Forum:New Admins?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > New Admins?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6162 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Shhhhhh! This is a humour free zone.

On This forum discussion, I suggested that we should bring back the VFS system. Apparently the VFS was flawed, and there are new ways of appointing administrators.

So the question is: Do we need any more admins?

After doing a little bit of research, I think that we should add a few new admins. I recently was glancing at the Admin page, and I think that the number of Sysops on the site should be increased. I am not here to criticize at all, I think nearly all of the admins here do a terrific job, I just think we should add a few more to take care of the workload. For example, I try my very best to maintain the site, and I have noticed that often when I post material at QVFD, or report someone at Ban Patrol, it takes some time for it to be dealt with. I feel that increasing the number of admins would take care of this, as well as many other site issues. I strongly feel that adding roughly five more admins would be helpful.

Here's what I found in my research...

There are currently 42 administrators, the following list is of admins who are rarely, or not at all, active:

Inactive 4 months +

• User:Bonalaw
• User:CRUSHERBOT
• User:Darkdan
• User:Paulgb
• User:Sophia-Our founder. No touchy.
• User:TheTris

Inactive 3 months +

User:PantsMacKenzie

Very Limited Edits

• User:BobBobBob
• User:Chronarion -Has more important matters to attend to
• User:David Gerard
• User:Elvis
• User:IMBJR
• User:Isra1337 - on sabbatical. will be back in a month probably
• User:KP
• User:Nytrospawn
• User:Stillwaters -I assume same as Chron The other founder.
• User:Todd Lyons - In the process of moving home, back real soon.
• User:Volte

Limited Edits

• User:Insertwackynamehere
• User:Splaka - Working on "other things" to benefit Uncyclopedia. Recent Edit History not the full picture.

---

That adds up to 20, almost half of the admins, leaving just 22 to run and maintain the site regularly. I feel this is not enough, and there are several users that are qualified to be admins. I propose that we add 2-5 new admins, to get a little extra help on Uncyc. The current admins could even just discuss who they think should be promoted. In conclusion, please vote your stance on this, and give reasons as to why. Also, if you feel like it, suggest possible candidates. GO NOW AND VOTE! And this time there is no Neutral!

For more info, and what others have already said, see here.

Overall

Score: +13

FOR

• For the reasons I provided. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• For -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 00:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• For - Even I've noticed the occasional lapse in coverage lately, for the first time in months. The people we've got are doing a fine job, but 22 active admins probably isn't enough, and we can't have 42 total in any case, for obvious numerological reasons.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• For Yes, more vandal-slayers! --Composure1 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• For. I've been reverting so much damn vandalism, including on my own talk page that I'm sick of having to whine to the admins to do something about it. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• For And I already have a short list of a few people I'd like to get elected. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • However: I only support up to two, three on the extreme outside chance that this many high quality admin candidates can be identified. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 06:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yah. Two at the max though. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, whatever... ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 08:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, but only the best of the best need apply. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 09:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• For.--Jtaylor1 19:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• For, as long as we limit it to one or two new admins. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sometimes things never cease to amaze me. In conversing with some other admins last night, we were able to identify four high quality admin candidates. This is practically unprecedented. I now forsee a tight race if we limit it below this many... » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 20:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dawg, whats so bad about adding four or five? It will just be helpful, and if someone ends up failing, they can just be de-opped...-- Sir C  Holla | CUN 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • We've had too many admins before. People run up against each other, tempers flare, things are left in disarray. If we op two, and after a significant trial run find that's not enough, we can potentially op more. —rc (t) 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I guess, but candidates who turn out bad could just be de-opped too...Either way. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Rc has a very good point, and I retract the change of my comment above and stick with this closer comment above. We should be conservative, as opping isn't that hard, de-opping takes about 30 more seconds (and talking to someone) than opping, we cannot accurately estimate our need at this point, and de-opping an active person generally creates too much bitching and moaning. A restriction means we will try our best to get it right the first time. Wheel wars are a bad thing and admins that are not team players do tend to alienate good admins through them... » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • • Seems as though everyone likes this idea...shall we start a new forum and start the nomming/voting?-- Sir C  Holla | CUN 23:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Don't worry about, things are afoot. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE. Coverage has been spotty lately, with unsanctioned vigilante users doing much of the muckslogging. I for one think that those users who take it upon themselves to tirelessly patrol the Recent Changes (and similar) logs should be considered for police training. Provided they're not homicidal automatons... not that I know any. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds secretive Mhaille...are regular users going to have a say? -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 20:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• For-Things do seem a bit dusty around the place. Mhaille and Dawg can't be expected to do everything *smile*-- Sir Claudius CUN VFH (carpe diem) 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• For Since I will be returning in full force once school starts again, it would be helpful to have more admins to whom I can hand the insta-huff crap, and all those other things I whine about on IRC. --The Zombiebaron 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• F0000R!!!!!!!! I agree. More admins need we. Trar (talk|contribs|grueslayer) 13:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Frogs Zing! --Sir General Minister G5 FIYC UPotM [Y] #21 F@H KUN 13:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smiddle

• For --EMC ^[TALK] 16:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

eh

If we're gonna add new admins we should at least get rid of the old ones first, no offense to them, if they show up anytime soon they can be re-opped, but having 1 admin for every 100 users on the site would look pretty bad. Idk, maybe we should have admin evaluations like they do on meta, it might give a little motivation or something. I'd lay out some sort of big plan or something, but it's late, and I'm tired. Also, I agree with Dawg, I've had my eyes on a few prospects for awhile now, and I think they deserve the title, but I also disagree with some sort of mass-opping like we've done before.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. On the list I have of "Inactive for 4 months +", the admins should be de-opped, at least til they return (if they do). -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 06:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Uncyc has a dramatically lower admin:user ratio than en.wp, which reflects the effectiveness of the admins and the helpfulness of the users. It's a strong community that some have equated to a corner pub, so taking this to the most extreme, our Cheers doesn't need the same ratio of bartenders/waitresses/bouncers to drunkards because our drunkards also sweep the floors and watch the n00b that just waltzed in the door wearing a really disturbing hat.

Few need to delete, block, and 'manually' revert when there are scripts to make reverting almost automatic and we have Cliff, Frasier, and Norm cleaning up spills. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 06:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST

• We have no need for more admins. In fact, we have like 41 too many at the moment. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• All admins suck; the last thing we need is more of them. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT

Uhh, I'm not totally inactive. I'm just kinda watching everything all the time. So.... Fish. --PantsMacKenzie 00:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I was just looking through the conribs, so you know how it is...-- Sir C  Holla | CUN 02:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How did I avoid one of those low-activity lists? Also, the only reason Splarka has lowered in his outrageously high activity is due to 1) starting with wikia, and 2) various admins being not entirely admin-ish. He was/is the most dilligent admin uncyc has ever had. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but he always made me do stuff, I for one am glad he's gone. We should do a reskin! ;)   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: For various reasons related to past admin additions, I would really like if this vote is limited to current admins, although anyone should be able to nom (but noms from non-admins could be removed by an admin if they feel like it before it is voted upon). » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 09:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur, Dawg. The admins are the only ones who truly understand the extent of the soul-wrenching horror responsibilities involved with their duty. It ain't all 007 "License to Ill" crap and win and stuff -- it's tedious, thankless, and frustrating (or so I've been told.) Ultimately I think that the admins are the only ones qualified to determine who among the faithful can bear that weight. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The risk in having only admins choose admins is that it tends to exxagerate any trend - good or bad - in the way the site is being operated. If we just happen to have a bunch of admins that want to frequently ban or delete at that particular moment, they're going to support the addition of more admins with the same tendency to frequently ban or delete. If we just happened to have a bunch of admins at some moment that want to keep every substub, they're going to support those who think likewise. As such, there is the risk that a completely closed only-admins-vote-for-admins system could easily push things to one extreme or another, it's a closed loop. --Carlb 10:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We must protect the Uncyclopedia royal blood line!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's something to consider: maybe we can let non-admins help in the sysopping process, but their votes count as half. Thoughts? — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I think the admins should have to answer to the community in some way. I mean, at least for approval. We don't necessarily want a crappy editor who's friends with an admin get it for that reason alone. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C)

We do answer to the community in various ways. Through bitching and moaning in the VD, through RYA, and by many other means. Our founder hand-picked the cream of the crop that made up our early adminatti, and they have endured as a lasting testament to the foresight, acumen, and wisdom of our dictator-in-perpetual-absentia. These admins and bureaucrats, in turn, with their finite understanding, and the trust of our glorious leader, bestowed upon notable members of the unwashed masses the power to delete and block for the good of uncyclopedia. The results have been a testament to their foresight, sacrifices, support, and persistence that has taken uncyclopedia from it's infancy to the informative and prominent position it holds today.

I believe that it takes an admin to discern whether someone would be able to use the abilities responsibly, whether they have the requisite maturity, and whether their personality would be suitable. Uncyclopedia deletes 4/5 of new articles; combing through that many porn links, shock images, and cruft can turn an otherwise excellent contributor of written material into a blathering, humour-numb, zombie that may never be able to contribute a funny article again.

If our adminatti was bad this site would not exist, and certainly wouldn't grow, which reflects that we're doing something right. Therefore, I believe that admins would actively vote for people that are best suited to continue our growth, understand and support the uncyclopedia ideals, and make this place better for current and future uncyclopedians. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 20:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Mr Dawg has writ. There are some excellent writers on this site who should NEVER be given the soul destroying burden of Adminship, and I'd like to think that Admins are pretty assute at judging suitable candidates. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Whatever happens, we need to make sure that we don't hand out +s as a reward or to people who have contributed in great ways (writing) but not adminnish ways. Makes no sense. —rc (t) 21:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-Admins can't nomimate themselves.--Jtaylor1 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a duh right there. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Let the crowd vote, but current admins should hold a Veto power.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 20:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, our votes should count as half, I feel confident that the admins would make good choices, but I know I'd certainly want to have a say. Also, if everyone is agreeing here, shall we start the voting and such?? -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 21:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in total 100% agreement. Active admins only vote. --PantsMacKenzie 23:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So are we doing this or not...? -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 23:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NARF

You guys are silly. --Algorithm 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

D'you think if we had any sense we'd be editing Uncyclopedia? ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 07:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Poit, I say. Poit. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 20:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Zort. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you pondering what I'm pondering? ~ T. (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What should we do tonight, Brains? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Well, then...

Are we doing this or not? Because if we are, I'd like to at least start before Saturday. I plan on taking a week off. — Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 05:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're an admin, you can do it if you really wanna. Without getting blocked, torn to pieces and fed to the wild dinosaurs or getting all of your edits reverted. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 07:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah are we doing this? Are users gonna have a say? And have fun wherever you're going, Hinoa. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 17:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Need to speak with a couple more Admins, and then an announcement will be made. Real soon. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

OK sounds good. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 18:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so who's gonna DM? I've already assigned my skill points and purchased my starting gear. I've got two new tubes of dice, and the mechanical pencil's full o' lead, and has one of those really good soft white erasers that don't leave ugly marks all over the sheet. I just need a time, a place, and someone to roll against and I'm so there. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that we vote in admin(s) with a specified job description. Is there something that we want to make sure gets done for at least a few months? We seem to be about up to date with respect to NRV huffage...perhaps a "check in on Uncyclopedia:Maintenance first, then QVFD/Ban patrol"? I'm saying this because the rest of us are mostly general-purpose, "show up and pretend to be doing soemthing worthwhile" admins. I generally hop on, check the "honeypot" articles that I watch for vandalism, hit QVFD/Ban patrol, check out IP addresses with moderately bad edits to see if they are doing anything nefarious, etc. After that I tear through VFD, and get my nazi out. I rarely go to the Maintenance page, nor do I check in on things like UNnews, the Dump here, etc. Are we covering everything we need to cover? If not, lets get some admins focused on that. Since us old farts hate changing our routine, this is a good time to get a foucused admin or two. Not to say they can't do everything else, just a "stop here first" job. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask any Admins who have not visited for a chat in IRC to do so asap. Thanks. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Hit it right on the head Famine. The maintainence is the only problem I've noticed. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WHO THE FUCK BROUGHT BACK THIS REALLY OLD TOPIC!?

WHEN I FIND THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT BACK THIS REALLY OLD TOPIC, I'M GOING TO HAVE THE ADMINS COME DOWN UPON THEM SO BADLY! --General Insineratehymn 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a blast from the past..... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I'm getting really sick of this shit. See my new topic for the new rule regarding bumping Forum: topics. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"(Which is actually an old topic I bumped from a few months ago...)"   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)