Forum:Quality Control: An Essay on Quality Control by THINKER

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Quality Control: An Essay on Quality Control by THINKER

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6164 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Quality Control: An Essay on Quality Control
by THINKER

Keep in mind that I write to whilst this epic Giants vs. Packers playoff game. And that as this is VD, I don't feel like putting much effort into this. However, I do feel that as Uncyclopedia's a-moral anchor, I should put my epic 2 cents into this little flame war we've got simmering. And of course, I am just so pompous as to make a my own thread, for me.

Hold on, I'm gunna make some mac and cheese to mark this monumental occasion (the Giants not sucking, I mean; not this thread)... Okay 6 minutes for that.

Now, lets get into a few tenants of this debate that are bothering certain folks who may need to smokathepeacepipe, as it were.

Now, I know many people here enjoy Uncyclopedia as a place to leisurely work on articles. Go at your own pace kinda thing. And that is perfectly fine. Would I advocate pulling the rug out from under a writer working on a piece? Absolutely not. But at the same time I feel that, even though not every piece on Uncyc should be an FA, all out hilarious work of art, when one pushes that 'Random' button, he should be able to expect a certain level of humor on the page to which he is led. If you have to click the random button 8 times before getting to a page worth reading, what would compel the average person to read, let alone edit? One would think the interest in improving the piece would help, but we all know that one does not necessarily make good on that feeling.

Oh shit, the Giants are going to the fuckin' Superbowl.

So, some people have said things like "shut the fuck up and edit if you want to help the problem." And that is a worthwhile command to make. However, one must remember that not everyone can be funny about the topics of every article. Look at my articles. Half of them have little to no basis in real life, and the other half have no basis in anything at all. The point is, when a person writes an article, and it languishes in the the land of slightly-worked-on-but-still-quite-terrible, there may not be any immediate way to save them. So just leave it be an hope the original authors help it along? Perhaps, but we have {{WIP}} for that. So just VFD it and let it run its course? Perhaps, but I personally feel the volume is too great for VFD to be effective (see the Poopsmith's Lounge for why I believe this to be so).

Now, yes humor is subjective and yadda yadda yadda. If you believe that to be true, why is QVFD okay? What if one-liners about gay classmates is the funniest thing in the world to some people?

I feel that the old one-two of Conservation Week and Vigilance Week is the answer to all these issues. For I believe that most regular editors here are a lot like me (except less funny -- and less alcoholic): we do not want potentially good pieces to be deleted. We want them to be helped. Hence, a Conservation Week tries to assist the weary, aid the sick. And some have become quite funny because of CW. But some just can't be saved by us, or just can't be saved right now. And if that is the case, wouldn't you prefer to see "this page does not exist" (hey, I could write something funny about that!) versus "crap" (ew, I don't even want to touch this mess)? I know I would. Thats why a CW week is held (and watched closely by all involved, to ensure no articles are needlessly butchered, etc) and a V week is also held (and watched even closerly). Both should be conducted after PLS.

To think that quality control has a negative effect on this site is honestly ludicrous. We'd be ED without quality control. And that is the exact opposite of what this place needs. Quality control is a way to ensure that we're taken seriously as a legitimate source of humor (however one may define it). Perhaps this issue is like political affiliation, and cannot be changed in the minds of the opinion-holders, but I still felt that my lengthy opinion should be made public. Hopefully its too long for anyone to actually respond.

Your Guiding Light,

THINKER
(an Uncyclopedia user and a mother fucker.)

Condensed for the four-year-olds who can flamewar over this subject but not read a less-than-one-page essay on it.

CW and VW should be held (after PLS) because:

• Though not every article needs to be hilarious all the time, why would people want to have to click random 10 times before reading something funny (subjectiveness of humor taken into consideration)
• Not everyone can be funny about every subject, and thus cannot help every article that needs it. (subjectiveness of humor taken into consideration)
• The people involved in these efforts are not doing it with malice, and won't delete articles without proper consideration. (subjectiveness of humor taken into consideration)
• Better quality articles make this site and all it's writers look better. We'd be ED without quality control. (subjectiveness of humor taken into consideration)

There's more in there, but I'll save those for the people with the capacity for a bit of reading. Seriously, you people fuckin' crack me up. --THINKER 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm illiterate. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:18 Jan 21, 2008

Cool it, DrS, or I'll have to give you a warning for being overly sardonic. -- 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 05:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll cool it. I'm just pissed as hell about this Quality Control stuff going on. I thought it was over several months before. Apparently not. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:23 Jan 21, 2008

Well maybe it you'd read the freakin' essay you'd understand, but like I said in the essay, its probably just one of those things that people's minds are made up about no matter the compelling evidence to the contrary. Like voting for Hillary Clinton, or liking Family Guy. --THINKER 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal / political attacks make me sad. :( Why are you making me sad? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:27 Jan 21, 2008

Let's all blame EugeneKay for starting this whole shitstorm again. He did make that VW thread, right? -- 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 05:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah for scapegoats. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:31 Jan 21, 2008

Personal: they weren't meant for you personally, you just happen to be the most vocal proponent of this anti-quality campaign. And that, I definitely can't understand.

Political: Former poli-sci major, and we won't get into it here. --THINKER 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. We found a scapegoat! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but if I liked Family Guy or Hillary Clinton, you would have broken my heart. (Diagram: </3). – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:33 Jan 21, 2008

Anti-quality? Oh, awesome. We're getting into a pro-life/pro-choice style face-off! Can the other side be called the anti-article campaign? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:45, 21 Jan 2008

But I hate life and choice! What's a man to do? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:50, Jan 21

Discus

Discuss has two S's. Just sayin'. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:07, Jan 21

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I think I'll laugh. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Discus is a fish. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a fish. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:59, Jan 22

I am not. Also, keep the cat away from my bowl. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of fish...

"When the moon hits your eye
like a big pizza pie
that's a moray."

Yes, it's a bad pun. MO bad man! Bad, bad man! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the middle of the film.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now discuss

This is what I think. - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with thinker, and like i've been saying, this is the right way to go. 1,2 punch of CW and VW. Maybe longer than a week if we need but the point stands.--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 03:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should encourage participation by rewarding the users who conserve the most, save the most articles tagged during V-week, and who tag the most crap during V-week. In addition, I think that all new nominations on VFH that were from CW get an extra +1 or +2, CW articles are exempt from VFD for a month to 90 days, and CW articles are immune to {{V}}. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 05:01, Jan. 21, 2008

You know something? This looks almost identical to a conversation I had with gwax not too long ago. Turns out, these kind of things never work because we are all too lazy to bother anymore. I cared two years ago. Maybe a year ago. I wrote the QVFD script. I wrote plenty of other scripts to try and help with cleanup. But... After they got rid of NRV, I gave up. -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That might've been then, but I think that right now there are a number of caring users who'd be willing to help with this (myself included). And like any wiki, Uncyc is ever-evolving. NRV evolved, VFH evolved, etc. etc. It worked last time, and it can definitely work again. --THINKER 05:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's a good idea. And although I hate the idea of more unnecessary awards, if it helps improve site quality it's got to be worth it. Seriously, if we're going to be less popular than ED, we'd damn well better be funnier. -- 09:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also (I really should have read the other topics before posting) Brad's rating system suggestion sounds good too, as does Boomer's automated-VFD thing, if it can be done. Just mentioning it because often this stuff gets lost when a new topic gets created. -- 10:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That automated VFD system is exactly what I had in mind when I suggested updating VFD in the same vein as VFH. But people almost unanimously voted against it! Make up your minds! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:48, 21 Jan 2008

Its automated according to health? --THINKER 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it doesn't exist yet, but similar rules could be put in place without too much bother. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:15, 21 Jan 2008

Right. I'd be down with that, so long as it can accommodate the serious amount of articles it'd be encountering.. --THINKER 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In theory, such a system could accommodate 500 queued VFD nominations, with only the first 15 or whatever available to be voted on, and would automatically update when an article was kept or deleted. I think VFD is enough to handle the quality control, but updating and streamlining it would certainly make it better. The change would be similar to how VFH changed, with all the pros and cons that came with that. Something similar to health could be worked in too. The specifics would have to be worked out, but that would come later. I think the updated VFD solution would probably be a reasonable compromise to everyone who thinks VFD is enough, and with people who think VFD isn't fast enough. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:39, 21 Jan 2008

tl;dr

Remind me why I stop by this site again? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:02 Jan 21, 2008

• Damn, you edit conflicted me with what I was about to say, nevertheless... -- The Zombiebaron 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We're adorable and cuddly. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TL;DR

• I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but thing is fucking long. How the fuck am I supposed to read all that? Someone link me to the Sparknotes. -- The Zombiebaron 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes, now I remember why I stop by the site — there're some sane users left. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:04 Jan 21, 2008
    • • Sane users? Most of them went their ways a long time ago, even before you came on this site. ~

        Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

        21/01/2008 @ 05:07
        • "Obi Wan?" Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time...a long time. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:10, Jan 21
        • Wait, now I really really remember why I stop by this site — the insane users. <3 And also to avoid homework. Which I really should be doing just now. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:11 Jan 21, 2008

The power of the phallic deity compells you. -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 05:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish the Packers had won

Now I'm sad. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:22, Jan 21

I just new STM said that when I saw the Table of Contents. -- Kippy the Elf Talk Works ☃ 07:31, Jan. 21, 2008

And for the record...

You could have easily put this on the other thread. Would've avoided all the spinoffs, you know. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:23, Jan 21

Where's the fun in that? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The other thread is a war-torn battleground. Oh, and I'm vane that way. ;) --THINKER 05:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A young jedi named Darth Vader, betrayed and murdered your father. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:28, Jan 21

WHORE!!! --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 05:29, Jan. 21, 2008

Don't get mad at me, Thinker's the one that keeps spelling stuff wrong... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:32, Jan 21

That was at Thinker. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 05:33, Jan. 21, 2008

vane: a blade, plate, sail, etc., in the wheel of a windmill, to be moved by the air. I spell nothing wrong! --THINKER 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're so vane. You prob'ly think this blade, plate, or sail is about you, don't you!? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:38, Jan 21

Well, at least we've got another entry for Worst 100 Reflections on 2008, now. Also, FU TLB EDIT CONFLICT -- 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 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Final Solution

(No not that one, another one) I'm glad Thinker has given us a reason instead of just repeating the "solution" over and over again. I still feel too many of our articles are deleted (which is WHY we're less popular that that other site, IMHO, despite having better material). I think if we were to have a 5-star rating system with random page limited to the three-star or above articles, this would solve that problem. Again, I thank Thinker for taking the time to come up with a REASON for the call for quality control instead of just grabbing a torch and joining the mob.--<<>> 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if we could make the system set up so that if the average rating goes down two stars from a previous edit, it automatically reverts to that edit, that'd be AWESOME (it'd solve the overall net negative effect of non-writer editors, as well, which happens at our high-traffic pages, for whatever reason).--<<>> 11:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A five star rating and the number of people who have voted, like Amazon. That's what we need; instead of Vigilance Week, Nerdy Interweb Programmer Week. I'll bring the phasers. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 11:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll bring my ring of power (I KNEW I bought that for a reason...)--<<>> 11:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

I agree with a lot of what Thinker has to say, but I think that there is a bigger problem facing this issue of quality control. Vigilance Week and Conservation Week or whatever only do so much, because in a few months we'll be calling for another one. Putting a banner on the front page to draw attention to the VFD can only do so much. Encouraging people to do rewrites can only do so much. They're temporary fixes to a much bigger problem: the gravely disproportionate ratio of shit to gold on this site. This is evident in that the random button more often than not will direct one to shit rather than gold. Thinkerer brings up ED and the idea that without quality control, we'd be like ED. ED is interesting to bring up, because while most will agree what a lot of what they have is borderline pornography, they do have consistent quality on their site. Few pages don't have a Goatse image or some other shock picture. Why? Because they have quality control. They control, through their community which has disabled anonymous editing altogether, the quality (even if it is shit by our standards).

There is a specter haunting Uncyclopedia -- the specter of IP page creation.

A while back we had the vote as to whether or not we should disable the IP privilege of creating pages, and it was closely voted down. Many stupid Libertarians people thought we were talking about IP editing altogether and voted against, because, well, they're fucking retarded. I'm still in favor of doing away with IPs having the privilege to create will be largely effective in helping to maintain quality on this site. Wikipedia has done it, Conservapedia has done it, and countless other wikis are doing it. It's all the rage. I hate to be one to say "let's follow the crowd", but I happen to agree that the benefits of doing this outweigh the costs.

Some argue, "Well, they can just create a log-in. It takes 10 seconds," even though this argument could also be another point in why page creation should be a right to only created log-ins: because users who create accounts are greeted with the Welcome message and are more likely to become integrated into the community rather than a person behind the cloak of numbers and dots. And regardless of whether or not they can create a log-in in 10 seconds, it's still effective in maintaining quality.

Just about any RC patroller will acknowledge that IPs create more shit than any other group of contributors. I'm not proposing we have another vote, but I just think that's it's something to be considered when looking at quality control on this site. --EMC ^[TALK] 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, the IP Newpages thing is something I'd personally be in favor of, because it prevents crap from being created, which should prevent mass huffing sprees, which is my biggest problem with V-Week. Still, it will almost certainly never be enacted. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:06, Jan 21

Locking out newpage creation for IPs would be something I'd find much less distasteful than destroying a lot of pages every so often.--<<>> 17:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But the thing is, IP-created pages are almost always short, badly punctuated one-liners about some mentally challenged 12-year-old's sexually questionable friends. They create a page, get bored and go away, and because their stuff is so short it's incredibly easy to spot and delete while checking through Special:Newpages. It's not IP pages that slip through the net, but pages created by redlink users - people who register, spend half an hour on a page they find funny and disappear after three days. They're often just about good/long enough to avoid death by {{ICU}}, but they still aren't very funny and they drag down the quality of the site. But what can you do? There is no solution - there's no way of telling who will stay and who will disappear, and to be honest I don't think we'd want to try and control that anyway.

The thing is, Uncyclopedia is about fun above all, right? We create funny articles for people to read, and then those same people see the edit tab and decide to have a go themselves. They have fun creating dumb pages about how Michael Jackson is a child molester, and they're deleted without fail (mostly) within a couple of hours at the most, so they don't do any harm to the site. As far as I know, we don't mind deleting them (actually, maybe we do - I know I find them quite funny, but I can't speak for everyone) and it gives people a laugh who might otherwise go somewhere else. Sorry that was so long. -- 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I mind QVFDing lame pages, constantly checking and re-checking Newpages. I could be writing my own stuff, voting on VFH, writing my own stuff, hanging out in the forums, writing my own stuff...the list goes on. I'm sure for vandals it's fun to replace a few featured articles with some crap about how their friend is poorly endowed, but we ban them. It's quite possibly easier to revert a change like that than to huff an article.

The thing is, if we stop worrying about the pages that we know are shit, there'll be more time for those that might be borderline ok, and less need for mass huffing sprees, where an article that probably isn't, but just might be borderline ok can get huffed without more than 2 people getting a chance to actually make the call. Do we delete something on VFD with 2 delete votes and no keeps? Of course not! Anyways, I guess the point of my ramblings is this: do you wuv flapjacks, or do you no wuv flapjacks? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:32, Jan 22

It is minded. Bugger. (For the record, it really is no harder to delete a page than to revert something, though.) -- 08:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bonner's 2 pence

• I've condensed this into bullet points for you ignorant fucks that can't be bothered to read a large paragraph. (And yes I have read the full thread)
• Bonner agrees with The Thinker. We Need a CW followed by a VW, but do it next month
• Bonner loves Bradaphaser's rating and automatic revert idea and thinks it would solve a lot of problems on this site
• Bonner also loves Boomer's automated VFD idea, but thinks it should only be implemented every once in a while
• Bonner is also extremely for Banning IP page creation
• Bonner will stop talking in the third person now.
• (Bonner) (Talk) Jan 21, 18:42
  • That was more like sixpence. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And a pocketful of rye. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:57, 22 Jan 2008

And finally...

I mean it...

--Dexter111344 19:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh, you'd better do as he says. He might get the eco warriors on us... then we'll be screwed. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. He cares so much about the environment that he flies everywhere, just so that he can be closer to the air we're warming with our "jets" and our "pollution". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There goes North Dakota's and Zimbabwe's internet. Don't make me have to do it to somewhere important... --Dexter111344 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on Skullthumper

“If it's crap, VFD it.”

~ Dr. Skullthumper

It would take two years to VFD most of the crap found clicking the random page button (no seriously, I'm not exaggerating). It would only take one/two weeks (depending on how long V-Week is) to get rid of say over one thousand crap article. Do you seriously think we need to vote on every single crap article? No, it's just the internet, not democracy, and believe me, we already vote a lot, with VFD, VFP, VFH, FFS, Top10 and other awards. Most articles would be huffed justly, while we might loose the occasional mediocre article (but does anyone care?)

I agree with The Thinker, we need quality control or else this place will become ED. We have HTBFANJS for a reason, so editors will abide to it. Articles that don't follow this rule (and it's a real rules) should simply be deleted as they are bending the rule. Again, it would take to long to VFD every crap article.

Ban IP creation while you're at it, the constant crap created by IPs isn't worth the rare Feature (and they can create a fucking acount)--Æ 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe we need to vote on every single crap article. Believe it or not, people put a lot of effort into articles. Just because they're not cranking out features doesn't mean their work, their ideas, and their time ought to be overlooked. I strongly believe that writing deserves respect, whether it's amazing or just passable. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:50 Jan 21, 2008

Not necessarily, several slap 5 minutes in an article because they automatically think that "oh, it's Uncyclopedia, since it's entirley built on lies, I'm going to slap 5 minutes into this article"--Æ 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That does happen, but a lot of people legitimately try. Unfortunately, Quality Control measures such as {{V}}-week means that only one user and one administrator have to look at the article to determine if it gets huffed or not. Is that respectful to the people that try? Should the minority suffer just because of a generalization? What are we hoping to gain from all this?

Quality control is unfair in another way. Just because someone comes across a page during whatever-week, automatically that page gets a fifth or less of the consideration it would get on a normal day. So just because it happens to be a particular day, someone's writing doesn't get as much review? It seems silly. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:10 Jan 22, 2008

I'm not against IP creation. I created {{IPjoin}} specifically for IP creation. IPs have the right to fuck around a bit, get deleted/reverted and all that good stuff. Its just about content management; if it sucks, it gets changed, IP and user alike. No need to put up a wall. Lets not forget some of the good things IPs have accomplished. --THINKER 23:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What if...

...we spelled out some "guidelines for deletion" that we could all more-or-less agree on, this would solve much of our trouble (the "deletionists" already believe they each have a good idea about what would be grounds for deletion, so this may be the best option for the "keeptionists" at the moment). Agree? Disagree? Shutup Brad? DISCUSS!--<<>> 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines suck. The instant we put forth guidelines, people will forget to just review writing as-is and start citing the guidelines. That's icky and Wikipedia-ish. Sure, it'll work for a while, but then WikiLawyering will step in... – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:14 Jan 22, 2008

Hooray, more flamewars!--<<>> 00:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(gets out flamethrower) Actually, that doesn't sound too bad. Bring on the guidelines! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:23 Jan 22, 2008

• That I agree with. Like I said in the essay, people aren't going to be malicious and staunch about this. They're going to honestly evaluate the article, make their decision, and await a display of disapproval. If they see it, it comes back or gets userspaced, if not, it gets deleted, to be recreated on the editor's own time. I have faith in the common judgement of our admins; sure they're online politicians with the blubbering gullets of seasoned liars, but they're still pretty fuckin' funny. At least like, Mordillo.. right? :) --THINKER 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See, this is what I like to see. Both sides of a disagreement getting together and agreeing on something. Namely, that Brad is wrong. But hey, we're agreeing. That's something.--<<>> 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See, I'd agree with you even further, except for the times when Zombiebaron and Gwax, for instance, went on unprovoked huffing sprees, in some cases huffing articles previously kept by VFD! Several times! So I'm a little nervous about putting the fate of the articles in the hands of particular admins. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:30 Jan 22, 2008

Maybe the sysops to administer the undertaking could be elected? --THINKER 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

...maybe. But again, I stand by what I said above (way above, far, far, away, in another section), I don't think it's fair that just because it's whatever-week, an article only gets minimum attention ("good" sysop or not) before huffing. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:02 Jan 22, 2008

For the record, I'd nom Todd Lyons, but he ran off last time I suggested mass deletion was a bad idea.--<<>> 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, right? Good ol' Todd Lyons, me n' him go way back. Waaayyyy back. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:34, Jan 22

Here's a proposal for a new way to delete - one that may or may not cut time:

1. People nominate articles in a DPLForum system.
2. A designated (or undesignated, it doesn't really matter) will review the article for eligibility for deletion with a template that's sort of the opposite of the standard pee review template.
3. Articles which are not found not funny (or recieve above a certain score) will go into a queue, in which admins will either delete on sight, or vote amongst other admins for its deletion.

Since it only takes two to three people for each standard crap article to be deleted or saved, it will cut back time and allow for more deletions while providing some sight into the humor. ~

Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

22/01/2008 @ 21:12

That's just V Week with more steps. Plus we've already seen that Dr.S can't comprimise with the idea of a judge, elected or otherwise. --THINKER 21:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the fact that only two people get to look at the article is the main problem. And most of all, I seriously still don't see a need for another V-Week. Before the last one, VFD was backed up every single day, but just this afternoon there were 3 or 4 open spots to fill. If you find a shitty page, VFD it, and if it really is bad, it'll get deleted. But, when you see another delete vote and 4 keeps, You'll see why V-weeks can be so dangerous. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:04, Jan 22

What TheLedBalloon said, but imagine it more difficult to follow and long-winded. And with my signature at the end, of course. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:06 Jan 22, 2008