Forum:Clear out of Administrator pages
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Going through the Admin pages, particularly the box at the bottom, it just seems like article after article portraying the Administrator as this kind of God like creature with superpowers that needs cakes etc. (and not encouraging noobs to ask for help, or directing them where to find it if written down).
Maybe it is full of in-jokes, but has always seemed like uber-vanity to me and wrong foots the noob as to what an Administrator is about (or at least my take on the role). Of course, one should apply the opposite to what they read here, but when very new and trying to figure out how to fit in to the site, I just think those pages gives a new user the wrong message; and perhaps encourages those that would enjoy the prospect of having the power to block a user (which they can do with Ban Patrol anyway), rather than maintain the site. Uncyclopedia:Administrators is an example.
There are bits that are very relevant and fun, I really like the "I'm not paid" poem, but perhaps a clear out and consolidation might give things a more comedy writing-centric feel rather than a string of immature, comedy "don't fuck with us" articles; which should be said, but not over and over. Any thoughts?17:31, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly support. It's related to my "Don't crack wise with the navigation tools" (page title, categories, nav-templates, etc.) (which I either got from Mnbvcxz or vice versa). If you are at the theater to watch a stand-up comedy act, you "are in the mood for comedy" and yet want the parking attendant to just do his job and not don blackface nor throw a pie in your face.
- Uncyclopedia used to have a strong fashion that everyone had to be funny all the time, practicing monologues while standing at the urinal, etc. Illogicopedia embraces this; even month names are phony. At Uncyclopedia now, while we all enjoy jokes any time, discussions on talk pages and Forums are mostly discussions, and readers can be taken to their preferred articles and UnNewses without being pranked. Uncyclopedia also had Admins who craved cult status, a VFH process that ran not on self-nominations but clique membership, and a requirement to fit in. Sucking up to Admins was a required component of this, apart from Mordillo, my predecessor curmudgeon. Even fellow adult ChiefjusticeDS enjoyed various articles that made him a caricature.
- Newbies need guidance, not proof of what funny guys we are. Newbies need to know that this is a group writing project and not a personal sandbox. They need to talk to other Uncyclopedians, and when they are given guidance, to take it and not cop an attitude. This guidance has been gentle, and Uncyclopedia has gone as far as to create entire namespaces and subcategories of UnNews for authors who simply cannot be bound to write within the established frames (and who then wandered away anyway). Most of the Admins who reveled in being Kings of the Hill have removed to another Hill, which is mostly a social club and chafes at the expectation of actually writing satire encyclopedia articles.
- Pending concurrence from other Admins, I encourage you to edit the policy pages to de-emphasize the fallen-away individuals and de-emphasize the need to suck up to current Admins at all. Keep the pages fun to read and appropriate for a humor wiki; I struck this balance at UN:SIG and at Choice of Words by confining the humor to the captions of (unnecessary) illustrations. But air in the Forum any change that would seem like a change to website policy. 17:42 6-Nov-15
- The Short Trousered Brigade can be found elsewhere. I don't mind seeing changes done to the pages as regards Admins long since gone. I only advise we leave references to the website's original creators - Chronarion and Stillwaters - left in. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 11:37, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
- I got rid of a few straggling references to the deleted UN:IAG. However, Uncyclopedia:Beginner's Guide/Acceptable admins, has the frustrated Admin's point of view, including under See also, despite a usually prohibited pointer into userspace. It was amusing to read Admins of years past complain about being treated as though they were the problem. 04:03 22-Dec-15