8

How 'bout the VFD regulars start with votin' on the rewrites. Then once one is kept, the ones that voted to keep have to rewrite it. Choose amongst yourselves who gets the job. Otherwise, the nugget might go unnoticed amongst all the shite surroundin' it. Rewrites that sit there for months, without any love from the author or anyone else, have no place in my heart.

As Skullthumper said: What's the rush? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 12:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion. Do wherever. Goin' to go do some work instead of lurkin' in these damn forums.

Because I'm rather obsessive about these things, I calculated out ZB's predictions, which shows that we get 1/2 of a good user each day. Just thought I'd put that in. Don't know why. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And about that math — were incoming users that few and far between before, when quality and expectations were way lower? Uncyclopedia is improving naturally, it doesn't need any more damn policies or ways to delete stuff quickly. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:00 Dec 08, 2007

So when are all the unjustly huffed articles from the lounge going to be brought back for some actual votes?

Just wondering. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 03:14 Dec 27, 2007

Whenever TKF feels like it, I guess. The rest of us are too lazy. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 13:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Who ya calling lazy? I'm wadding knee deep in the vandal produced crap while TKFeck is off to some Christian-pagan sort of ceremony. Good thing I banned him for all eternity. ~ Mordillo where is my FUCKFACE? 13:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again? Happy New Years! Shouldn't I be partying? PEEING 00:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He had it coming, that Jew. ~ Mordillo where is my FUCKFACE? 07:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so suddenly we are going to hack all those articles up? :| -- 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 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that those articles should remain gone unless an admin decides to goes through all of them and decides themselves which articles are and aren't good--Æ 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Spang already did that. Plus, with the most recent Unused Image Purge, all homeless images from 2006 are kaput, so it'd be fruitless to hack up all the deleted articles from then. Let's just put this issue in the grave, then, shall we? -- 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 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll see this issue in HELL! *shoots gun from cool angle looking up, blood spatters and the movie is over* - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:34, Jan 2

Can we all finally agree that most quality-control efforts are bad for the site?

I mean, beside the slandanity removal, most quality-control that involves deletion is detrimental to the site, as it discourages crappy, below-average writers from contributing to the site. After all, pathetic people that write crap can eventually be positive contributors, if we encourage them to improve the quality of their articles. I still think that what we need is some kind of 5-star rating system, which will let people know what our best stuff is, and what isn't our best stuff (so the "turning people off the site entirely" argument will lose it's punch). That's just my dream, anyway.--<<>> 04:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Stars. My God, it's full of stars. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see it now! My name, up in lights. Oh, how I'd like to be a star. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:51, Dec 29