Forums: Index > Village Dump > We need more admins
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1933 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Due to the recent vandalism attacks, I think it is clear that we need more admins. However, I don't think a full on VFS would be a good idea at this time. Maybe we need to have temporary admins, like until March 1st (corresponding to a Febuary VFS) or April 1st. I think we tried that once before. --Mn-z 19:45, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Can't we just give a few people a ban-stick until they show they don't deserve it? Full on admins are like wounded animals, they are more dangerous than in their normal state. Aleister 19:48 The Year that that dick Harry Truman is elected United States President (watch Oliver Stone's "The UNtold history of the United States"
The problem is we don't have a method for de-op people for admin power abuse, besides even greater 'crat power abuse, which in turn, can only be countered by yet greater evil-wikia power abuse. --Mn-z 19:52, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
That's news to me; I was de-opped about a week before the site move. Carlb (talk) 23:05, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
I saw that! It was someone deopping lots of people all at once. Mordillo was deopped! Mordillo! If he ever gets his ass back to both sites we'd be in very good shape. Just ask for it back and you should get it back pRonto, if I remember the deopping correctly. Aleiser 2:08 13-1-'13
It looks they were deopped due to extreme inactivity. --Mn-z 06:52, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Also, we don't need ops who are never here, or worse, actively hostile to the project at its current location. --Mn-z 07:07, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
There will be a VFS for this site for all the reasons you say Mnbvcxz. I have discussed this with ChiefjusticeDS. We wanted to wait for a week. Regards Sysops. Hindleyite remained an admin on vacation on Uncylopedia in that he was still banning vandals on his occasional visits from Illogicopedia. Otherwise he wasn't involved in other sysop work (at least from what I remember for at least a couple of years), --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:49, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
There seems to a Vote for Sandwich going on there. Maybe you should be post the timeframe of the VFS so people don't get confused. Also, what about the issue of people who like another site more voting on ops for over here? --Mn-z 08:09, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned people who have moved to the other site can still vote for admins here, however I would not wish them to stand for adminship as that is a demonstrable conflict of interests. I would rather assume good faith on the part of the users who have gone to the other site and assume that they would choose admins for the correct reasons rather than to try and sabotage this site, however I would propose that admin votes do not count as double in this VFS, to preclude vote stacking in favour of ridiculous candidates.
I also suggest we make use of the VFS space from the 20th to the 31st of this month to vote for two additional administrators and one bureaucrat since we have lost both our active 'crats to the new site. I have consulted sannse about this and she is more than happy to carry out oppage duties following a community vote. --ChiefjusticePS2 10:32, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'm back. Permanently. So since I can't edit the FRoUN anymore, I'll be here instead. Temp admins seems like a good idea to there any way we could give the temps only limited powers compared to full-fledged admins? Are there even options for that? A (Fallen Reich)16:42 13 January 2013
The return of the Prodigal Aimsplode? Do you know the film Miller's Crossing?? --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:14, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question. I think this idea of temp admins was discussed before. I think the answer was you couldn't do it that way but if anyone else knows different, they can provide the link. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:23, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
We did have temporary admins at for a one month period at some point. I don't see why that couldn't work in the short term. Of course, a regular VFS could work, if it is representative of the community (i.e. no-one actively hostile to the site tries to sabotage the site). --Mn-z 19:59, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
In true Uncyclopedia style, let's have a vote. Not like it will do anything, but just to show we care. A (Fallen Reich)22:01 13 January 2013
Temp admins are possible, just tell me when to add and when to remove. Temp Bureaucrats are possible too, then they can do it themselves. Or, of course, you could decide on permanent Bureaucrats -- sannse@fandom (talk) 20:53, January 15, 2013 (UTC)


Vote For if you are for temporary admins. Vote Against if you do not want temporary admins. Abstain if you think that this wiki is fine without new administrators. Comment if you think we need to have a formal VFS.

Score: For/against temporary admins: 1
Score: Abstain votes: 0
Score: Comment votes: 0
  1. Symbol for vote For. Temporary admins would be good to clear up the vandalism problem short-term. We might actually not need a proper VFS if the temps work out well. Problem averted. A (Fallen Reich)22:01 13 January 2013
  2. Symbol against vote Against. I think they are going to do a full-on VFS. --Mn-z 15:39, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol for vote For. I need a job that my computer can let me do. --Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 02:05, January 20, 2013 (UTC)


I mentioned the idea earlier on of having a VFS at the end of this month. I feel that it is entirely acceptable for us to carry it out over a shorter time period than the whole month, the other VFS system being designed to cater for a larger community.

The way I propose that this should work, as far as I am concerned, is as follows: we have nominations for 2 new admins and 1 new bureaucrat over the next few days, ending on the 21/1/13. You cannot nominate yourself. Then everyone votes, normal final stage VFS rules apply (2 votes per user), at midnight UTC on 31/1/13 we op the users with the most votes. Votes from existing ops will not count as double.

This vote is open to people who have moved to the new wiki but users who have moved to the new site will not be eligible for adminship, not because we have any particular bad feeling towards them but the vote needs to have a point, there's little point in opping someone who isn't editing here. I'm not keen to start trying to lay down a definition of "moving to the new site", ideally common sense will prevail with the community deciding whether someone is or is not eligible.

If these rules sound fair then we will open the VFS page for nominations tomorrow. --ChiefjusticePS2 07:02, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:34, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Per above. --Mn-z 14:18, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Symbol for vote Do it. The problem was evident last weekend when the big vandalism wave began after bedtime in Britain. Spıke Ѧ 15:16 16-Jan-13
So does this mean that Admin sandwich has to wait until February to be recognised?                               Puppy's talk page08:10 17 Jan

As an aside

The de-opping of admins has been discussed in the past. Several existing admins have been happy to hand back their ban stick in the knowledge that they don't have the chance to use it. Of the three temporary admins we had going back around 18 months or so ago, two of those ended up becoming permanent admins, and the third was me, who instead became an admin at the mirror site due to conflict of interest with some of the existing admins.

I'd like to propose a system for adminship that would help with issues relating to the de-opping of admins - either through incompetence or through inactivity. I'd like to treat it as we would voting to someone into office in most of the democratic world. Whereby someone becomes voted in as an admin for a period of x months (I'm thinking either 12 or 24. 12 would keep turnover fresh, but 24 would reduce wasted bureaucracy.) At the time that an existing incumbent comes to term, we vote on whether or not to extend the term for a further x months (same term).

This helps reduce the "absolute power" issues, where it encourages administrators to believe they are content owners, or above the community, or whatever, and means that inactive admins end up being voted out (pretty much by default) purely because if they're not around then why do we keep them?

I'd also suggest this is done in a way where existing incumbents are not competing with new proposed admins. So that VFS would be split into "Do we want to re-vote in admin?" as a "yes/no" vote, and the existing "Do we need new admins? Who do we want to nominate?" thing.

I'd rather this become a new forum rather than piggy backing onto the current forum, but I'm throwing the idea out there. If there are any takers feel free to re-create this forum post elsewhere. With better wording though.                               Puppy's talk page08:09 17 Jan

I am on record for supporting terms for Admins rather than like 'once elected, you're there for life'. I guess like others, I have found VFS about the only time you can get a 'full house' with people pitching in. I don't know enough about moderating and maintaining any website except this one. So I suggest that once we have a couple of more Sysops to help here, issues of 'governance' will be as important on the Wikia Uncyclopedia, as indeed it will be for the FW Uncyclopedia but that will be that site's decision. Uncyclopedians are great is just the 'doing bit' that is the problem. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 16:32, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not against de-opping for inactivity (happened to me recently on Wikipedia, *sob*), but I'd say that having terms is going to end up being quite an administrative burden, and quickly lead to vote fatigue. You want voting to be occasional enough to be a big deal that everyone gets involved in, and for it to not be so frequent that it disrupts the normal operation of the site (people should be writing articles, not doing daily votes). And I'd also say that it should be unnecessary. If you vote for admins carefully, and (more importantly) work to set the right culture for admins, there should be no need for them to be removed. -- sannse@fandom (talk) 19:16, January 17, 2013 (UTC)