Forum:Executive Order

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Executive Order

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5687 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I may be stepping on toes here, and I may even be contradicting some of what I said earlier. But I think that we are too harsh on some recent articles. Notice I said some', not all. I have been an admin for less than a month, and some would say that's not enough time to gain the experience required to make this decision, but I think it gives me more clarity as both a user and a sysop. As a user, I frequently found myself frustrated that I couldn't do more to help the admins when they were missing something. I know now more than I knew then (and I still respected the workload the admins shouldered then) about the amount of crap that comes in every day. A lot of the time it was because of abuse of the tagging system by IPs and new users. This led to Uncyclopedia becoming more deletion-oriented. That I certainly understand . . . who wants to have to deal with that crap? The spirit has always been there, just look at Famine. But even so, it's come to a point where some people have left, people who are legitimate users, because they don't like the mean-spiritedness with which we treat new users.

So, you ask, what's the executive order? I decree that articles older than 7 days be able to be QVFD'd by regular users if and only if they are victims of maintenance tag abuse. This will allow less articles to slip through the cracks, which is why we started huffing more in the first place. If we all stopped to consider ICUing a page and then totally forgetting about it, and letting either Uncyclopedia:Maintenance or these users (who now have a new way to be vigilant) who catch the strays, it would make Uncyclopedia a much more inviting place. Additionally, I encourage the use of other tags to offset the use of ICU. This way, we have more ways of saying "this is crap, fix it." And it doesn't all blur.

This can satisfy everybody. We will still move approximately the same number of articles through the wood-chipper, but we will sate the more liberal users so that forum posts like this can be avoided in the future. If any admin has any decree they'd like to make public, by all means shoot it out here. But inflammatory comments are not appreciated. If you don't like it, please say so civilly. That is all.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 03:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ow! My toes! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, can I decree that someone tell me what the hell that meant? —Hinoa talk.kun 04:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he's saying to hold back on QVFDing new pages on sight and instead maintenance tag them. That way the authors have a chance to work on them, or if the authors don't, then regular users can get them deleted by putting them on QVFD once the maintenance tag expires. I could be wrong about this interpretation. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 04:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, pages can already get deleted on-sight after a tag expires. Now, though, if the tag was improperly removed, the page can be QVFD'd without the usual one week time limit. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:51, Mar 24

Sycamore too has it sort of right. I'm suggesting that we do hold back on QVFDing new pages on sight. Good call. But Led is right too. We're all right! *hugs*-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the second person to call me Sycamore. Do I look like a tree? Do I look like a bleedin' tree to you?! --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 04:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, from the way you're acting, I would say that you bleed about once a month. *canned laughter* Naw, but seriously, folks, it's just the sig. They're quite similar, and it's annoying.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 13:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It should be fixed now. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 17:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I meant "it's annoying that I can't tell the difference what a noob I am". But whatever.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So civilly. What is maintenance tag abuse, and since when was it a problem? To whom would Uncyclopedia would be a much more inviting place with this rule? Certainly not for the new users who make an article, have it ICU'd, then try to fix whatever was wrong with it, and so remove they tag when they think it's fixed, and have it QVFD'd as a result? I decree that your decree is un-decreed until it's at least been discussed. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:03, 24 Mar 2008

New users don't check QVFD often as far as I know, if ever. If the user who sees that the tag has been removed feels that the article is still not up to snuff, then it can be QVFD'd as if the ICU is still on it. Then the admins who go through QVFD check the page (as they always should) and see if the user's decision was a wise one. If not, the ICU can be re-applied. The point of this is to foster less on-sight deletions while still maintaining approximately the same throughput of articles. As one can see from the vast amount of crap that exists on-site, a lot of the time when we are nice to new pages and let them live, they slip through the cracks. What else are all the stubs from 2006 and 2007, but lost mistakes? In fact, look at many pages that are VFD'd, and somewhere in their history they were ICU'd. It's this distrust of authors that led me to start being a deletionist. But now I've realized that, if my articles had been treated that way upon their beginning, I'd have been pissed. It's a small change, sure, but it's just meant to foster more acceptance. Nonetheless, we can't become tree-hugging pinko commies, and we still have to wade through lots of shit. I'm just saying it's time we do so differently.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So, excuse me if I'm a little late, but how does this differ from banning people whore are dicks, and reporting their pages for deletion? Users have always been able to report things for deletion. All that this Executive Order is doing is taking the users by the shoulders and yelling in their face "Hey, idiot, this is how you should report pages who's tags have been prematurely deleted!" Also, what's wrong with just reverting the edit that removes the tag, and letting it do its job? Revert the removal, go to the removers talkpage, tell them never to do it again, and suggest that they acctaully fix their page. Isn't that, really, what tags are for? So, basically, Strong What The Fuck -- The Zombiebaron 00:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose was that articles that were victims of it a long time ago could be brought to justice. Articles that were ICU'd mid-2007 and then removed. And we find them now. They are QVFD'd. Gone. If it's in the short-term, yes. Use common sense.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so, once again, we all wuv the Snowball Clause. -- The Zombiebaron 00:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Who died and made you president?

This is exactly why you all must vote for me 'n' Spang in the presidential election! You don't want Ljlego irresponsibly issuing executive orders all willy-nilly! You want me 'n' Spang irresponsibly issuing executive orders all willy-nilly!
Folks, the choice is clear. STM/SPANG IN TWO THOUSAND AUGHT EIGHT!!! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the section title: Nobody yet. But it could be you! —Hinoa talk.kun 04:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it reprehensible that my opponents in this election would resort to cheap, underhanded tactics like this, simply to grovel for votes. The team of Brada-MO stands firm on its stance to distance itself from such things. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear that, people? Brada-MO think they're above your votes. They think your votes are worthless! Prove them wrong by voting for us! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:03, 24 Mar 2008

Of course you realize that whatever the public votes, ESPECIALLY if it's for us, we'll lodge a formal protest to insist that the votes were unfairly cast, or there was vote-rigging, or that the winner's mother is a whore. It's simply the classy thing to do.--<<>> 11:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't have this problem if it weren't for the corrupt government. Because of this, I support the Anarchy Party for 2008. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 11:24, Mar. 24, 2008

On a more serious note

LJ, I think we need to discuss this before making a unilateral decision. Also, I fail to understand how this will change our current state of affairs. Perhaps I'm a failure. Manticore would certainly agree.~ 11:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

QUALITYCONTROLQUALITYCONTROLQUALITYCONTROLQUALITYCONTROLQUALITYCONTROLQUALITYCONTROLQUALITYCONTROL-- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the failure tag, put one on the mad Frog as well. ~ 14:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a small change, yes. The point is to allow people to feel more comfortable with putting on an ICU tag and the like. I personally was more delte-centric user for a while, because I saw how much 2005cruft had piled up. VFD had jaded me, so to speak. So, instead of giving new stubs a chance via {{ICU}}, {{expansion}}, {{fix}}, and others, I just would QVFD them (or delete them) to prevent them from spawing 2007cruft in a couple of years' time. Most of this had to do with having no faith in the author's judgement as to when the ICU was to be removed. However, when I tried QVFDing some old crap stubs which had incidentally been once ICU/NRV'd, I was told quite nicely to bugger off. This is to allow regular users to take a greater role in the maintenance of the site, since they express such great interest in doing so. They can troll Newpages from the bottom up, check to see if an older page was ICU'd but then removed, and QVFD it because it's now allowed. Like I said, it's a small change, but one I believe can be an important one. And if you can't see how it will change anything, what's the harm in letting it go?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 17:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this will turn into yet another VFD bypassing route. I'm all for giving expand/fix rather than ICU (when the article warrants it, mind you) but I don't think we need to put anything older than a day on QVFD - that why we have ICU. That route you suggest will simply huff an article without a warning to the author, unlike ICU or similar maintenance tags. ~ 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I rather like this idea. When I created my first article, I wrote a paragraph and saved it without a construction tag (being the hopeless n00b that I was). If I had written that this morning, it probably would have been labelled a "stub" and instantly huffed. If it had been deleted, I probably wouldn't have returned to write anything else for the site. This'll help ensure that potentially good writers don't abandon the site because of bad-faith deletions. And so forth. --THE 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to looking at Special:Newpages, I'd appreciate it if some folks would have a look at Special:Shortpages, as it now works, which is nice. I found 5 or so pages that had been blanked or partially blanked, and I'm sure there's more. VFD some stubs, if you can find 'em. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:51, Mar 24

/me Motions two very large persons Take that balloon away! ~ 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NO! NOOOOOO!! I'm not crazy, I swear! THE ALIENS WILL KILL US ALL!!!! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:04, Mar 24

I concur, THE. If I'd entered the site and entered the crap I put in on my first attempt, it'd have been deleted and I'd have never returned, myself. Back then, I really sucked. Back then. Way back then, a long time ago.--<<>> 23:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank God that phase is behind us. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:16, Mar 24

On a less serious note

Worst porn movie ever. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say "2 Hasidics, 1 leg of lamb" was worse.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Even with the classic mint sauce scene? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I don't know, having just had a sonogram, I feel like it just hits too close to home.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen far worse, being both a furry alien from the future and having dealt with many other alien cultures in my long career, but showing them now would do untold damage to this time line. Verp 03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pfft, Marty McFly wasn't afraid to do untold, probably irreversible damage to the time line. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:33, Mar 29

Much of the damage would be the TMI factor. Just trust me on this. Verp 05:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See, I would think that it would be beneficial to us to know the extent to which shock porn has taken over our future. Then, we can make worse shock porn sooner!-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

At some point in you world’s future how another person gets sexual gratification will be seen as no one else’s business unless someone gets hurt or you want to fix someone up with someone who is their type. What might now be seen as shock porn will simply be eroticism meant for someone else and promptly ignored or shown to a friend who is into that. If you really want to see things like, oh, for example, a humanoid species in action that nourishes its young from the secretions of its highly modified prostate gland, I could send you a short catalog of the more unusual things I’m aware of, you could pick and choose what floats your boat and we could go from there. I'm rather curious what sorts of tangents this could lead us all down. Verp 05:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Back in my day we didn't use filthy language like "tangents" and "lead us all down". We had a little thing called shame, back then, and it served us well, dagnabit! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What sort of filthy language did you use? Humans are an endless source of entertainment for me. Verp 07:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)