Forum:Unilateral policy changes

From Uncyclomedia, the UnMeta-wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forum: Unilateral policy changes
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3147 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

In the beginning of January, CartoonistHenning rolled out two new policy pages, one for UnMeta, and one for Uncyclomedia, with policy concerning a wide spread of topics. There was no vote as to whether we, as a community, accepted either of these, in parts or in whole, however, and I suspect that as a result many aspects of these policy pages do not reflect the views of the community as it currently stands.

For example, there is a rule specified on the UnMeta policy effectively stating that new users must have at least 20 edits and have an account over two weeks old in order to vote. This voting policy may seem like a good idea on first inspection, but unfortunately very little, if anything, happens on this wiki besides voting and !voting and things that eventually turn into voting. Subsequently the only thing such a policy is likely to achieve is the alienation of any new users who come here specifically to vote on things pertaining to their home wikis; without the ability to vote, there is little point in them being here at all, and that much less chance of ever getting the requisite amount of edits.

This is but one detail amidst the entirety of the policy, though, a policy that I would also argue is also entirely too long.

CartoonistHenning has previously stated that he would welcome suggestions for modifying or discussion on individual aspects of the policy, despite not holding a vote on the matter in the first place. Given this, what I would like to discuss is the existence of these policies as a whole in the first place, in particular the one specific to UnMeta (mostly because I have yet to get a straight answer as to just what 'Uncyclomedia' is). Its scope is broad, and the page itself is quite long, and many of the issues outlined on it are likely to never come up at all, or simply are not relevant to the policy itself. We do not such need such explicit detail, and I would put forward that perhaps many of us also do not want such explicit detail. UnMeta is, after all, a gathering place for different wikis:

  • Illogicopedia (en): Most anything goes so long as it's not mean and/or nasty and/or evil. 'No total crap' would be the precise wording.
  • Uncyclopedia (en): There are two rules: Be funny and not just stupid, and Don't be a dick.
  • Inciclopedia (es): Seems to mostly just have the same rule repeated about six times: Be funny.
  • Oncyclopedia (nl): Apparently operates around a don't be a jerk principle; the rest just branches out from there.

In a similar vein, I would like to propose we lose the current policy entirely and adopt a system of essentially 'specify things as they are needed', starting with two basic rules:

  • Don't be an arse. This should be pretty self-explanatory. Be civil and stuff.
  • Use your brain. Again, pretty self-explanatory. Think things through before editing, that kind of thing.

Or something along those lines, anyhow. From there anyone who would like to may propose specifics - a standardised ban policy, perhaps, or indeed, a voting policy, or maybe the very same Requests specifications from CartoonistHenning's original policy. The only difference would be that this time the community would have to pass each thing individually, deciding whether or not they approve, or even if it is actually needed, before applying it to Policy. Or in the case of things specific to certain pages, directly on those pages, maybe in the form of a template or something. No need to add everything to some overarching Policy page too long to navigate when it's only relevant certain places.

Let this be the vote that never happened. As such, the current voting policy does not apply. ~ Pointy.png 03:44, 30 January 2012

Retract the current policy in whole?

Score: 1
  • Support per above. ~ Pointy.png 03:44, 30 January 2012
  • Support. And I would love to see him tell me I can't vote considering my account is older than his, and I was a sysop on Uncyclomedia possibly [1] before he had even heard of these projects. Honestly, is maintaining your Supreme Dictator of Uncyclomedia and Other Projects status worth watching them all die? And furthermore, I don't understand your war on the English uncyclopedia at all. -- Villahj Ideeut (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- Sir Zombiebaron (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - In the interests of being democratic, I'll add a support, but as far as I'm concerned, unilateral dictation of any major policy immediately invalidates it. -- Olipro (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Supper -RAHB 00:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Against - As below. Roye7777777 ~ Talk 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. As per the "nothing happens here but voting" point. The simplified policy works well back home too. --Black Flamingo 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Adopt the proposed simplified policy?

This would consists of the following two overall rules as outline above (or some variation) and additional specifics established later as we need them:

Don't be an arse.
Use your brain.
Score: 1
  • Support per proposal. ~ Pointy.png 03:44, 30 January 2012

What about if the rules are these, instead?

Don't be a dick.
Prostrate before your slime mold overlords.
Score: 1
  • Erm. ~ Pointy.png 19:07, 30 January 2012
  • Supperware. You may laugh now, but they'll make our eventual assimilation into The Central Mold quick and painless if we cooperate. -RAHB 00:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore talk

The policy text is long indeed - nobody is going to read that, automatically like it is a must at first sight. You all know EULA's, right? Though, I think the text that is written over there is logical, it describes everything just the way it is. I shouldn't throw this away, but use it different. For example: The BY NC SA 3.0 license, in human-readable, and in detail, the full code. That seems fair to me. It is been a long time though when there came a response to it at UnMeta itself, keeping IRC properly out of that, seems to me. I suggest that the main policy should say the most important things indeed, like:

The Absolutely Most Important Rules Everybody Should Know (TAMIRESK)
1. Don't be a dick.
2. Use your brain.
3. Don't waste. Environment and stuff. spam
Furthermore Rubbish And Crap That All Let Us Feel Sad (FRACTALUFS)
1. Spam.
2. Dicks (like those who behave)
3. Dicks (read: porn)
4. Penises (read: spamming, but different)
5. Language-abuse, Keyboardmadness, Pile of Junk, Oneliners, "Hi-i'm-Dick-and-this-is-funny"'s, who-cares-things, you know: (Total) Crap.
6. You More?
The Aim That Unmeta Though Approved There Has (TATUTATH)
Well. The use of it. The goal, and... things, summarized.
The Avail That It Gives To You And Ourselves (TATIGTYAO)
Also, what's the profit, what's the further use what we got, or maybe this to be placed with TAMIRESK in sub-paragraphs, or idk
Copyright, Admins, Privacy, Voting And Diplomaticism (CAPVAD)
Here the things like copyright, who admins are, how they been chosen (maybe unnecessasy after all though), small crap of privacy, what voting rights they have, and the situation, short, in a reference to the paragraph of the long policy (referring, there it has a use).
A reference to the, extended policy with this all written /
Furthermore places to complain /
Fill in eventually

I think we need a some sort of policy, but not that short so-incredibly-short, and neither that w00tish-long for the first use (read: first to read page). Can't make it funnier, but we can make it easier, a slogan our tax authorities have here, but keeping the long one as the reference list, when necessary, and using the shorter one as quick-view where the hell unmeta is about. If I forgot a think, burn flame feel free to burn talk. Roye7777777 ~ Talk 19:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Though, I forgot to say that the rule about the voting is a bit weird, but legit, because when people go ahead and ask everyone to vote for this, it wouldn't be fair anymore. That should be a simple to-ahead-and-the-one-with-the-most-friends-wins. Maybe decreasing it to ten? Though, it's like ReCAPTCHA, i think. Roye7777777 ~ Talk 19:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Clarifications like that would probably make more sense on separate pages so people can link to them more easily, such as on welcome messages (for wikia info, click here; for admins, click here; yadda) and when people make arses of themselves... ~ Pointy.png 20:13, 30 January 2012
Also, I forgot to mention this, but those acronyms are the most horrific thing ever. Whatever we wind up doing, acronyms like that are a must. ~ Pointy.png 22:28, 30 January 2012

As far I understand...

... from the current situation, someone wants to replace the policy with two lines? Come up with better ideas, because this is getting nowhere. This isn't going to be a 2nd Uncyclopedia folks, this will be a semi-serious discussion place where we can discuss about anything without referring to infantile jokes about penisses. An exact example of this is the way Athyria talked to Alhazred. She called Uncyclopedians idiots while Alhazred thought she was insulting him. English irony, sarcasm ... it's inside humour for non-English native speakers and I don't appreciate it when having international discussions here. Don't ask me why I say this, because this is really important approaching people who speak another language. I'm not saying this will be a dry Wikipedian website, we must be rational too. That's why I'm not going to vote for any of the votes above that are not valid through clear rules. Otherwise we can continue with this till the year 2112. Go to the policy and request a change for each of the headers | Cartoonist | Spit it out (talk) | E-mail | UnMeta | 21:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you specifically now saying that you plan on going against a community consensus should one arise because you disagree with it (ie, YOU think the proposed policy is too short)? -- Villahj Ideeut (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
As I proposed, the first to see page is a human-munchable, way too summarized version (see table), that refers eventually to the larger policy. It very, very long, and people who want to know what is unmeta's policy, knows more summarized than not even knowing what admins to after a minute. Easyness serves humankind, all well as clearness. But remember, this policy is applied without a vote - though there hasn't been any critisism published on unmeta so far. Roye7777777 ~ Talk 22:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
@VI: I have nothing against a community consensus, but I don't see on what we can have a consensus if I don't see clear proposals to bring changements or additions the existing rules. Do I really ask too much? Two single lines saying don't be an arse is not sufficient. I'm really sorry, but the reality is that this project lays its focus on discussing and not on article making. The discussions possibly help the motivation to create articles internationally, but that is just one of the goals of UnMeta. And in which way does the current policy threaten its users? Does the policy say how we should behave or discuss? Does the policy say users must pay for membership? I don't think so. Everybody just relax. I'm not going ban anyone for saying his opinion.
For the record: I'm in favour for simplifying the policies, but I don't vote, because I refuse to vote in a vote that I don't even recognise | Cartoonist | Spit it out (talk) | E-mail | UnMeta | 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Right, and this is precisely what is troublesome -- that you don't think it's "sufficient" and therefore you are free to "not recognize the vote," and that this should somehow render it illegitimate. What do you believe gives you the sole authority to decide what is and isn't a legitimate vote? If the entire community decided that our official policy should be "Monkeys are really cool!", then how specifically do you have the right as an individual to veto that decision?
What it comes down to is: If the community DID vote to adopt a two sentence policy, would you refuse to implement that? -- Villahj Ideeut (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
But let's be serious: do you legitimately not see any issue with implementing policies that specify how voting works, the requirements for various permissions, what the purpose of Unmeta is, etc, without EVER putting it to vote by the community? Do you really think it's OK to make pages that attack one of the projects and present them as though they are the official policy of the community? It is not our job to have to suggest detailed changes to a policy that nobody except you approved in the first place. -- Villahj Ideeut (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
If a two-sentence policy will be adapted, I will resign myself from UnMeta activities for a loooong period. Roye7777777 will take over my sysop rights ad interim. And then... yeah... then you can make this to a 2nd Uncyclopedia. I have better things to do than having sysop rights on a wiki with wiseacres, especially with those who haven't cared about this project for years and now come to stirr up drama (for what?). Really ironical that all of sudden you all show up, when you actually shoud have for years ago. Welcome (back) anyway.
Man, did you ever look up Wikipediathink? It's a parody. I don't attack Uncyclopedia, I only warn new users who are learning the difference between the mother wiki and other related projects and want to contribute to one of our wikis. If you're keep being hostile like that, you make me believe that this article has to be taken seriously.
You know what? Just ignore the policy. Have fun, enjoy and I'll watch the spectacle from the tribune. */me takes a sandwich* Cartoonist | Spit it out (talk) | E-mail | UnMeta | 03:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a strange thing to leave over - either disagreeing with something that has been proposed, or if it indeed is simply that such a thing could be proposed, it is still merely a proposal, and in the early stages. So far all we really seem to have agreed upon is that we don't seem to want a unilaterally decided policy. We haven't gotten anywhere in terms of what to actually do about it, whether or not to replace it or what replace it with or do with/to it in general, so I'm not sure why you'd need to leave after that.
That said, last I checked, Roye already had sysop rights, and as voted by the folks, no less. Although what has that got to do with the other thing? Rights aren't exactly something to be passed down like some shiny crown, are they? ~ Pointy.png 09:55, 31 January 2012
Athyria, you haven't said anything usefull on this forum. You're constantely analysing things without saying what exactly should change. Saying things are not okay is much too easy. Do as I say and screen the policy through, make propositions for each point in the policies. If you're constantly ignoring this advice and reverting my actions, I'm very likely to review your sysop status here. Other bureaucrats would have banned you much earlier, but I'm not like them and I always give you chances. I always offer you a way to give your suggestions and your critics on the provided place, though you're not using them. I'm also bound to this policy and the policy says I should not ban or desysop you because of a disagreement. Do you actually understand that this policy limits my freedom to use my buttons?
Exactly, if I just delete the crap, I can do whatever I like (no rules at all) and I can ban all of you. There is no word about "abusing rights", because abusing rights would be legal on this site. Then, you can refer to WP guidelines as much as you want, but they wouldn't count here nor would the lines about not being a dick prevent me to do that. Are you aware of that? I just warn you, before I start a binding vote which can lead to deletion of this policy.
So there are 3 options:
  1. Policy approved
  2. Policy with drastic changes, by procedures as foreseen
  3. Policy deleted - Everyone can do whatever he likes
Cartoonist | Spit it out (talk) | E-mail | UnMeta | 15:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with the fact that only two sentences will not work. To name one thing that cannot be forgotten: rules for voting, what to vote about, what is legit and what not, who is eligible to vote, etc. There have to be clearings, things where we (admins) can refer to when someone is "Behaving like a dick", while he doesn't agree whilst he only sees that "Don't behave like a dick", and no explanations what exactly 'behaving like a dick' is. He has right then the right to use the argument that he can behave how he can behave, because he could think that clearing pages (if not written in the policy) is a good thing. Ofcourse this is an extreme example, but imagine. Roye7777777 ~ Talk 15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Don't be a dick" or "don't be an arse" can never be used as a rule, as it is a subjective, arbitrary qualification without definition. The question must be: what are the actions that lead to this qualification. and it is those actions that have to be clear and that's why there must be a policy and 'don't be a dick' doesn't qualify.

As it is a subjective statement, it doesn't protect users from admin-abuse, because it's not clear why someone would be a dick and it is the why that counts. If that is not taken into consideration and there aren't any rules to define what makes anyone 'a dick', then it opens the door to admin abuse and anyone can brand another as a dick, like puppyontheradio who calls me a dick because I didn't answer the way he would have liked me too. The qualification 'dick' doesn't mean anything more than shouting "Leper, leper!" an gives no possibility for 'the dick' to defend him or herself. After all: a policy has two purposes: 1: to give admins guidelines by which to act and 2: as a protection for users against other users and especially against the admins themselves. If the guidelines aren't clear, then why have any guideline? the guideline "don't be a dick' gives the admins the instrument to turn into small time dictators, while giving no protection whatsoever for the individual user. D. G. Neree (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I therefore support a discussion about the policy CartoonistHenning wrote down and to implement it after it has been discussed and maybe altered. I suggest not to vote about the different parts, but to come to a consensus about them. After all, it is not about who is right or wrong, or who wins or loses, but to have a good policy. D. G. Neree (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)