Forum:Serious Proposal To De-Op (Almost) Everyone

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Serious Proposal To De-Op (Almost) Everyone
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1188 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

In light of Zombiebaron's suggestion that:

“If you guys believe that certain admins have overstepped their authority or have been dicks, I urge you to start a serious vote to deop them.”
~ Zombiebaron[1]

I propose that we need to restructure our administrative system completely. I would suggest a system in which we have a very limited number of permanent bureaucrats with a system of rotating admins.

I originally suggested that we have 4 bureaucrats, but I think de-oping the site's founder is unwise. Therefore, I propose that the permanent bureaucrats consist of the following users:

  1. Chronarion
  2. Modusoperandi
  3. Under user
  4. Sockpuppet of an unregistered user

Since some of those users might become inactive at somepoint, the 'crats shall have the power to hold VFB at their discretion. (They will tend to want to add as few 'crats as is feasible,limiting the number of 'crats, which is what we want to do.) It will work like the current VFS system. However, we should have a clause that if less than 3 'crats have been active in the past 2 months, another VFB will be held automatically.

Admins will rotate by month. Every month, the 'crats shall determine how many admins are needed this month. (Since regular users will want too many admins, this should correct that problem.) To keep the adminships from being effectively permanent, and prevent the "admins are untouchable issue", admins can not succeed themselves.

The temporary admins will be elected like the admins for the temporary experiment. The temporary admin experiment seemed to work, and we would have a rather large poll of former admins, so lack of experience shouldn't be a main issue.

Regarding de-oping of admins who abuse authority, I think that probably should be left to the 'crats. I really don't see it happening too often, since admins who abuse power probably won't be re-elected. --Mn-z 22:15, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

  • Against. Short version: 100 IF issue TALK admin<CR> 200 IF fear TALK neutral admin. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:57, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Admin power is too great. Uncyclopedia is not a popularity contest or egalitarian commune. Being an admin requires a great deal of knowledge and training, not to mention the relationships, comaraderie, and trust necessary to maintain consistency across the site. Being an admin is not merely deleting, banning, and rollbacks. It would take far too long to explain, just trust that there is far more to it than you realize. Also, ZB is crazy - you cannot be an admin without stepping on toes. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2011.05.22.17:13

References

  1. Forum:There needs to be transparency when banning an established user.
Personal tools
projects