Forum:Concern about the new admin nominations

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Concern about the new admin nominations

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6126 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I won't mention names, but some of the people that have admin nominations have been trying to get articles deleted by admins without reading them first. Many have been vandalized and put on VFD and QVFD instead of being fixed and reverted. There are concerns that if some of these become admins, that they will delete articles that actually are funny, but that they disagree with the opinions and views of the article. Could there be a prohibition period for new admins? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting pages with histories is a big no-no if all it takes to fix them is a revert to a non-vandalized version, which is why admins should always check page histories. A prohibition period on deletions for new admins wouldn't seem to accomplish much, they'll start deleting anyway. Perhaps you mean probation, and that seems do-able in a way. A week in, another admin can browse through the new admin's delete logs and see if there are any issues cropping up. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes probation, I used the wrong word. Usually when someone is newly hired they have a probation period. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As one of the most active Admins around at the moment I would say no. I can understand the concern from some quarters, but I genuinely do not believe that the comments are justified. Each of the nominees in the recent Admin vote were there on merit, regardless of what individuals think about them on a personal level. ALL of the Admins have a different way of working, different judgements are made about what articles can be saved and what should be deleted out of hand. If that wasn't the case then I'm sure Wikia could knock together the AdminBot to do our job for us.

The comments made against one individual refer to a tiny section of his activities here, no one seems to have mentioned the time he has spent dealing with newcomers to the site, or helping people with images for articles, etc. The guy hasn't even started life as an Admin yet and he's already been judged. Its a hard enough job for those that put the effort in anyway, don't make it harder. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I am obviously talking about reasons why they might not be considered for being an admin if they are not doing things correctly. Politicians are judged even before they run for office, why can't admin candidates be treated the same way? I am only doing this because I want to see a better quality admin and not someone who abuses their powers and deletes stuff that just needs to be reverted from some vandalism and not stuff that they personally have different opinions on and delete it because they disagree with it even if it is funny. By defending them, you admit they have shortcomings and actually have the problems I have outlined above. Do they do good things, probably so, but they also have done some things that are questionable as well. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not admitting anything of the sort, please read it again. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

You do say not to judge, and even I am being judged and I am not even nominated. So why can't we judge them? Why are you trying to cover it up by saying we cannot judge them? Being an admin is hard and hard work, if they are afraid they'll have to overlook it, besides the knew the job was dangerous before they took it. Putting up with the users is hard, and it keeps getting harder. If they cannot handle my accusations, how can they handle the next Anonymous Slashy or something else even harder? Hmmmm? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you basing YOUR judgements on? Hearsay? Orion, you already made your feelings known BEFORE Dawg posted his comments. As I said then, have a look at the edits, the quality and the quantity of the nominees. I also stated that it doesn't take anything away from other people who contribute to the site to lesser degrees.

No one is trying to cover anything up, how could we, its a wiki where every action leaves a data-trail. You are right that Politicians are judged before they take office, they are judged by the voting public. Just like these nominees have been judged by their peers. Whether you, me or anyone doesn't like the result isn't the issue. The President still takes office and gets judged on his term. Or he gets kicked out of Office if he does something naughty. If an issue arises I'm sure it will be dealt with. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I am basing my findings on things I have observed with the candidates being nominated. There are edit trails and there are articles being deleted or voted for deletion that should have never been nominated and should have been reverted from vandalism or rewritten or fixed up instead of being deleted. I find the candidates to be of poor quality but have done much quantity work and it is because of the quantity that they have been nominated. I guess if you want quantity over quality, and we have a weaker Uncyclopedia as a result, it will result in the same things that happen with classical management. I was taught differently in how management is supposed to work in college. I earned a bachelors and graduated with honors and I wrote papers on mistakes that management made in all of the places I worked and earned A's on those papers. I can spot things like that. That makes me qualified to judge, anyone else earn a bachelors of science in business management with honors? Anyone else with small and big business experience of over 20 years as I have? Anyone ever run their own companies as I have? Anyone else do college work in other areas and earn more degrees as well in science, computer science, and other areas? My classmates profile link is on my user page. As I said I am willing to work with those who win the votes. Respect the office and title and all of that, I am not some liberal who is going to disrespect the office and title just because I have issues with the people in office. I originally posted reform and rehabilitation on the other forum topic. I stand by that. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I delete articles all the time that I feel won't make the grade. If there's potential I try to fix it, or NRV it to give it a fighting chance. Choosing which article lives and which dies is something that you can only pick up through experience. The vast majority of "contributions" to the site are utter rubbish and need to be deleted out of hand. Thats where the "quantity" side of things fits in. On the quality side each of the nominees has their own individual strengths in different areas.

Please don't forget that "Admin" isn't a title or an office. Its a duty. If the word Admin was swapped for Caretaker it might not be so appealing to a lot of people, but thats what we are here for. Cleaning up the mess, organising stuff, making sure that all the decent contributors can go about their business in making the site funny. And the other point is that we're all just users too, we're here for the love of the funny. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

One can gain experience by watching other admins do their work. See if articles really needed to be deleted or needed to be fixed up. Notice that I at least try to fix up articles and revert vandalism before reporting them for deletion. A vast amount of articles submitted to this site have potential, but we should weed out the ones that are vanity, racist, bigoted, or cannot be fixed, and then rewrite or fix the rest. Some of the articles submitted to this site have no potential at all and need to be deleted like one liners and stuff like "suck muh dick, hell yeah!" articles. I'll tell you what, how about we resolve this with a mentor program? Veteran Admins team up to teach Noob Admins how to detect if an article needs to be deleted, or can be fixed up, etc? That should work, and it is a part of servant leadership that I learned in college. It will help the Noob Amins gain experience quick and be able to do a better job. Sound reasonable? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless things have changed alot that is basically how it happens. The IRC channel serves as a place for the new admins to get advice from and aprentice under. This is incidentally one of the reasons why some of us like the channel. And if it will make you feel better, Orion, I will go through their delete logs in the near future and see if I find anything troubling. I'm really one of the bigger inclusuionists around here, so you are not going to do much better than that. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the mentorship program was never even mentioned to me or any other member that I had conversations with. Is there a decision process flowchart that one has to review before deciding if an article needs to be deleted or fixed? If not, consider writing one, so you can improve the quality of the decision making process. If you do monitor their deletion activities, it will make me feel better. If they make a mistake, they need to know why it is a mistake and what they can do differently next time to avoid the mistake. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Less of a mentorship program and more like a mentorship tradition. Re deletion: less of a flowchart and more of a rubric, which applies to everyone.---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the admins write, right? They were contributors before they were admin'd, no? That's the experience you need to detect whether something is fixable or not. We've all stumbled across a redeemable page with the spark and rewritten it. We've all also seen crap pages that would be better huffed, so that someone can start over without the bad taste of the existing stub muddying up the place. Again, that's the experience we need. The eye of a writer. Which probably sounds terribly pretentious, but it's true, IMO.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the eye of the writer, it's the thrill of the fight. Seriously though, no matter how inclusionist admins might be there are just some articles that you don't get the time to rewrite so end up being deleted. Usually it's just one admin's decision that rules on deletion but visit IRC and you get the odd 'should I delete this?' from an admin to garner some opinion. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How about if you don't have time to rewrite, you stick on a rewrite tag which adds the article to a rewrite category? Then members like me can browse the rewrite category and see articles we can try and fix. Isn't that better than just deleting articles that have potential just because the admin that noticed it didn't have the time to rewrite it? There are also NRV tags and that ICU or whatever tag. I mean these things exist for a reason to try and save articles from being huffed before they can be fixed up and rewritten. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I usually tend to leave the article as it is and hope the author comes back. You might suppose this is a bit foolish but usually some other admin just comes along and deletes it anyway. It's the harsh life cycle of a new article, I'm afraid. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you stuck a rewrite tag on the article, then the other admin would not delete it after seeing the rewrite tag. I mean I am trying to save an article IWETHEY which I agree needs to be rewritten in some parts, and it was vandalized time and time again, and I am trying to restore the article from before the vandalization, but it got added to the VFD anyway. But IWETHEY had members come here and blank and vandalize our pages, and added comments which got into Uncyclopedia is the worst so we need an article on them. I think in that case, a rewrite tag should have been used, and not a VFD. I spend a lot of my time fixing up articles, and trying to make them funnier. Some I wrote, some I contributed to, some I adopted, if I had not they would have been deleted for sure. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll try and tag more articles as rewrite from now on. Give me a nudge if I'm not doing my job. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. If I find more time I can try to fix up some of those articles and I encourage others reading here to do the same if they have the free time. Thanks. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good...

...but what the deuce are we going to do with this pink elephant in the room? —Hinoa talk.kun 16:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I say we kill it and eat its flesh. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Send it to me, I collect them in my back garden, just like gnomes. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You vicious gnome slave driver! How can you?! --Gnome  …MUN F@H 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against gnomes, Gnome. :) -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Motto - Uncyclopedia 2007; New year, no drama. Sure, it's false, but mottos don't have to be true, right? --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright! Does that mean I can delete Eastenders? -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 18:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Take every other soap with it and I'll be down with it. —Hinoa talk.kun 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too late now... ;_; --User:Nintendorulez 00:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)