Forum:Proposal: Admins's rules

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Proposal: Admins's rules (talk)

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6150 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

1) Delete every article you dislike. Do not use your powers to do something you think someone else shouldn't do. Follow the same rules the regular users must follow (both the written and the unwritten ones).

2) Respect the regular users. Ban anyone who annoys you even a little. Before taking any step against an user, think how much you are gonna enjoy it, consider weather the foult was commited intending to make harm or not. Indoctrinating those apes Teaching gives better results than punishing: Punishment should almost always be a last resource.

3) Respect the other admins, if you believe an admin has done something he shouldn't have rip his intstins disscus it with him in a civilized way (do not just revert). Allways try to reach a concensus. Avoid asking for bureaus (or chron's) intervention unless there's reeeeeally no other choice.

4) Before every edit, wash your hands, whisper your prayers to the FSM, and may the force be with you.

I originally wrote this in Spanish, and these are the rules I try to follow in Spanish uncy. The topic on "who admins the admins" makes me believe they can be useful here aswell. In fact, I made them from the actual admin behaviour I observed in most admins over here, and on the basis of the earlier disscusions about possible admins's rules in this same forum.

The rules are short and simple. They are flexible enough to give the admins the possibility of making their own judgements in each case. At the same time they are clear enough to show when an admin is behaving incorrectly, and a regular user could rightfully protest, claiming an admin has violated rules number 1 or 2.

I think admins should compromise to follow this rules. Of course, sometimes it's hard to stop the impulse to ban someone just for being annoying or delete something you think it must be deleted at any rate, or feature an article that you shouldn't or whatever. It's hard specially after dealing with so much crap. Regular users, and specially frequent users should understand that, and be pacient. But if following that impulse an admin violates this rules, apologizing and taking the action back shouldn't be a big deal for him.

You are wellcome to improve the wording. Comments?--Rataube 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm not an admin, but I'll comment anyway - I think that the first and third rules should not have any parts striked out. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 13:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this (I think it's a little simpler). It goes alon g the same lines as the first two above:

1. Swords are heavier than letters. (Don't tire yourself with the ban-stick and insta-huff when you can revialize yourself with creative responses, ammendments, and improvements).
2. Smell your own breath. (Whether its simply telling someone else off, deleting an article, or even banning, cool down and then review what you did. It's never too late to undo rash actions, and appologies never hurt, either!)
3. Chase the monkey. (Don't forget that Uncyclopedia isn't supposed to be ruled by a totalitarian regime; it's meant to be fun and a way of expressing and venting pent up creative thought. Keep trying to have fun, and don't trample others just because they're trying to do the same.)

Okay, so the whole proverb thing might be overdoing it, but I think they're easier to remember. In any case, I agree with Rataube that recently things have gotten a little out of hand. c'mon, guys, put the fun back into Uncyc! ~CaputosistheHorrible14:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Giving the current situation...

I think we could reconsider this old proposal of mine. If we had follow this rules many of the drama we've had lately could have been avoided, specially rule number 3. I removed all the discussion about this proposal in relation to older melodramas. It can be found in the history. Is this useful? Should this be impleted? I would prefer strike yes or noes. I mean, discussion is welcomed, on the wording and such, but no on the events. everyone have alredy left their conclutions about the euroipods flame elsewhere, no need to repeat it, this is not another post about it.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth discussing, but right now is not a good time, IMHO, as we've just finished a major argument and tempers are still hot. In such circumstances, people are often incapable of reason and unwilling to listen, which will have bad end results. I like the proposal. Maybe we shouldn't need them, but just in case, it's a good idea. I just think we should wait until after everyone's calmed down to discuss it. Maybe sometime next month would be good.--<<>> 15:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, you're probably right. Let's leave it for a better timing. BTW, you didn't like it that much before....---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at that time, we still hadn't had a major-enough tiff between the admins that started going after each other. Rules are a good thing, it helps cover your tail and prevent you from doing something stupid. My feelings before were based on the fact that the admins had done such a good job of self-policing each other through fair and respectful discussion. Recently, that hasn't always been happening, so of course I changed my mind. My point before wasn't that it should never happen, but that it seemed unnecessary. Now, there is a precedent for which it seems necessary. That's all. (But, again, to have such a discussion now, when people are still angry, would be futile).--<<>> 16:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote (good points, both of you by the way)

Geez... Anywho vote on whether you want the new rules or not, user and admin votes should be kept seperate (because I can think of quite a few regular users who already want this done :) ), then both put up for consideration. The vote doesn't instantly count, but should be used as a guide to whether we will be, as two different groups with different views, for or against. Mr. Briggs Inc. 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Eh?

I'm withholding my vote on this until people calm down and it stops being about winning or losing anything to vote here. I'm not huffing the post (as was suggested above), because I don't think that'd be constructive, at this point.--<<>> 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want any new rules, and let me tell you why:

1. When the admins were the main people selecting admins (which is why I recommended we bring that back in the last vote), the admins get along.
2. The site never would have grown to the size it has and as well as it has if it wasn't for Chron selecting a base of excellent admins, who, in theory, should select people that would make excellent admins (provided they are not blinded by their care for someone else, which could introduce an unstable element). Note that most users have no clue what admins do, nor do they understand what it takes, so quality admins are more likely to be able to identify quality candidates.
3. In a bar, it takes some level of maturity to be the bartender.

» Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed:

1. I can't really comment on this directly as I'm new here, but during the recent problems several posts mentioned previous conflicts of opinion, and it's not as if any of us here are angels... ^_^
2. In theory that should be true, but that same process allowed Stalin to rise from tea-boy to tyrant (the unstable element). Since only existing admins can create new admins, any reasonable and frank discussion of a candidate, citing examples of actions they have taken that merit admin status, need not preclude any user, regardless of that user's status.
3. Most of the bartenders I've known were both 18 and regular users of the VD clinic. (Although I take your point)

Berogen^VFH 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The only ongoing admin problems I know of were caused by an admin that was the choice of the proles, and one that was chosen through the unstable element method. Aside from that, the group does quite well... Granted there are sometimes problems and some of us do silly things sometimes (like Euroipods - what a riot!), but overall there is little fun-and-games about being an admin.

The bartender analogy was based on the "corner pub" analogy for uncyclopedia in comparison to wikipedia. It had nothing to do with anything aside from the bartender serving the beer vs. drinking it all. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All the sysoped users had the support of the former admins. Even the ones selected with the open system.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 09:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify my post - were I more observant, I would have seen that this forum topic apparently belongs to a previous ad-misbehavin' session. Fair enough. I don't know what it first related to (but I could hazard a guess) so it doesn't in itself point to a problem with the quality of admins.

Second point: I wasn't actually comparing any admin with Stalin, I was just analogizing processes. Coupled with my reasons for voting (below), you might form the opinion that I think there's a problem with the admins or the basic coda they work by. I don't... I just think if there were more, the boring, tedious work (such as reverting the efforts of real [1] megalomaniacs [2]) would be more spread out. It's far too boring for me to want to do, and I pity those who find pleasure in such work, as I would pity a baby seal swimming with an orca.

Finally, I honestly do take your point: but I was merely inferring that bartenders, like admins, are supposed to behave responsibly, even if they don't always, and I think we're in agreement there. Berogen^VFH 14:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

ADMINS

Score: 0

---

USERS

Score: +5

• For, ^_^ 22:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• For. Anything that might help stop this happening again is a good thing. -- 13:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• For. Admins really need to stop and look in the mirror now and then. Banning has turned into a reflex for some. --User:Nintendorulez 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• For More admins = fewer attractions for potential megalomaniacs + shared workload for decent admins = happy users + happy admins. Berogen^VFH 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. While I'm against being trigger happy, frankly the admins here are much better than the Wikipedia ones. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)