User:Hinoa/whyadmins

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< User:Hinoa
Revision as of 23:52, April 26, 2011 by Fnoodle (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an essay. It is not an ignorable policy on Uncyclopedia, so you should ignore it even more and disregard the mad ramblings of its writer. Or you could submit it as an Uncycloversity assignment in lieu of actually doing any work.


I recently deleted a rather, um, odd article, written by the IP 58.165.0.174. It read as follows:

Hinoa4 and Mhaille are two elitist administrators with no sense of humour. They frequently contribute to the fabulous Uncylopedia. They write often very funny articles and use a style of "take-no-prisoners, nothing-is-sacred" humour, but unfortunatley also get pleasure out of abusing their power by deleting articles THEY do not funny.
Honestly who becomes an administrator anyway and watches a website 24 seven. These guys must unemployed 30 year old virgins who still live at home and live on Krispy Kremes. I seriously pity the keyboards owned by these guys. How many crumbs came one electronic device take? (Ponder on that question).
Uncylopedia and more importantly, humour should be anarchic, not a tool used by dictators to assert their power and make them feel big about themselves. They dish out plenty to others, yet one person says one thing against them in a "tounge-in-cheek" fashion and suddenly the article is put in a vault never so be seen or touched again.
They will of course delete this article and dismiss it as merely being "abusive" and "not funny". Maybe if they lighten up, so will others and then this article will mysteriously delete it self.
They need to lighten up and then maybe they will find true enlightenment.

Consider this my rebuttal.

First of all, I find the accusation that I'm an "unemployed 30 year old virgin who still live[s] at home and live[s] on Krispy Kremes." For the record, I'm 19 (as of last month), I live at home because I'm home from college, I do have a job ("pizza dude"), and the most recent doughnut I ate was... um, today, actually, but I haven't had one in ages before that (like, um, November? I dunno). And furthermore, I'm 5'9", and 150 lbs. Why is it that the stereotypical Internet villain is essentially Comic Book Guy in front of a monitor?

Anyway. I also don't watch Uncyc 24/7. That's what every other admin is for.

But here's the problem. As nice as it would be for Uncyc to be unmoderated, it simply cannot happen. Trust me, admins have a lot of stress on them (and you're not helping, by the way!), and we would be the first to say "Okay, go crazy. The site is yours; just don't burn it to the ground, and we'll be cool." But we can't, and it's not because we don't want to, it's because it would be anarchy.

This isn't as good as you would think. For example, a good 75% of my total drawing material for humor of any kind is an in-joke. While I would find it gut-splitting, and a couple of my friends would find it hilarious as well, you wouldn't have a damn clue what the hell we were laughing about unless I gave you background--which, in the case of one particularly persistant in-joke among my friends, stretches back almost six years. Another problem is that some people don't necessarily post humor to Uncyc. In severe cases, they post other people's phone numbers, addresses, and the like, and I'm sure there's nothing funny about stalking. Then there's the matter of vandalism. Say you do write an article that is universally recognized as awesome. People envious of your skillz--or those who can't take a joke, or those who think this is Wikipedia, and so on--might go and replace the contents with something along the lines of "janov uaslcalwrhlmcfsjkfj viahcnahfncvaskjka." You'd revert that, they'd blank it again, and so on.

What I'm trying to say here is that anarchy on a humor wiki isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The purpose of the admin team is chiefly to filter out that crap. Think of Uncyc as mud being poured through a filter. The filter blocks out all the dirt and allows water to go through. What's submitted every day is the mud--a mixture of vanity, slander, articles that aren't funny, articles that are in-jokes, and so on; what's kept after a week or so is the water. The admins in this analogy are the filter--well, the admins, the beloved NRV template, maintanence tags, and VFD.

And it is true that admins abuse their powers sometimes. I hate to sound like a cliche-spewing machine here, but power corrupts. Admins sometimes give each other joke-blocks, which end up not being jokes sometimes. Heck, as of this writing, I've been blocked eight times, all of which were either by myself or User:Tompkins. But we're only human, man. We're not machines. We have feelings, too.

I'll leave you with some advice. First of all, next time you have a complaint with an admin like Mhaille or myself, drop a note on their talk page. Here's a link to mine. I deleted that article because it was the wrong way of being mad at us. Secondly, take a lookie at the page titled "How to be funny and not just stupid." You'd be surprised at how much that can help. And finally, if you really want to, register with Uncyclopedia. I'd rather refer to someone as a username as opposed to an IP address.

Happy editing.

Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 14:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: I have a spare keyboard in my room, and if you want, I'll see just how many crumbs a single keyboard can take. ^_^ H.

PPS: I assume you're the guy who wrote Nick Barker. The article wasn't exactly that good to begin with, but with improvement and less "this music artist is gay" stuff (which is overdone, seriously), it may have actually resembled something passable. NRV is a sharp poke in the arse to get you to make your article better, not a "we're going to delete this in seven days and there's nothing you can do about it!" notice. Use your grace period. H.

I'll add my comments to those of Hinoa....the main point to consider is that it really wasn't a good article. Everybody writes bad articles, everybody has articles deleted, its nothing personal against the author, not a slight on their personality, its just that some articles do not make the grade.
Now, who decides what makes the grade or not? The Admins have been chosen from amongst regular users, due to them exhibiting certain skills, a level of humour and/or knowledge of wiki formatting, etc. People are made Admins by existing Admins, going all the way back to Chronarion who started the website. Thus it can be speculated that each Admin shares some sort of link to the original ideals for which Uncyclopedia was set up.
The specific article that is mentioned above was resubmitted several times, though never with any increase in the quality or actual levels of humour. This isn't an attack on the author, just a statement of fact. Admins work as the quality control of the website. If you substitute comedy writing for art, not every contributor here is a Da Vinci. But the important thing to remember is that spraypainting "Nick Barkers is gay" on a wall, isn't art. If you are looking to contribute to Uncyclopedia in future please have a look through at some of the more quality articles, usually a good example are the Featured Articles on the front page. I'll now return you to your regular viewing. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Personal tools
projects