Uncyclopedia:VFS/April2023

Adminship

ARandomPage (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

Score: 0

1. I have a vague memory of having promised this. Even if I did not, this person has been quite beneficial for this site, with no exceptions. JJP_Master 00:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
2.  Half for. I don't think you ever promised this nomination. That said, this probably won't hurt anyone, right? ARandomPage, the named space (ARandomTalkPage) (Stuff they do) 03:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
3.  Half Zombiebaron told me to vote and I get one trillion dollars by mail! Bad Motherfucker GET FUCKED! 22:21, April 14, 2023 (UTC)
4.  Against. I’m sorry, but i can’t really vote for someone who primarily edits their own (and other peoples) userpages. 07:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I haven't really been active this year, and I can't really find anything good to report on with the UnSignpost. ARandomPage, the named space (ARandomTalkPage) (Stuff they do) 10:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

JJPMaster (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

Score: -0.5

1.  Nomination and half for. I'm pretty sure I told JJPMaster that I'd nominate her if she was more active. She did not become more active, but I'm still nominating her because I have to pay her back for nominating me for some reason. That said, JJPMaster has a tendency to go on monthly month-long hiatuses. ARandomPage, the named space (ARandomTalkPage) (Stuff they do) 03:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
2. Support as Junie. Psst, half votes aren’t allowed at VFS! JJP_Master 10:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

   Half votes are only forbidden on de-op votes. This is not a de-op vote.ARandomPage, the named space (ARandomTalkPage) (Stuff they do) 14:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

   Oh, sorry, I didn't read it correctly. JJP_Master 14:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

3. Against Has made zero edits in the past 6 months. -- The Zombiebaron 12:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
4.  Against, per Zombiebaron. 14:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrator Reform

Arbitration Committee

This proposal in a nutshell: We should spend the next 6 months ratifying an Uncyclopedia Arbitration Committee Policy with the goal of holding annual ArbCom elections alongside VFS in October.

Uncyclopedia's administrative system has always closely mirrored that of the English Wikipedia, with a few key differences. On Wikipedia trusted users request an elevated set of permissions that allow them to perform janitorial tasks, and a separate annually elected Arbitration Committee handles matters of arbitration.

“ The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
2. To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
4. To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
5. To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.

”

Our version of an Arbitration Committee need not be exactly the same as the English Wikipedia model, but I believe the creation of a similar Committee will have a positive effect on Uncyclopedia not just as it is now, but also in the future. Admin tools will just be for janitorial work so a greater number of trusted users can have access to them, administrators will no longer be solely responsible for arbitration, and we will finally have a clear system for conflict resolution. As somebody who has had to deal with our current system for resolving matters unsuitable for public discussion, I personally feel that the creation of a committee elected to deal with such matters is long overdue.

I am proposing that the community undertake a series of votes and collaborative efforts over the next 6 months to build our version of an Arbitration Committee. This vote is the first phase of the process: where it will be determined if there is support for this reform, and where initial feedback can be given on how our ArbCom should function. If this vote is successful the project will move to the Village Dump where everyone from the community will be invited to collaborate on the policy. The goal will be to have a policy completed by the October VFS vote where we will begin the annual ArbCom elections.

Vote

Score: 0 votes in favour of future votes

1. Obviously -- The Zombiebaron 21:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Obviously -- — Sourav • 02:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
3.  Against. I see too many logistical issues with implementing this and no need for an Arbcom. I’ll comment further below. MrX blow me 13:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
4.  For - Sure, fuck it. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 02:01, Apr. 15, 2023
5.  Against. We don't need it right now per the reasons MrX have specified. RealLifeCartman (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
6.  For Just make sure it doesn't cause any of the chaos that WP's ArbCom causes. ARandomPage, the named space (ARandomTalkPage) (Stuff they do) 05:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. Pretty sure that’s exactly what this will do. 06:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
      1. How will an UnArbCom cause chaos similar to what WP's ArbCom causes? ARandomPage, the named space (ARandomTalkPage) (Stuff they do) 16:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
         1. If it’s the same sort of system it will cause the same sort of chaos. 18:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
7.  Against. I have thought about this a little further and i came to the conclusion that we don’t need this at all. 06:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
8. While I entirely understand why one might think we would need an Arbcom, it's hard to see why we cannot rely on current crats to swiftly deal with such issues. I'm not against it, not really for it. ShabiDOO 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• I would vote for this, but the main problem i see here is that Uncyclopedia right now doesn’t have a large enough community to effectively have any use for something like this, and we aren’t exactly gaining new long-term members, which we would need for this to work. 16:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think the current size of our community will make reforming the admin system easier. As for "gaining new long-term members", by their very definition long-term members are neither gained nor new; they are old and have been retained. The goal of this proposal is to help create an environment where more users stay with Uncyclopedia and become long-term members. -- The Zombiebaron 17:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh right, i forgot that "long-term users" is a subjective term. Whoops :p

  Either way, i still don’t believe we have enough people around to maintain such a system. I’ve been looking through the recent changes feed for the last couple of months, and the amount of long-term users range from 4 to 0 every week, depending on what you classify as a "long-term user". Of course i’m not going to contest you on what that is (obviously because you have been here for way longer than me), but you should hopefully get my point. 17:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I do get your point, and I respectfully disagree. If our community is very small, as you say, then it follows that a potential ArbCom will have a very small amount of work. Being a member of an ArbCom with a very small amount of work will be a very small time commitment. In exchange for this very small time commitment, the site will be improved. We already have a system in place where users are elected to do everything that an ArbCom does, along with all the janitorial tasks: unbundling the two roles will mean everyone has a smaller amount of work to do. -- The Zombiebaron 02:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• While Zombiebaron is right that a smaller community could possibly make organizing an arbcom easier, I mainly agree with BraGreMat's point that maintaining something like this would be difficult in our current state. More importantly, I don't see any need for something like this. It's great that we parody much of what Wikipedia does, but I don't think their overly bureaucratic arbcom is something we want here. If the Uncyc community grows substantially (which I very much hope for), then perhaps this would be necessary/useful in the future. Right now, I think adding a megabureaucracy to Uncyclopedia would do more harm than good. MrX blow me 13:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I believe you could strip away every duty described above except the fourth and this proposed committee would still be something that Uncyclopedia needs. The fact that this community does not have proper communication channels for resolving matters unsuitable for public discussion, after all that has transpired on this website and who our target demographic are, is unconscionable. How do you expect "the Uncyc community [to] grow substantially" without an ArbCom? Please elaborate. -- The Zombiebaron 22:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  I can’t recall any problems that weren’t handled by the admins and/or community forums. We already have ways to discuss things that need to be kept private, namely email and Discord, and we don’t need to establish a committee to use these. How do I expect the community to grow without an arbcom? By gaining new members. If anything, the bureaucracy of an arbcom is more likely to discourage new members from joining. MrX blow me 22:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  I firmly disagree with your sentiment that we don't need to establish a committee to access discussions of a sensitive nature. There are admins who were never elected under an expectation that they would be responsible for arbitration, and they shouldn't have to be. Unbundling janitorial tasks from arbitration will allow the community to elect people to serve in the capacity best suited to them. I imagine the unbundling will also come with an increased amount of admins, and perhaps eventually a move to an RFA style VFS page. Lowering the requirements for admin tools will entice users to stay and acquire them, and tools won't come with any extra responsibilities, just the extra fun. This is, at least as I see it, an actionable plan to grow Uncyclopedia. -- The Zombiebaron 23:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  And I respectfully disagree as well. I don’t know what Kakun’s situation was, but it doesn’t really matter. If an admin doesn’t want to help out with a particular dispute, or never wants to get involved in disputes, that’s fine. We still have enough admins who can help there, and any user is also welcome to help out as well. We haven’t had any issues that weren’t resolved with our current system for at least 3 years. MrX blow me 23:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to either not know or not recall most of what I'm talking about, which makes this a difficult discussion to have. How do you know that there are no issues that the current system doesn't address? Have you ever had to report something of an extremely personal and sensitive nature to the Uncyclopedia admins? Just sitting around doing nothing waiting for the site to grow hasn't worked for over a decade, we need to make positive changes if we want more users. -- The Zombiebaron 23:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to not get the point. We have had sensitive issues, and they were dealt with in the way I described. Online drama and bureaucracy certainly does attract a certain type of user, but for most people it would be more likely to discourage them from joining and/or staying. MrX blow me 02:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  No, I'm sorry, you do not seem to get the point. I have had to report something of an extremely personal and sensitive nature to the Uncyclopedia admins. First I tried private messaging active admins about the situation, they did nothing, the situation got worse. Eventually I had to publicly announce my grievance in the #general chat in order to get it addressed, and to this day I am very uncomfortable with how it was handled. This is the system you are upholding, and I am telling you it is broken. The fact that nobody has publicly announced a sensitive issue in 3 years means very little: most people would rather not make that sort of thing public, and for good reason. Your remark about online drama discouraging new users appears to misunderstand the role of an ArbCom: ArbCom is meant to decrease the amount of drama, and especially public drama. -- The Zombiebaron 02:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry that that happened, but the reason it went down like that was not because the admins are incapable of handling such situations, it was mainly due to a lack of evidence. Also, I was the most active admin at the time by far, but you never tried reaching out to me. And I’m sure they say that arbcom is supposed to decrease drama, but that’s obviously not the case. MrX blow me 03:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason there was a lack of evidence was precisely because the admins are/were incapable of handling such situations: it was a historic case that should have been properly documented at the time it was first reported many years ago. I don't know what time you think I'm talking about, but it was before you were an admin I can assure you. Please explain how it is "obviously not the case" that an ArbCom will decrease drama? -- The Zombiebaron 03:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Because simply glancing at the cases on wikipedia makes it obvious. Disputes that could’ve simply been handled by admins blocking disruptive editors turn into giant, time-sinking forums for everyone to play Johnnie Cochran. And I guess I can’t comment on your case that happened long before I joined Uncyc. What I can say is that for years now we have not had any issues that would’ve benefited from having an arbcom. MrX blow me 04:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said in my initial proposal, our goal should not be to make an exact replica of the Wikipedia ArbCom. I don't believe you can claim to know that there have been no situations that would have benefited from an ArbCom; and even if that were truly the case it would only be a symptom of the shrinking community. As I said before we need to make positive changes if we want the community to grow, this is my idea, what is your idea? -- The Zombiebaron 04:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I do know that your problem as you’ve described it would’ve been handled very differently by our current admins. An arbcom is not needed. If you really think that an arbcom would create less drama, then you’re not being realistic. My idea for growing the community is to focus less on wikidrama and wikibureaucracy and focus more on comedy, mainly with writing competitions and collaborations. MrX blow me 22:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Alright, so does this pass or not? It’s got +1, sure, but this is a reformation of an entire system we’re talking here. 23:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  +1 is not nearly enough for such a drastic change. Only 4 people voted for it, and we would need way more people to participate just to begin. MrX blow me 22:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)