Forum:VOTE: Should we de-op inactive admins?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > VOTE: Should we de-op inactive admins?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5006 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Becoming a sysop is a difficult thing to do on Uncyclopedia, and when one is opped, it indicates that they are trusted and respected throughout the community. I have a problem with one process of VFS: if an admin ever becomes inactive, they can easily come back and continue working as if they've never left the place. This can happen with regular users as well (such as me two months ago), but since we have much fewer powers throughout the wiki, it's acceptable. An admin coming back, however, presents potential problems: because the way we run the community has changed somewhat since 2006/7/8, an admin coming back from a long-term break might slip and make a few mistakes. Therefore, I think, should an admin be inactive for a year or more, or clearly announce their intention to retire from Unyclopedia, they should have their admin privileges removed (I.E. Famine or Keitei). If they were to ever come back with a good reason, they could request their admin status back.

So, what do you think, fellow Uncyc members? Should admins who have retired or been inactive for several years be de-opped? Vote below!

For

Score: 6

• Saberwolf116 03:33, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
• Yes |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 07:08, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Love,  
• For. This isn't the perfect solution (what is?) but I don't like the idea that an admin becomes permanent unless they request to de-op themselves, lose their minds or go on a mad blanking spree. I think there has to be another option. Perhaps a vote for re-admittance by the other admins or a petition organised by say - using that magic number five - other ordinary users. I know admins say it is no great shakes being an admin but it does mean you are not treated like an ordinary user if a ban is imposed. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:51, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

And what happens if they die in RL - who will know?--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:17, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Of course if they do die, they're not going to be a danger are they? I mean, putting the zombie apocalypse scenario aside... so now we're down to what you consider confers a greater mark of respect. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 01:17, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

After posting the RL comment, I realised then this could also apply to ALL users and was therefore an inherently absurd remark. Revenge of the Zombie Admins! --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:23, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

• For. pillow talk 21:48, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
• For. although I would suggest a more limited de-opping, like every admin/crat who hasn't edited in 3 years or something. Too many admin accounts could be a hacking risk. --Mn-z 01:56, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

  I doubt that. I mean, how hard is it to put an admin's username in the username box and "password" in the password box when logging in? I've said too much. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:20, August 12, 2010 (UTC)\

  What about the risk of retired admins selling their accounts to trolls? If there are enough points of entry, eventually one is going to be broken into. --Mn-z 02:26, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

  Any troll stupid enough to pay cash money for an admin's password is too dumb to operate a keyboard. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:29, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

  No one went broke underestimating a troll. Perhaps it has already happened here and we are not aware. Should admins take a Trollygraph test and publish the results in a new forum!? Who is - and who is not - 'off their trolly'?? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:43, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

  Pah! I go broke underestimating trolls all the time. That's why the State Fair sideshow fired me. My booth lost a shitload of money. And if any of that makes sense to you, you, like me, probably just woke up. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:53, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Against

Score: 12

• eh It's not as if having too many sysops will kill anyone, so I really don't see the point.--HM (T) 04:45, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
• Neh. While I am in favor of de-opping admins that "go bad," it doesn't really seem good to me to de-op an admin simply because they've been inactive. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Saturday, 05:43, Aug 7 2010
• As per Necropaxxxx -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 08:13, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
• I don't really see a reason for it. It's not a threat to let an inactive sysop keep their position. --Andorin Kato 10:33, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
• Most of the the admins that were inactive and returned didn't turn into horrible vandals/trolls/whatever so as to warrant de-opping, so I don't really see a good reason why inactive sysops should be de-opped. If they do misbehave (and whether that is after being absent or not is pretty irrelevant), de-opping would be in order. Also, if an admin indicates that he's retiring and wants to have his sysop rights removed, that might be an appropriate situation to de-op as well. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 10:49, 7 August 2010

  Additionally, if an admin returns and messes things up, a couple of the current sysops can easily jump in, correct his mistakes and explain how things are usually handled currently. I remember when Tom mayfair permabanned me for sockpuppetry, RAHB stepped in and shortened the ban to one week. Good times. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:08, 7 August 2010

• Against. Pointless. Admins should only be de-opped if they've done something wrong. -- expensive Ape (vote) (Riot Porn) 12:16, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
• Against. As someone who is just here to provide content and avoids personality contests and cliques, the proposals to deactivate old Admins plus goose the election of new Admins is a program of inducing turnover in Admins. This could be a disaster for welcoming new content, and is unlikely to improve it. Dissatisfaction with specific individuals is driving this procedural move to enable them to be ousted. In other words, it is a Putsch. Spıke Ѧ 12:36 7-Aug-10

I see those as two separate issues Spike.I am not for permanent election campaigns either or attempts to gather a quota of users to oust a particular admin. I would just like to see the provision of a mechanism for admins who have dropped out to be de-activated in that sense after an agreed time limit. If they come back and ask for their old rights, that is different and I hope the users here can come to an agreement how that is handled. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 13:16, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

• Uncyclopedia != Wikimedia('s Meta-Wiki). --User:Jack Phoenix/sig 14:01, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

  Wow, that user rights log looks crazy as hell. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:20, 7 August 2010

• I have never understood the sentiment to de-op inactive admins. Most of the admins that left are beloved by the people they left behind. Just in case they ever get the stupid idea to actually re-join the community, why would we want to antagonize them even a little bit? Also, meh. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 18:58, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
• Against. I just can't. Look at their puppydog eyes. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:37, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
• Against. It's a wiki, it's a hobby, it's (supposed to be) fun we're not (run like) a Fortune 500 company. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass)
• Against. Per Woody. -^Dame 10:14, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Against. As a quasi-active admin, I can cheerfully say that if you attempt to take my ops, I'll turn up at your house with a machete. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 23:00, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

And some sandy KY Jelly? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 23:57, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I'm interested to hear what the general consensus is in this, we do have some suggestions as to a way forward with this that should be making its way to a forum near you soon enough, so now may be the time to push this out. Could I ask that before voting above we have a discussion on the pros and cons? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

• cons: it still won't result in any less of that colossal faggot who banned me that one time --nachlader 11:31, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

A few days ago I would have voted "aye", and in a few days hence I will probably vote "aye" as the medication wears off, but right now it seems some of the older ops have come back and have done a really good job. That makes me realize that they were opped for a reason, and their productivness and know-how hasn't changed. Maybe the culture has shifted a bit, and they would have to be brought up to speed on some aspects, and removed if they have Hulked out or went psycho in the intervening time. But as a general rule, leaving them with their appointments does more good than harm in the long-run. Aleister 11:51 7 8

The only reason I can think of to de-op missing admins is that they're still listed here which, on a least a couple of occasions has lead wiki-savvy but Uncylo-noob users to leave messages on no-longer-around admins' talkpages for help. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:05, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

How about we end all discussion and voting on here, and hand all responsibilities of Uncylopedia over to some highly intelligent telepathic dogs - we'd get more sense out of these hard working and worthwhile entities. All we have to do is find these awesome canine overlords and then we can peacefully write great comedy articles with pride and effort.--Sycamore (Talk) 14:11, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I recommend either Neil Gaiman's dog or King Arthur's, both of whom are named Cabal. Sir MacMania GUN—[14:12 7 Aug 2010]

Sycamore has come up with a great solution. Ok..who speaks..can mind read..fluent Canine here?--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:21, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I can. People food was actually written by my dog, Boo. pillow talk 21:49, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure any links given to noobs about admin contact goes to the active admins list. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:49, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a good reason. I was playing devil's advocate. Badly. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:04, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Will we eventually have a House of Hereditary House of Admins? So that the next generation of users could in theory inherit their parents/relative/other 'powers'?? Just like the House of Lords in the UK until it was partially reformed. If this site has been running for the last five years, it could last another fifty. A bit far fetched I admit but not impossible. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:17, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Administrator rights are unimportant now, this wiki is now a 'cratocracy

Has anyone noticed that the 'crats are now ban-threatening admins? And we also had our first de-opings since April 2006? Granted, they we undone, but still. Basically, the convention that admins and 'crats have equal authority despite the fact that their userrights are unequal has been abandoned, and I don't think it can reasonably be re-established. This was going to happen eventually, one admin would eventually do something that a 'crat would feel went across the line.

I don't think this is a bad thing. It does decrease the number of people who are unaccountable, and it sorta puts a layer between site administration and janitorial tasks.

That being said, I would suggest de-oping the highly inactive 'crats, i.e. those who have edited since 2006 or so. (Or those who only edit to stir up drama against our webhost) I would also suggest that future crats be elected in VFS-type election. As for inactive admins, it really doesn't matter. If an admin from 2005 comes back and does stupid crap, Mordillo, or some other crat, can just de-opt him. --Mn-z 21:37, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

UNLIMITED POWWWWWER!!!!! I wouldn't want too much getting read into deopping and reopping, we ALL need to act responsibly here, not just crats, sysops but also regular users. No matter what additional user rights anyone may have no one on this site is unaccountable. With regards to voting for crats that is exactly what we have done in the past.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

If I remember, the last 'crat was opted rather suddenly. But, I'm too lazy at the moment to dig up the relevant forum post at the moment. By unaccountable, I mean that short of staff intervention, noone can force an 'crat to act responsibly in the same sense that 'crats and admins can force regular users not to do stupid crap. Unaccountablity isn't the same as being irresponsible, nor is it my necessity a bad thing. --Mn-z 20:43, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

My view on this

There's kind of a schizophrenic view of what an admin really is: is it a highly privileged position of power over others - an invitation to join the oligarchy that rules Uncyclopedia - or is it being made the poor guy in the end of Rocky and Bullwinkle who follows the giant parade with a push broom?

And the honest answer is: it's kind of both. It's a lot of hard, thankless work, and it's also extra power, respect (for all it's worth around here), and an implicit understanding that you are important to the site and that your decisions will be deferred to.

But the two need to be tied together. And the way I see it, if you're not willing to push the broom, you dont deserve the prestige. Deopping inactive admins wouldn't really do any good, or any harm - they're inactive, so ultimately there'd be no effect at all. But I think it just makes things seem more fair around here: administrator is a job where you volunteer to help improve the site, and you get extra tools and extra power to do that. It shouldn't be some lifetime appointment to be the co-dictator of a website.

I know at this point we're only talking about de-opping long-inactive admins, but I think it should go even further than that. If an admin doesn't do a significant amount of work in a month - well, look, if I didn't do any work for a month, I know I wouldn't have my job anymore. De-op them, find someone who will work, and if they want to volunteer again sometime in the future, start up another VFS. Makes sense, right?

All I'm saying is: you shouldn't get to put down the push broom but keep the sceptre. The sceptre and the push broom should be the same thing. On one end, there's a little golden ball, and on the other end, there are bristles. With a good helping of dung clinging to them. pillow talk 18:46, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

What Hype said. --Mn-z 20:54, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

While I understand the sentiment, and Hype (and Mnz by proxy) does have some points, I disagree somewhat with the scepter analogy. Most of our admins that are not currently on the active admins list are gone for good. It's not that they are really carrying a scepter around here, they are more like people with their portraits on a wall. Sure, they were well-known and powerful once, but now they are just a name and a face on a wall. And yes, they are holding a scepter in their portrait, but King John of England wears a crown in all of his portraits. And he's dead now. But when he was living he was a king. A very, very disliked king. So what I am saying is, our old admins are dead kings. Let them keep their scepters. It can remind us that those guys were complete assholes who eventually sealed the Magna Carta and died of dysentery. And, if they suddenly come back from he dead to do things, either A. They were reminded of how awesome awful we are, and are happily rejoining the community (In which case I generally trust them to learn our new, foreign ways), B. Come back, say they are here to stay, and halfheartedly edit 2 things before leaving forever, making it absolutely no big deal, or C. Are powerful and awesome enough to come back from the dead, so what the fuck can we do to stop them anyway? In closing, even I stopped paying attention to whatever the fuck I was talking about here. Pretty sure it stopped making sense 8 or 9 sentences ago. My bad. But, uh.... whatever, and such. It's not that big of a deal. Blah, blah, drama. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 22:42, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

What Woody said. Feature. Except the last few sentences. VFD. Aleister 22:55 12 8

The dead king analogy doesn't work since dead kings rarely come back to life for a few days, do stuff that should be better trusted to monarchs who have been alive in the past century, then go back to being dead. And it misses the janitorial aspect of admin rights. I would say a better analogy would be who has the keys to a nonprofit institution, like a church or something. If Deacon Smith hasn't been to church in 3 years, its probably time for him to turn in his keys to the sanctuary door. --Mn-z 02:28, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, time for a good ol' fashioned analogy-off. Old Admins are like stars; really bright for a while, giving the world (in this case, this website...) life, then they eventually get old, and dim, and fade into obscurity. Of course by this time, we don't even notice since our species has risen above the need for "light" and "eyes" and communicate by using our back-feelers on the series of inflatable disks found in everyone's foreheads. JUST THEN, THE STAR EXPLODES, KILLING EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING IN A 50 MILLION MILE VICINITY! I mean. The End. Perfect Analogy. Try and beat it. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 02:40, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Admins start off all shiny and classy, like silverware, but over time they tarnish and nobody wants to put them in their mouths. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:27, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Admins are like a box of chocolates: you eat one and you think it's delicious, so you eat a bunch more and start to get sick, so when your date shows up not only is she disappointed that you ate half her chocolates but you also throw up on her shirt. The point is, admins should not be allowed on dates. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:19, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

My view on this

There's a significant level of energy going into a mind-numbingly dull debate about a moot point by regular contributors whose time would be better spent actually contributing to the site.                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 Friday, 11:26, Aug 13 2010 UTC

Long. Slow. Clap. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

You two are just upset because my analogies are killing anything you could come up with. It's ok. Being emasculated in front of the community like this only lasts a lifetime. No one will care when you're dead. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 12:48, August 13, 2010 (UTC)