Protected page

Forum:Part 2: Proposal to institute term lengths for admins

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Part 2: Proposal to institute term lengths for admins
Note: This topic has been unedited for 898 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

As per what Zombiebaron said, the for-life administration system here on Uncyclopedia may be considered undemocratic. However, many of ZB's propositions, such as 5 year or 15 year terms, don't seem to be gaining much traction. As such, I'm designating a special vote specifically for this purpose.

You are allowed to cast one {{For}} for this vote. There are two options which you may choose from. This vote will be closed on February 8, 2021 0:00 UTC.

For the sake of transparency, since Shabidoo chose to veto my plans for a more "balanced" (weighted) voting system, I'll let the vote progress as is. Additionally, because of how using Against votes will result in people cancelling each other out, those are longer being used. The weighted voting system will be used for an eventual runoff, if the need arises.

The vote is now closed. It seems that the consensus is to keep admin rights indefinitely. Using this option, if an admin demotion system is implemented (primarily for site security purposes), admins will be promoted back to where they were prior to becoming inactive as soon as they return.

I'll transmit the results to Zombiebaron now.  Cassandra  (talk) 12:24am  February 8, 2021


Removal of admin rights upon inactivity only

Under a system of inactivity-only admin right revocation, any administrator or bureaucrat that has been inactive for more than 365 days will have their sysop and (if applicable) bureaucrat rights removed at the end of the calendar year. Admins removed solely for inactivity will subsequently gain an "admin emeritus" status, which makes them eligible to re-enter VFS any time of the year, but otherwise is the same as a non-admin.

Score: 5.5
  1. Symbol for vote.svg Strong For No reason, now that its this narrow, to have admins not keep rights indefinitely, however, admins who don't use there tools. However, I disagree with completely inactive, and would want 5 edits and 3 logged actions a year at bare minimum. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 00:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Symbol for vote.svg A strong for that is so strong it cancels out all possible against !votes per proposer. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 01:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Symbol for vote.svg Forceful For It's not a catch-all, but it's the best solution which does not involve excessive bureaucratic hurdles.  Cassandra  (talk) 01:50am  January 25, 2021
  4. Symbol for vote.svg For.– Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.136.152 (talk • contribs)
  5. I note that almost all of those who vote to keep the status quo are admins who will get to keep their tools even if they are inactive for years and a few have done literally nothing here for months, except to come here and vote to keep their user rights that they don't even constructively use. ShabiDOO 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 22:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Against{I dislike the idea of forcing activity upon admins. There could be life circumstances that might interfere with being active. For example, there was a brief months-long period in 2015 where I was too busy to write. Black-2.jpg PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 19:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  7. Symbol for vote.svg For. ~ HipponiasCUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  20:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

#Symbol declined.svg Against.. Weight: 5.4 (editcount in 2020: 939) In an ideal situation both of these options will return back a zero-score. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz Zzz...morning? 21:27, 3 February, 2021 (UTC)

Note: This is a two option vote. Against votes are pointless. Why are you voting for one option and voting against another? If everyone did that they would cancel one another out.

Admin rights are kept indefinitely

This is the current status quo; admin rights are kept forever, unless a scandal occurs or the admin resigns themselves. No "admin emeritus" status exists.

Score: 8
  1. Symbol for vote.svg Strong for This is madness. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Black-2.jpg PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 00:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Symbol for vote.svg For. Rather than restate what I said on the matter earlier, I'd just like to add that Cassie's "Admin Emeritus" proposal went from, "Formerly inactive admins are reinstated once active" to "Formerly inactive admins are allowed to be reinstated following a VFS vote," which is essentially the same as de-opping them for inactivity, since any user who is nominated is eligible to get voted on. This would also discourage returning admins from becoming active on the site, or people who can only contribute sporadically due to life circumstances. User:CandidToaster/sig 06:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Symbol for vote.svg For. Per above. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 13:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Symbol for vote.svg For. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz Zzz...morning? 22:27, 25 January, 2021 (UTC)
  5. Symbol for vote.svg For. Y'all still have votes for your admins? That's already more complicated than some of us can keep up with. -— Lyrithya ༆ 22:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Symbol for vote.svg For. Per the thing I said about admins being bound to follow policy and thus aren't really trusted to lead the site, just trusted to follow basic instructions. Unless they are blatently ignoring said basic instructions I don't really see a point to de-opping. Some of us have full time jobs, long periods of inactivity happen. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Proudly bogan 00:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

#Symbol declined.svg Against. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 19:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  1. Symbol for vote.svg For. This should be the norm, unless somebody weird like <insert name here> gets Admin. -WohMi, the best damn duelist on this website (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

#Symbol declined.svg Against. Uncyclopedia's culture has changed quite a bit over the years, and as such, I do not believe that keeping admins on the podium forever will help Uncyclopedia survive long, long into the future. Even though it means it being tougher to have admins come back to govern, etc etc.  Cassandra  (talk) 09:18pm  February 3, 2021

  1. Symbol for vote.svg For. I've thought long and hard (boom, phrasing) about this. I know I originally voted for Cassie's proposal to remove admin rights upon inactivity, and I still think that would be a good system. But I feel that some great points have been brought up here, we have a system that doesn't have any problems, and we should keep it that way. MrX blow me Emoji-drool.gif 23:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Again...against votes are pointless in a two option vote.

Two-year term lengths with subsequent VFS

Under two-year term lengths with subsequent VFS, all admins are to be re-elected every two calendar years during a specifically designated VFS period. Bureaucrats will face the same. Failing the VFS vote will result in de-op. Additionally, sysop privileges are removed automatically after one calendar year's inactivity, but may be restored as long as the admin has not faced (and failed) a subsequent VFS vote. Removed admins may gain an "admin emeritus" status, depending on whether the admin was removed for inactivity or for bad behavior; those removed for inactivity may be eligible to re-enter VFS any time of the year, but otherwise is the same as a non-admin.

Score: 0

Symbol declined.svg Strongly against This idea is the very definition of a solution in search of a problem. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The middle ground

Obviously there are different opinions on this, so here's what I suggest:

Admins still have their rights removed on inactivity, but returning admins can ask for their rights back (as long as they are active and will actually use the tools), with no need for VFS. They have proven themselves worthy of the job, so there's no reason to permanently remove their rights just because they are inactive. Hijacking of inactive accounts won't be possible, as admin rights are still removed on inactivity, and returning admins won't be discouraged by another VFS. Basically Kev's proposal but without a second VFS. ~ HipponiasCUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  19:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Score: 2
  1. Symbol for vote.svg For. ~ HipponiasCUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  19:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Symbol for vote.svg For. Yes. Have a good day, and may Sophia bless you, JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Since this vote was designed with 3 options in mind, I'm moving your votes to "keep admin indefinitely". I have already been discussing the possibility of "inactive admin rights removal" with the option of returning rights on demand, simply for the sake of Uncyclopedia's security (preventing any malicious actors from being able to hijack our site via inactive admin accounts), as part of indefinite admin rights.  Cassandra  (talk) 07:50pm  February 3, 2021

Comments

I think it should be 4 years, not 2, as it got more support. Also, can someone fully protect Forum:Proposal to institute term lengths for admins? Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 00:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.uncyclopedia.co/w/index.php?title=Forum:Part_2:_Proposal_to_institute_term_lengths_for_admins&oldid=6064675"