Forum:Administrative Guidelines

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Administrative Guidelines

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6731 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I recall reading a very long rant that I grew tired of reading. However, it seems to indicate to me that... perhaps we need a more rigid set of administrative guidelines. Further, a unified set of rules or policies on Uncyc, even if they are just general policies.

I propose that:

• We establish general content rules that people might actually read, cause they're short. This would include NNP guidelines, and would have to be less abstract.
• We establish formal guidelines for admins (groan).
• We remove the arbitrary special rules for users and stop doing this in the future.

When this site first began, I had pictured that a weird utopian society might emerge, but satire has immense conflict involved. The anarchist society that the first version was is not possible in such a huge and popular site. As part of a growing up process, I think we need to unify our disparate rulesets into one coherent whole "bill of rights".

Comments? --Chronarion 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been arguing in favor of this since Day 1 and still think that it's a good idea. In fact, as soon as finals are over, I'd even be willing to help out with drafting things. --Sir gwax (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea. My only concern is that people might resist it just because their tempers are still hot.--<<>> 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would resist it, rather, I think the recent chaos would lead people to realize we need some guidlines so that all users and admins are on the same page about what is and isn't acceptable. However, I think everybody's heated tempers could lead to a poor set of rules being set up. Either way, we should definately wait before enacting this. --User:Nintendorulez 21:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A few (too many) comments.

• While ultimately needed, this isn't something to rush into. I suggest that the first step should be to really gather up all the policies we have that are being used, and collect them in one place. We already know that these policies can work, and maybe some of them just need to be followed more consistantly.
• I think time may be useful before creating the rules. Right now specific people are the subject of our thought. Some time might help restore the veil of ignorance that is useful in establishing impartial precedents. This time of year is also bad for a lot of people. It would be good if we could tap everyone with experience for this.
• We might want to think about discussing and refining these between the admins before bring guidelines out for general comment. The users are very valuable and there is much wisdom in the general community, but it is really hard to read a massive number of comments.
• I think that the first step in establishing guidelines might simply be a statement of purpose. We still live in a small enough community that it is the spirit of the laws that is more important than the form. Myoff-the-cuff suggestion for this is

• "Uncyclopedia aims to provide an enjoyable and friendly place for people to collaboratively produce a body of high quality humor and satire. All actions and policies should be mindful to take into account all of these goals. Even as we weed out lower quality content, we should try to remain friendly. Even as we disagree about how to do things, we should ensure that it is still enjoyable to contribute to the site. Even as we deal with disruptive behavior we should be forgiving and mindful not to shackle people who are not disruptive. Overall this means there is more of a place for compromise and benefit of the doubt than fairness or rights. So while this means you can break rules, please know them in advance and remember that if a process is ingored more than it is used, it will be of little value."

• The special rules seem unfair, but I think there is a place for them. The truth is that some people excercise consistantly poor judgement in a particular area, so we can't trust them to do a certain thing unsupervised. Most people, however, will not need to be restrained by a rule. They will excercise good judgement, and only do something when it is appropriate. This ties into "not shackling people who are not disruptive" thing. That said, maybe some of the special rules are abritrary. I think the special rules that got us into trouble this time may be an example. I don't think the solution is abandon special rules though. I think the solution is just make sure that all special rules have a level of documented consensus behind them, and that no rule ever precludes reasonable disputation of the rule itself.
• Bill of Rights strikes me poorly. On one hand being here is voluntary, so there really aren't rights, per se. On the other hand, the problem behavior we've seen isn't so much people's rights being infringed, but people's experiences here being difficult enough that they don't find it worth it.

---Rev. Isra (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isra, but I do think we shouldn't forget that we have for a long time held that editing is a privilege, not a right. Nobody is entitled to be here just as they are not forced to be here. I mean, if I freaked out and started banning people and deleting everything and just going pounding bat sodomy insane, I'd hope you all would desysop me, ban me, and tell me to calm the crap down, regardless of what I've done here or how I've behaved in the past... --KATIE!! 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus rules suck. If we set up a bunch of rules and guidelines telling us what we can and cannot do, as soon as someone breaks one of them (on purpose or accidentally) there will be 15 users on his/her ass demanding an explanation and calling them incompetant. People make backhanded comments like that all the time, and I don't think those saying them realize how much power they can carry, and how much trouble they can cause. If a user calls an admin stupid, and the admin gets pissed off and says something back, all hell breaks loose.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest slightly editing the constitution (the Two Rules) to:

• 1. Be funny and not just stupid.
• 1.1. Don't be a dick.

i.e., a bit closer than 2.

As for a structure of rules, believe me when I say I have a lot of experience with this stuff from Wikipedia and every droplet of it is painful. That said, process is useful when it keeps us all from killing each other. WP:PRO was my attempt at a sane guide to hacking through thickets of red tape on Wikipedia; I have no idea how to construct policy when one is clearly short of the stuff. I suppose the construction rules might help here. Anyone see anything on that page that's particularly apposite or particularly stupid here?

The main thing is any rules have to be obviously (a) workable and (b) fair to the reasonable clueful. That's much easier to say than do, because you'd be amazed what people will get upset by. Or perhaps you wouldn't - David Gerard 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, nobody wants the red tape of Wikipedia. But we need something more specific than 'Don't be a dick'. Tompkins mentions how lots of people would jump on a single user when concrete rules are broken. If you ask me, the only difference between that and our current situation is that we have another 15 users debating whether or not the person was 'being a dick', and whether or not it's a bannable offense. Even admins have bickered a lot over what is and isn't acceptable, and a clear set of rules allows everyone to know where the line is drawn. Some of use live in constant fear that we may have cross this line we can't see. Each admin has a different perception of what is or isn't being a dick. --User:Nintendorulez 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with the "bill of rights" being not the correct term now. And perhaps hard and fast rules don't really make much sense. But I definitely agree that starting to glue all the rules together into one page might make some sense. Regarding the specific user things, I really think those need to go, and replace them with a general "x strikes = ban" kind of thing, or god forbid, something like 3RR. --Chronarion 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Something that you see from Wikipedia, is the more complex you make the rules, the more people will play the lawyer ("but my revert was 30 seconds after the 24 hours, that means I didn't break the 3 revert rule and you can't ban me"). "Don't be a dick" is perhaps too vague for my liking, but I think we should avoid complexity as much as possible. sannse (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

I would still be allowed to abuse my administrator privileges, right? -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. We can call it the Mooses Amendment. --User:Nintendorulez 22:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pledges

From the last pledge that was posted, I propose we add on a bunch of lines until it makes a vague amount of sense? A pledge seems loose enough to work as a set of rules?--Chronarion 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And then we can make people sign a pledge everytime they want to edit! Oh wait, Catch 22 did that already. The only problem with a pledge is that poeple would sign without reading, read without signing, or not even see it to begin with. --Sir Zombiebaron 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And they're kind of corny...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pledges are fine for Merkin and Brits (plus colonies), they are used to them anyways. But here in Europe we're kind of wary of them. You see, we still remember Urgh of Ur, the Roman empire, the Khan, Charlemagne, Crusaders (especially the order of the Templars shudder), Calvin, Napoleon, and von Bismarck. -- di Mario 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh where did you get the idea that brits do pledges?--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for rules expansion

As was pointed out already, the rules currently in effect are far too vague for people to come to a consensus whenever trouble arises. For this reason, I have written out sort of a "new rules rough draft"; this means that people will be able to give suggestions for making rules, so that we can expand the rules out to the point where they are no longer so vague, but not too complex that no one will read it.

So far, the current rules read like this:

1. Be funny and not just stupid
2. Don't be a dick

These rules are far too vague to enforce. Here is the current expansion rough draft I have been working on:

1. Be funny and not just stupid
   1. Do not write vanity articles
      1. This means articles about your friends, family, school, or website
   2. Do not write crap
      1. This includes one-liners, one word articles, and other such trash
   3. All articles here on Uncyclopedia are written to be funny, and articles that are not funny are VFDed or QVFDed
      1. We do not single people out, and you must not take it personally should your article be deleted
   4. Should you ever make an article, do not mindlessly whore it on the village dump
      1. For an example of a malicious article whore from the past, see Powershot dude
2. Don't be a dick
   1. Do not blank articles
   2. Do not vandalize articles
      1. This means adding "PENISPENISPENIS!!!!!!" or "dkjopqwienmlkjshpofijahq!!!" or related garbage to articles
   3. Do not move pages just for the hell of it
   4. Do not insult other users
   5. Do not flame other users
      1. Do not post replies or topics with the intent of making others angry
      2. Do not cause drama
   6. Respect administrative authorities
      1. Choose not to and you will receive their judgment
3. Uncyclopedia tells things from the "Satirical Point of View"
   1. No article here is to ever be taken seriously
      1. Those who do take an article seriously, they need not complain or demand it to be removed, as we will ignore your demands
      2. An example of one who took this to an extreme is Anonymous Slashy
   2. This is not Wikipedia
      1. There are no facts on here
      2. If you want facts, see True Facts and Other Deleted Prose
4. Forest Fire Week Policy
   1. Please take caution that Uncyclopedia has a "Forest Fire Week" from time to time. During this time, Uncyclopedia is placed under martial law and the administrative authority weeds out articles that do not meet the Uncyclopedia Standard of Quality.
   2. Should one of your articles be deleted during this time, politely ask an admin to restore the article to your user space.
      1. Exceptions to this rule are articles of blatant vanity, racism, bigotry, etc.
5. Ban Policy
   1. Should you ever get banned...
      1. If you are banned from Uncyclopedia for a time, you must first understand why you were banned. You must then work to never make the same mistake again.
      2. If you are banned for an infinite amount of time, it means you have done something of a highly malicious nature. At this point, you can no longer edit or contribute to Uncyclopedia. If you use proxies to circumvent this, you are violating Uncyclopedia's Terms of Service, and subject to the force of the law.
      3. Continue to use proxy servers in this fashion and we will send Chuck Norris to your residence and personally roundhouse kick you in the face.
6. Special Admin Guidelines
   1. With great power comes great responsibility
   2. Help out other users if they ask politely
   3. When deleting an article, always give a reason
      1. For deleting articles, an example reason might be "This article is in violation of our vanity policies"
      2. For blocking users, an example reason might be "This user has been blanking pages"
   4. Do not abuse your sysop powers. Abuses of power include:
      1. Blocking users without a reason
      2. Deleting articles without a reason
      3. Do not use your powers to feature a stub on the front page when the voting process was not yet complete
         1. We do not want another incident like Euroipods

That's what I got so far. If anyone has an idea to expand to this, feel free to do so. --General Insineratehymn 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually have a significant number of problems with the way this is formulated. I can get into them now if people want, but I still think this is something better done at the beginning of next year. I also think that instead of a forum, we should be using user subpages for proposals and allowing people to comment on talk pages. These aren't going to come out perfect on the first shot, so we have to be able to revise. Forum posts aren't the best medium for doing that. As an example, I have posted my own proposed version (the Laws of Moronics) as a user subpage. Everyone feel free to comment on the talk page and to make small changes on the page itself. Major changes should probably be sporked to your user subpage. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean like this? --General Insineratehymn 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Exactly what I mean. I'll leave some comments on its talk page later today. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The writing of the UnConstitution.

Uh, we need to tell users that none of the articles here are to be taken seriously. That all of them are written to be funny, and stuff that is not funny gets VFDed or QVFDed. That we do not single out people, and for them not to take it personally when their stupid shit article is deleted for not being funny enough, or being vanity, or being too short (one liners not allowed for example). That we do have Forrest Fires from time to time to weed out the complete and total shite deadwood. Also that if one or more of their articles happens to be deleted, that they have the option to ask an admin nicely to copy it into their user space ala a sandbox and they can work on improving it to make it funnier. Possible exceptions to this might be vanity pages, racism, bigotry, etc. Also when you post about not being a dick, use examples like User:Anonymous Slashy and show them how we treat people who act like dicks and cannot take an IP Ban as a clue that they are being a dick, and even if they have unlimited proxy servers they are still breaking the Uncyclopedia rules and are subject to our ToS, no matter what their ISP might think. That the Uncyclopedia rules are the ToS that the user agreed to, even if they do not create a user account and are still an anonymous IP address. We could joke and say if they continue we would send Chuck Norris to personally roundhouse kick them in the face or something. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will do. --General Insineratehymn 03:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for a name of these set of rules, the UnConstitution!

Score: +5

• Nom and For I think the name UnConstitution says it all. Will we still be calling them ignorable rules, or drop that description out because now they won't be ignorable anymore? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• For And drop the ignorable rules description, as everyone will now need to abide to these rules. Also, like the constitution of the United States, it needs to have amendments to give it the power to be improved upon, but these amendments would first have to go through the admins for approval. --General Insineratehymn 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we also elect a President with Veto power? Have a House of Admins and a Senate of Admins to have each Bill pass both houses of congress and not vetoed by the President in order to become a law, and thus an approved Amendment? In case of attacks by more users like User:Anonymous Slashy we need a Patriot Act to ban such users without the need for voting on if they should be banned or not. Or maybe our Forrest Fire week can be our Patriot Act and get rid of bad articles and block bad users at the same time? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, sure. Of course, like Thomas Jefferson, I am only the person writing the constitution. --General Insineratehymn 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• 4. --L 03:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• For. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• For --—Braydie 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain You can think of any set of rules you like, and I grant you that the above are not a bad set, but hey! I am Dutch. My mind tells me to agree with you lot, but my heart tells me to be free of the bastard foreigner ruler. What am I to do ?! *quaffs another Heineken* -- di Mario 17:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• For, but... I quite like the Ignorable Policies thing - without it we seem a bit constrictive and neurotic, I think. There'll always be times when rules need to be broken, and it's all just a lot more friendly if that's made clear. And it's a contrast with Wikipedia. -- 20:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• For However, I think ignorable policies is too... confusing. People don't really understand what they're supposed to listen to. Perhaps there ought to be completely stupid rules which are in fact ignorable instead. --Chronarion 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

PENISPENISPENIS!!!

djasldkjsdkas; -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 06:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

<rest of cast>"Oh, mooses..." <canned laughter, freeze frame, roll credits> --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, STM doesn't do laugh tracks. His laffs are allllll natural! <thumbs up to camera, staff of professional laughers yuk it up, freeze frame, roll credit (STM)> -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 08:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Shite, I forgot to tape it. --—Braydie 17:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A most intriguing statement, I must say. Thank you for posting such deep, astounding philosophical thought. --The Divine Fluffalizer - [t m] 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)