From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Accountability
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2198 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

You can probably tell because I stuck this in the Ministry of Love that it's going to be horribly serious and dramatic or something, and not just my usual post about how much admins suck and that we should lynch them all. Even so, admins really suck and we should probably lynch them all.

But seriously, this may be more tied into that other forum I started (regarding standards of conduct on IRC) than I'd realised. Admins, see. Standards of conduct, but for admins, do we even have any? I mean, I know we do, but it seems like folks keep forgetting - Mhaille deciding to ignore the rules of FFW, Socky undeleting stuff deleted by other admins without discussion, Olipro unbanning folks banned by other ops on IRC without discussion, a recent revert war between several admins on the recent news template, several admins ganging up on Todd Lyons on his talkpage over something that had already been sorted out years ago without asking him what the situation even was... and that's just what's happened in the past month that I know about. There's also the rules in general - nevermind what the beginner's guide says; apparently they don't actually apply to admins. Admins'll be dicks. They'll sometimes be the greatest dicks on the site, doing things that get anyone else banned with a serious warning but only gets them an annoyed look and a hasty attempt to sweep it under the rug, though it's usually littler things, taking a joke too far, perhaps, or singling out a user for something or other, or... whatever. Ain't right, regardless.

Which brings me back to my original point that admins really suck and we should lynch them all, unless someone has a better idea. I mean, maybe having some accountability might help, perhaps? Actual consequences for such behaviour, unlike all we have currently, an extreme that everyone's afraid to touch...

Seriously, does anyone have a better idea? Why is this even happening? Is it just the lack of accountability, or something else? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 07:12, 14 August 2011

In my experience, Uncyclopedia has always been less democratic than other wikis because the admins have greater power and greater leeway than others. That said, sysops are still accountable to the community. If we feel that a certain sysop isn't doing their job, or is abusing their power, we can vote them down, just as we voted them into power in the first place. --Andorin Kato 07:24, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
UN:R applies to everybody. If admins break said rules (Except the thing about dancing I hear most of them are terrible dancers) then they get banned like the rest of us. If they don't follow procedure they get banned like the rest of us. As for IRC, IRC is quite different to the actual wiki but we still seriously need better rules in regards to the way IRC is managed, if you break a rule admin or not you get banned from IRC without exemption. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 07:26, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
I can see this is also gonna turn into a massive flame war so I suggest I'd think before you post. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 07:28, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Admins can unban themselves, though. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 07:45, 14 August 2011
But now we have active bureaucrats too. Just as a user could be banned for a day, the same could be done with deopping/banning. And this could even apply to a bureaucrat, since myself, ZB, and to a lesser extent Mhaille keep each other in check. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 16:32, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
But if you de-op a 'crat, he could still re-op himself. Although I would support the 'crats keeping the admins in line more. --Mn-z 16:38, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
If anybody wishes to hold any admin accountable for their actions they need only to start a deop vote on the Village Dump. This has been true for years and I have said it many times. The fact that everyone complains about the admins and yet nobody has started a (serious) vote to deop one of us leads me to believe that the users are totally content with any and all abuses of power. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 07:36, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
But there's no middle ground with that. What of smaller things, someone keeps doing something they really oughtn't and ignores those who try discussing it, but it's not something terribly major... would it just have to get bad enough to merit deopping, somehow? What of a more short sort of deop, a sort of Ey, stop that! thing to get their attention? But would that merit a vote, really? But then how would you decide if even that's worth it? It would wind up being you, wouldn't it? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 07:45, 14 August 2011
Andorin Kato suggests using UN:OFFICE for such things. I wonder if I spelled his name right... 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 07:56, 14 August 2011
Well done. --Andorin Kato 07:58, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
So far as I can remember in the case of Zana Dark she was repeatedly told not to troll other users on the wiki and on IRC, she was repeatedly warned, given an UN:OFFICE entry and the permabanned, so really setting up UN:OFFICE entries for IRC trolls is a great idea, because reviewing the backlog Lyrithya saved not to mention what I am continually seeing on the channel, I see it as the only real long term solution. If you bretch your UN:OFFICE listing you get banned same as the rest of us. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 08:01, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
UN:OFFICE is for serious abusers of Uncyclopedia. Maybe we need to set up the Uncyclopdia Special Committee For Administrating The Administrators, where the admins can discuss and dispense justice amongst themselves. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 08:02, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, I actually think the application of UN:OFFICE to troublesome administrators is a great idea, should the need for such discipline ever arise. --Andorin Kato 08:06, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Sounds appropriately doomed to failure. I like it. But yeah, UN:OFFICE or some other version might help emphasise the Oy! Stop that! for certain... individuals... without getting too drastic. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 08:08, 14 August 2011
I'd say the best solution to any issue is to simply get all affected parties to sit down and TALK, with mediation if necessary, a bit like that time Obama had a beer with the professor guy and the security guard. Creating arbitrary listings on the website that will do little more than fuel resentment is not the way to go. -- Prof. Olipro Icons-flag-gb KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 08:12, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Another good point. Reaching common ground is the best way of settling disputes. --Andorin Kato 08:15, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes they just don't care, though. You've seen them just not care. Talk to them about something, they just do it again, talk to them again, just don't care. You know? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 09:06, 14 August 2011
The Beginner's Guide section on admins does say some relevant things about this issue, but it doesn't say just how we should go about reprimanding admins who step out of line. I have to agree with ZB: reprimanding admins ought to be done by the community in the Village Dump. I imagine this would be in the form of a deopping which could be a temporary suspension of a few days, weeks, or months, or it could be permanent for the most grievous abuses. Bans can be included as well. No matter how it is decided that grievances w/ admins ought to be handled, I urge this: the abuses must be specific and argued clearly (i.e. "This admin called me an 'enormous faggot' on my talk page after I asked on his talk page why he deleted my article about hot gay bumsex."), not vague generalizations of behavior (i.e. "They're being nonconstructive as of the last few weeks.") And, of course, we should always be trying to resolve disputes through discussion before getting all gung-ho about deopping admins. FACT: Most of the disagreements on this wiki stem from miscommunication. Remember, we're all here for the good of Uncyc. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 08:31 Aug 14 2011
This issue has been brought up before. Basically, the problem is that the vast majority of admins are unwilling to agree that any changes that could possibly maybe result in them loosing their adminship. Therefore the current system of anarcho-oligarchy is probably not going to change much. Granted, the admins are better at policing themselves than they used to be, going from no policing whatsoever to very very little policing. --Mn-z 16:31, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Also, I have the feeling that this topic has something to do with somebody being offended about something that was done in IRC. --Mn-z 16:58, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
After reading another forum post, it looks like it does have something to with someone being called a "BATSHIT RETARDED CUNT." This appears to be an admin vs admin issue, not an issue with the general dickery directed at the regular users, which changes the context of the discussion. Basically, since admins have the effective right to be dicks, I don't think we need to change the rules to prevent them from being the subject of dickery. (Technically, they don't have the "Right of Dickery", but they are effectively immune from any punishment for engaging in dickery). In other words, because Lyrithya can unilaterally remove {{subcat}}, the laws of fairness dictate that ONX can call her a "BATSHIT RETARDED CUNT" with impunity. --Mn-z 17:38, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree with just about everything you said for a moment. First off, Admins are People too and the whole point of this is that they should be given the same accountability and respect that users are subject to. Second off, you compare an admin determining a template redundant to someone calling a girl a cunt. I think that kind of logic and inability to empathize just speaks for itself. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 18:00, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that admins should be given the same respect as regular users: to wit, none at all. (Per my theory that in a perfect world, no-one should possess any rights, deference, power, or respect whatsoever.) If you're going to have a hissy fit when someone calls you a "faggot" or a "nigger" or a "Nazi" or a "cunt" or a "Jewfag" or a "Gay Nigger Faggot," you probably shouldn't be editing this site, much less be involved in running it. --Mn-z 22:40, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
In other words, you disagree with the basic premise of "don't be a dick", which has always been a core rule on Uncyclopedia. If Alice cyberbullies Bob, it's Bob's fault for being offended, put off or upset by it? --Andorin Kato 22:47, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
I would say it is more over-reacting to an insult rather than an issue of ONX or Olipro being a dick. Also, the effective policy regarding admin-on-user dickery has been to tell the user to shut up, deal with it, and also go write an article. If, for example, I had written something similar against Mordillo when he was assuming bad faith when I attempted to delete all the templates, I probably would have gotten banned. Hyperbole started a similar forum post about a very similar issue, but got no support. The only reason anyone is taking this forum seriously is because Lyrithya is an admin and she has a uterus. --Mn-z 23:16, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Your sexist comment reinforces Lyrithya's argument about harassment and weakens your own position. --Andorin Kato 23:22, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
I was actually referencing my sexual deviance in that last phrase of that comment for the sake of being creepy in an immature protest against people being too easily offended. --Mn-z 23:46, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
You're doing nothing more than shooting at straw men. 99% of the users on this site have enough bones in their body to withstand rudimentary trolling (which, by the way, is still worthy of banning, though more of a grey area) (though when it comes to someone telling you "this category thing is better than the other category thing" it's a whole other story, apparently), but this is about cyberbullying. Personal attacks have never been tolerated and they never will be, you dumb nigger. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 22:48, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
I would say that those statements made on IRC fall under "good natured teasing," or at least were intended to be. Sort of like Fuck Under user, RomanDogBird's whole "GayNiggerFaggot" thing and several other examples I could produce if I had the time and ambition. The point is that most other admins would not respond with "come and see the violence inherent in the system, help, help, I'm being Cyberbullied." --Mn-z 23:16, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
The line between good-natured teasing and harassment is how the subject takes it. If I call Olipro an ass, odds are he isn't going to get pissed off over it, so there's no problem. However, if I call Olipro an ass and he takes offense to it, it's an insult. If he asks me to stop and I keep doing it, that's harassment. You can make jokes, but per DBAD, you do not have the right to take them too far and harass others. --Andorin Kato 23:22, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
The point isn't the line between teasing and harassment, but how she reacted to the situation. I could legitimately see an admin being pissed and banning someone of that, and I could also see an admin being pissed about another admin unbaning the disrespectful user. The difference is, a typical admin would complain in the context of a "respect by Athoritii!" argument, not "I'm a girl who has been called a cunt, help! help! I'm being cyberbullied". We have had issues where admins have over-reacted against and needless antagonized users for as long as I've been here, and in all probably, as long as the wiki existed. The proposed solution has always been telling the user to shutup, deal with, and go write an article, and banning said user is s/he does and not comply, while maybe possibly politely suggesting to the admin that he might possibly may want to consider handling the situation differently in the future.
I do not support cyberbullying or randomly insulting people. (I would define cyberbullying as something worse than random anonymous insults on the internet. "Cyberbulling" usually means privacy violations or libel/slander. I would also include a pattern of trolling against someone, but I digress.) The point is this seems to be a double standard. Olipro was able to get Hype to temporarily rage-quit with apparent impunity, but once he becomes an accessory to calling a female admin a cunt, everyone is acting like it is the first time ever an admin did something not nice. --Mn-z 23:46, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
No one made a big deal about the Hyperbole thing? Do you even go on this site? --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 23:55, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between someone's action causing hissyfit, and a person being banned, striped of userrights, et cetera because they engaged in dickery. --Mn-z 00:03, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
Olipro does not support ONX's trolling any more than you or I do. His chief concern was that the ban without a warning was too harsh a measure. However, Lyrithya has a history of being bullied and put down on this site, so it's not really surprising that she would react to ONX more strongly than other admins might. Olipro's point, of course, is valid: hamfistedness when enforcing rules is not a good thing. However, Lyrithya's point is also valid: cyberbullying is never a good thing. Had both Olipro and Lyrithya communicated better at the time, and recognized how much they actually agreed on, there wouldn't be so much drama.
Also, no one except you has brought Lyrithya's gender into this. --Andorin Kato 00:08, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Vote or something

Score: Votes
  1. For using the Village Dump, or some other system (hey guys remember when we got really excited by RYA for a day), probably with ground rules and procedure and consequences developed by some Elite Admin-Control Supercommittee of 2 admins and 2 users, to keep admins accountable. This should be, of course, a last resort after multiple talks with the perpetrator in question have failed to alter their behavior in the long or short run. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 17:56, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Symbol against vote Against. although I have supported similar ideas in the past, I'm afraid this is going to be used for stuff like stopping Olipro from being an accessory to calling Lyrithya a "BATSHIT RETARDED CUNT" rather then protecting regular users from admin dickery. --Mn-z 22:45, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
    Your own tremendous victim complex prevents you from seeing the core of this argument. This isn't even remotely an Admins vs. Users situation, no matter how much you want it to be. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 23:52, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
    I see it as a double-standards issue. It is not solely an admin versus user respect issue, it is also related to the fact that Lyrithya is a girl, so she isn't expected to handle insults maturely. --Mn-z 23:58, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
    How is that comment anything but a personal attack on Lyrithya? --Andorin Kato 00:12, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    Because TKF called be a "nigger". I found that insult quite amusing, but that is beside the point. --Mn-z 00:14, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    I'm just going to stop arguing with you because it's pretty clear that you don't have anything valuable to say. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 00:05, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    My arguments in tl/dr form:
    • Random admin is dick to user = nothing happens
    • random admin is dick to female admin = ZOMG!!!! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    • While I oppose dickery, I oppose the double standard in the reaction to dickery even more. --Mn-z 00:13, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    And as I already said, you're the only one who's making a big deal out of her gender. Quit it. --Andorin Kato 00:15, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    To prove I didn't bring it up first, quoting TKF, emphasis mine: Second off, you compare an admin determining a template redundant to someone calling a girl a cunt. I think that kind of logic and inability to empathize just speaks for itself. --Mn-z 00:22, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    And how does that translate to "Lyrithya is a girl, so she isn't expected to handle insults maturely"? --Andorin Kato 00:25, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    I do find it... interesting... that I pulled almost this exact shit a few years ago and it got a slap on the wrist; suddenly Lyrithya steps forward and her little plight is the center of all attention. Very interesting indeed.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 00:17 Aug 15, 2011
    Uhm, this isn't about you. Lyrithya has a legitimate concern. Sorry for whatever might have happened in the past, but this is a different issue. --Andorin Kato 00:23, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    It's the same concern. Please note I'm not bitter about what happened in the past. I just think the outcome - UN:N - needs to be repeated, so we can all avoid this bullshit and bugger off to do something more useful. I am sick of butthurt users raising supposedly site-wide points over their petty squabbles. This is something between two users that should have stayed there instead of involving everyone else.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 00:26 Aug 15, 2011
    This isn't just about Lyrithya and Olipro. The problem here is a general sense that bullying and harassment are okay. --Andorin Kato 00:28, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    That's what it's made out to be, yes. Hence the phrase "supposedly site-wide points". But it isn't site-wide. The burden of proof is on the person who thinks it is, and having read this forum, there is no proof that this is a site-wide phenomenon. Just an Olipro-wide phenomenon, taken to extremes under the magnifying glass of Lyrithya.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 00:29 Aug 15, 2011
    Is it not true that Lyrithya has been harassed by plenty of other users before? --Andorin Kato 00:31, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    Is that true? Or is it true that Lyrithya is simply more easily offended, and takes more things personally, than the average Uncyclopedian? I'm not saying either is necessarily the case. The point is, it can't be known for sure. But even if it were the case that, somehow, Lyrithya has received harsher treatment than the rest of us, that does not make a site-wide issue.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 00:34 Aug 15, 2011
    UN:CB and DBAD apply regardless of who you are. And I see nothing wrong with Lyrithya creating a forum topic about a problem if she feels that there is one. --Andorin Kato 00:39, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    My problem is with double standards. Andorin, where were you when SPIKE was banned, or when Hype's article Suddenly, Raccoons was declared unfit for a competition, or when BUTT POOP!!!! was deleted, or when Prettiestpretty was banned for a week, or when Clemens177 was banned for a month, or when TKF called me a nigger, or when that guy did that thing? I would like everyone to be treated with respect, but that isn't feasible, so fairness dictates that everyone, including Lyrithya "shut the fuck up and take a chill pill". --Mn-z 00:50, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    Simple answer: I wasn't here. Also, what makes you think that we can't apply DBAD to everyone regularly and punish people who break it? Your proposed alternate reality places the blame on the victim of harassment for taking offense to it in the first place. Banning trolls is perfectly feasible. What's not feasible is insisting that Lyrithya just ignore harassment. If trolls know that there are no consequences for trolling, that's all that we'll see on Uncyclopedia. --Andorin Kato 00:56, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Symbol against vote Against. We can implement more complicated policies when we have more active users. For now, this is only making a slow-moving site even slower and more prone to drama. I prefer the "shut the fuck up and take a chill pill" approach to matters, it upsets fewer people, including the "victim" of any given situation. Trust me, I know, I used to play victim constantly, and STFU'ing is a lot easier for everyone to deal with, especially me. I still think it's a good idea for the future but this sort of thing would easily be the death of an already-dying site.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 00:06 Aug 15, 2011
    Accusing Lyrithya of playing the victim at this point isn't smart if your goal is to avoid drama. Furthermore, you're saying that we should just turn a blind eye if someone's being bullied, in the name of avoiding arguments. That wouldn't be wise either. If there is a problem- as there is, in this case- it needs resolution, even if that requires long forum topics, rather than simply being ignored. --Andorin Kato 00:12, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
    My "problems" were ignored; I got over it. I came out much better for it, and stopped wasting everyone else's time. Well, in that respect anyway. I'm still a time-waster, just in more subtle ways.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 00:13 Aug 15, 2011


I've seen harassment before. His name was NXWave. If I start to see harassment of that caliber inflicted by anybody, admin or otherwise, that person gets the full punishment that they deserve. This is a fact. Specifically, this could be a matter or dickery-gone-too-far or sensitivity-gone-too-far, and precisely since this is such a grey area, then there's too much reasonable doubt to take serious action. That is: this isn't a systemic issue... yet. Not with the facts that have been presented on this forum.

So either come up with more compelling evidence that Olipro has stepped out of his bounds as both an admin and a decent human being or, maybe, talk to him about it on his talk page or, if you would prefer the privacy, on IRC. In conclusion:

  • Rubberneckers like Andorin, Mnbvcx, Skully, and myself: Pointelss drama is pointless. As much as it pains me to say it: go write some articles.
  • Olipro: Stop being a dick when someone says stop. There is no safe word. You are a dick. Stop it.
  • Lyrithya: Your sentiment is appreciated, but going to the forum still should not be an option unless, like I said, more compelling evidence is provided. Yeah yeah, "Ministry of Love," but that makes it worse, because now it's so official.

And to reiterate to everybody: War's over, let's go back to writing. The death of comedy on this site is something that none of you schmucks want to be accountable for. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 01:01, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what the crap happened here? This forum wasn't even about harassment! I mean, sort of related is sometimes admins are dicks, but that happens, admin or otherwise - usually we feel like an idiot afterwards, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't affect much if it doesn't repeat, just like any other stupid crap. That was what this was supposed to be about, stupid crap, though the stupid crap that persists even despite being approached about it or whatnot. With a user, just ban them if they continue, but with an admin... if they persist, what? Yell at them? Get a bunch of other admins to join in and all gang up on the fellow until he agrees to stop it? What if he doesn't? That's what makes the UN:OFFICE variant seem so appealing; it's a sort of, hey, we really will do something if you keep this up, because you're making things troublesome for the rest of us, but without resorting to it just yet. After all, the two admins who come to mind for me right now who do that the most are actually Socky and Mhaille, and they are really normally quite reasonable people, you know?
But blimey. O_o 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 02:15, 15 August 2011
I protest so hard that I am not on that list.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 02:19 Aug 15, 2011
Yeah, most of the above was directed to the massive tangent about god knows what above. As for what you said, the way I see it is quite simple. I don't see why we should use an "UN:OFFICE variant" when we can just use UN:OFFICE. We've got active bureaucrats now to keep admins and each other in check. If an admin starts acting up, I say get a small discussion going between parties (NOT in the forum, either on talk pages or IRC), and if a resolution can't be made, take them to the office. If they persist, I won't hesitate them to deop and/or ban them (including myself) for whatever period of time is necessary. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 02:21, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm that's a reasonable conclusion but the question still lingers: how is pregnancy involved?  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 02:23 Aug 15, 2011
I think the more logical question is "How can pregnancy not be involved?" Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:55, 16 August 2011
UN:OFFICE wouldn't work for an admin because it would basically be a way of saying that the community does not trust an individual, and if we do not trust an individual they should not be an admin. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 02:25, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
You make a good point. Now I say: talk with them, if agree let it be, if not resolved their rights dissolved. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 02:28, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
If not cooperative, their powers unoperative  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 02:33 Aug 15, 2011
If they can't talk it out no sense in hanging about  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 02:35 Aug 15, 2011
Don't be a dick or you'll lose your banstick  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 02:38 Aug 15, 2011
That seems a little drastic, though. I mean, ideally folks would just cooperate in the first place, but, as a whole, Uncyclopedians are just so ruddy terrible at communicating... blah. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 02:48, 15 August 2011
Well I s'ppose we'll have to get better. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 11:54, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, but how? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 15:17, 15 August 2011
Growing up? Realizing there are consequences to our actions? --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 21:53, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
But if there were, why do admins keep doing so much stupid crap here? Or is that just because most of the admins here do things, and most of them are also stupid? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 21:58, 15 August 2011
The admins, I mean. Not necessarily the things. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 21:58, 15 August 2011
Personal tools