Forum:Proposal to institute term lengths for admins

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Proposal to institute term lengths for admins

Note: This topic has been unedited for 1265 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I believe the current system of admins and crats being elected "for life" is unhealthy and essentially undemocratic. We have admins (including myself) that were elected by users that haven't been active – in some cases – in over a decade. I think it would be a good change for the project if we instituted term lengths for admins. I think we could maintain the unlimited term limits system we currently have, but by having the admins stand for re-election on a regular basis we will better ensure that the community's fancy janitors represent the will of the community.

I've set up voting and discussion sections below. If this proposal is approved I suggest we can hold a mass re-election of anyone over the agreed upon term length at the upcoming April VFS. -- The Zombiebaron 20:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Voting

Admins

Maintain the status quo: admins are elected "for life"

Score: +4

•  For. We have a mostly functioning system for removing troublesome admins. Inactive admins may not properly represent and reflect the community, but they are also unable to do anything, positive or negative, to effect the community in any way, otherwise they would be active and not inactive, in which case, they can be dealt with using the system we have to deal with troublesome admins. Other than cluttering up Special:ListUsers/sysop, inactive admins are a non-element. As for elections, they will inevitably lead to flare ups and resentments resurfacing. It'll directly pit admins against each other for votes, and bad-faith users who feel slighted through sanctions and bans will vote against admins regardless of whether their misgivings are justified or not. It's a recipe for disaster, and would set Uncyclopedia on a course for constant, cyclical drama, and therefore our destruction. No bueno! User:CandidToaster/sig 21:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if I was not clear, but this proposal has nothing to do with "troublesome admins", which I agree we already have a process to deal with. -- The Zombiebaron 21:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

•  For. What the fuck??? Why is this even a discussion? I echo every single thing Toaster said. PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 00:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. See what I left in the discussion. It kind of is a variant on this.  Cassandra  (talk) 12:47am  January 8, 2021
•  For. As per Candid. I don't think I have nothing against Cassie's proposal either, but I don't actually believe there's been any issues with our current system and that anything should change. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 13:27, 8 January, 2021 (UTC)
•  For. These changes would be completely unnecessary IMO. — SG1|Hereish ^{[citation needed]} 00:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Against. An absent admin is an admin that doesn't deserve the tools the community chose to award them with. ShabiDOO 09:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• For Mainly because I think the role of administrator is not the same as leader. Administrators get fancy buttons sure, but those fancy buttons still have to be used in accordance with site policy not on some imagined whim. Most bans, deletes, protects, edits to protected spaces, etc are formulaic and happen because the communuty decided "this is how the site works, admins enforce that rule." Reviewing that is pointless, just about any long term user that is remotely competant can use the admin tools no worries. However I do think the sites leaders (maybe the sites bureaucrats idk) should be put up for periodic review because they are there to drive the site in a particular direction, amend policy and so forth. The role of leader is not done according to a policy, it's done according to what they think is in the best interest of the site so yes periodically the community should ask are they acting in the best interest of the site? People that are happy can vote to re-elect, people that are unhappy can throw different names out there. So I guess I'd suggest a small group of maybe 3 or 4 'crats that are the ones that are officially in charge of everything that is periodically reviewed by the community (2 or 3 years). ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 14:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Half Against I don't like the fact that admins can be elected for life, but I also don't mind it and it certaintly isn't as bad as every 15 years. Just that if an admin is inactive, they shouldn't really hold on, but I am not sure how often re-election should be. Maybe 4 years? I also am not a huge fan of Cassie's proposal, which is why I abstained. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 14:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Half For I don't get why we're voting on this anyway. I do agree we need a rule regarding admins/crats that are inactive for a certain number of years. --RealLifeCartman (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Two year term lengths: admins stand re-election every 2 years

Score: 0

• For I think this is a very reasonable term length: a lot changes in two years. -- The Zombiebaron 20:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• For I agree. This is a solid length of time in terms of Uncyc Moderation. Nicolassequeira (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly against. We admins would be more worried about re-election than actually doing anything? What are we, Republicans? PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 23:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Against. Two years is just too often. I think four years is enough, per PF4Eva. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 14:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Four year term lengths: admins stand re-election every 4 years

Score: +2

1.  For. This seems to be an appropriate amount, to allow admins to focus on there adminning, not have an odd amount of years, and to kind of comprimise "for life" and "2 years", without going into odd numbers or making ridiculous 15 year proposals, which I voted against long time ago. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Gale5050 (talk • contribs)
2.  For. Four years seems like a good amount. ᙀﬨὶ⸦𝝧Ԃల ❨𝖙ลƖԞ❫ 17:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Five year term lengths: admins stand re-election every 5 years

Score: -1

1.  Strongly against Not a fan of admin term limits, but why an odd number of years? Representatives are two years, presidents and governors are four years, and Senators are six years. (Not to give you any more bad ideas.) Admins for life. PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 23:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Abstain. Kinda close to four, sure it is odd, but 5 isn't too bad. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 17:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fifteen year term lengths: admins stand re-election every 15 years

Score: -2

1.  Against. See my bureaucrat comment at 02:13. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
2.  Strongly Against Seriously??? Everything Gale said. PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 23:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassie's Proposal: See discussion section for details

Score: 4

1.  For. Fair enough.  Cassandra  (talk) 01:00am  January 8, 2021
2.  For. As stated in discussion. MrX blow me 07:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
3.  For. Admins should be elected 'for life' unless there is a problem. This way, admins can actually focus on stuff they're meant to do rather than worrying about re-election. ~ Hipponias^CUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  09:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
4.  For. per nom. Also, introduce an equivalent of administrators open to recall, for fun. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
5. There are several admins who pop by ONLY to vote on site related matters (like for new admins) and will make a couple edits to appear active. There is no reason inactive members should hold onto their adminship, though zero is FAR too low of a number and it should be if an admin has less than 25 non-vote related edits they lose their adminship. ShabiDOO 00:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
6. Weak against. I don't like the idea of forcing contributions onto an admin in order to keep their title. And bad actors (read: trolls) could possibly mis/abuse the de-op. PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 02:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   So you think that an admin who has done nothing all year should stay as an admin? Why do they deserve to keep it? ShabiDOO 09:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Two or three years, maybe. But I hate the idea of holding somebody's admin rights hostage. PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 10:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   So let me get this straight. An admin...who has been inactive for a year, deserves to keep their tools? Could you explain in any coherent way why an admin, barring say a year long medical emergency, deserves to keep their privelages if they've abandoned the site? ShabiDOO 11:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   Also, if you're gonna say weak against, might be worth only giving half a vote. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 14:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

7. Abstain. I just do not know.....Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 17:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

Maintain the status quo: crats are elected "for life"

Score: +3

•  For. See my comment above. User:CandidToaster/sig 21:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
•  For. What Toaster said. PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 00:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
•  For. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 13:28, 8 January, 2021 (UTC)
•  For. — SG1|Hereish ^{[citation needed]} 00:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Against. While I'm semi ok with admins being elected for life, with crats, they gotta be an active part of the community. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 17:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Two year term lengths: crats stand re-election every 2 years

Score: +1

• For As with admins, a lot changes in 2 years. -- The Zombiebaron 20:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• No reason why crat noms should be permanent. ShabiDOO 20:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Against. Crat noms shouldn't be permanent, but 2 years is too short. A lot can change in a month!(coronavirus), so 2 years is not enough. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Four year term lengths: crats stand re-election every 4 years

Score: +2

1.  For. See my admin comment above about every 4 years. Same reasoning applies. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 14:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
2.  For. Again, 4 years seems like a good amount of time. ᙀﬨὶ⸦𝝧Ԃల ❨𝖙ลƖԞ❫ 17:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Five year term lengths: crats stand re-election every 5 years

Score: 0

1. Abstain. Odd, but close to 4, meh. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 17:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fifteen year term lengths: crats stand re-election every 15 years

Score: -1

1.  Against. Uncyclopedia is 16 years old. That is quite literally pointless. So, any new appointed crats would be reappointed in....2036? Just make it indefinite by that point! Doing it every 15 years is pointless. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 02:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Lemme just say, we gotta come to a consensus quick. Just making this edit so it isn't archived. --Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I also added 4 year proposals. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 14:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We do not need to rush to a consensus. This is obviously an important decision, and we're not fixing some emergency, we're talking about potential improvements to a system that already works pretty damn well. If a clear consensus never emerges (it's looking like that might be the case), maintaining the status quo is fine. MrX blow me 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that might not be the majority. Remember, if no one edits it within 7 days, it becomes archived and locked permanetly. We need to get other editors involved, without meatpuppetry. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 17:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should have more than a simple majority to make this kind of change. And if no one edits this within 7 days, an admin can simply edit/unlock it. MrX blow me 17:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but would they is the question. And I agree, in my opinion there needs to be a 60% consensus. Maybe, there is somewhere we can post this to get more editors involved? Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 17:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they would. If an editor who wants to edit this page asks an admin to unlock it, I'm sure they will. MrX blow me 17:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. So far, there are 3.5 votes for keeping it indefinite for admins, 0 for two years, 2 in favor for four year, -1 in favor for five years, and -2 for fifteen years, for admins(keep in mind people may have voted twice for different regards.)For percentages, it is 77% in favor for indefinite, 50% for two years, 100% for four years, 0% for five and fifteen years. Kev's proposal is 4 in favor, with 80% in favor. For bueracrats, it is 3 in favor for indefinite, with 75% consensus, 1 in favor of two years, with 66.7% in favor, two votes for four years with 100% in favor, five years is zero with the only vote being an abstain, and fifteen years is -1 with 0% in favor. I just thought I'd share the stats. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 17:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Kev's Proposal

I have a slightly different proposal to make: keep indefinite terms à la Wikipedia, but implement more broad criterias for removal of administrative and bureaucratic rights:

• Automatic removal of admin rights after one calendar year with zero edits (these admins could be classified into a special "administrator emeritus" usergroup);
• Permanent "Vote for DeSysOp" availability, in order to make up for our lack of Arbitration Committee.

These two should ensure that the Uncyclopedian governance remains fair and democratic (by giving an always-accessible means for Uncyclopedians to remove admin rights), and also keeping Uncyclopedia safe (by preventing potential account hijacking of inactive admin accounts), without affecting active, responsible admins too much.

A two-year or three-year term system would work quite similarly to this, but preventing admins from being de-sysoped anytime would result in a Donald Trump-like situation. We don't want any coups here! Re-election might also pose a inconvenience to possibly busy admins who are active only some times of the year.

Please let me know whatcha think,  Cassandra  (talk) 09:36pm  January 7, 2021

Good ideas. I believe the de-op section of VFS is always available "to fight wiki-terrorism", but we should probably be more explicit about that. -- The Zombiebaron 21:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

My first preference is to go with Kev's proposal as is (if it's moved up to a place with a vote and score and whatnot, I'll vote for it). My second preference is to maintain the status quo. My third preference is for a 2-year term length (only concern is I don't think existing admins should be de-opped with a simple majority, apologies if I misused any terminology lol). MrX blow me 00:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I created a voting section for Kev's proposal. I think in future everyone should feel free to add their own voting sections to this page. -- The Zombiebaron 00:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! MrX blow me 07:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Some thoughts: These are all good proposals with good ideas. My first thought was to vote for maintaining the status quo, but I think Kev's proposal is a good blend of ideas that might make things even better and encourage people to remain active. If we institute term lengths for admins/crats, having them stand for re-election every x years, then I think it's obvious that we must eliminate the maximum votes for each user (something I personally think is unnecessary anyway). Finally, while not exactly related to possible term lengths, can someone please again explain the differences between Sysops and Bureaucrats? Uncyclopedia:Bureaucrats is entertaining but not incredibly informative. Cheers. MrX blow me 22:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree that if we were doing massive re-elections every few years having a limit on votes-per-user would be ridiculous. Sysops is an unelected role for the users that run our servers, Bureaucrats is an elected role that mostly deal with username changes and granting some user roles. -- The Zombiebaron 22:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Unelected? I thought the voting process was the same, is it not? MrX blow me 22:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, we've never held votes for the sysadmin role. I think we may be talking about something different though: there is no such thing as a "Sysop" role here and I thought you were talking about "sysadmins". -- The Zombiebaron 22:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought sysadmin, UN:SYSOP, and UN:ADMIN were all interchangeable, but basically I meant admin. And the only vote I was here for was April 2020, which I thought included both admins and bureaucrats going through the same process. Again, sorry for possibly creating more confusion than clarification, and thanks for the help. MrX blow me 23:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem: I understand that our obtuse systems are not designed to be new-user friendly, and I appreciate you asking questions when you are confused. -- The Zombiebaron 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO, I don't really care either way. I just voted against the 15 year proposal as it is frivolous(why not make it indef by that point! Uncyclopedia is 16 years old!) Personally, I'll Abstain.. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 00:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I also think we should have an Arbitrarian Commitee but only bureaucrats. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 22:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Closing

Not only is this extremely extremely stale, but no consensus is developed. I suggest we close this proposal, before it gets locked automatically. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 18:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is not wikipedia. We aren't looking for a consensus but the option that gets the most votes. There is no rush. Let users speak their mind. Forums can easily be unlocked. ShabiDOO 19:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, we shouldn't make a big change just because it got the most votes. If we are to make a big change, it should be with more support than a simple >50% majority. It is looking like we should probably maintain the status quo (which is fine with me), but this kind of change definitely deserves a little more time. Roughly half the admins listed at UN:AA haven't weighed in yet. There's no reason we need to close this immediately. MrX blow me 20:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

That's admin discretion. An admin may decline. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 21:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree with MrX. I think it should need to 75% support, and none has over a 50% majority. Personally, we need to get this to as many admins as possible. Maybe we send it out to all admins? Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 21:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

But yeah, I think we should maintain the status quo as this is getting rather stale. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 21:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We've always done things by the options with the most votes and we've never had a more than a simple majority rule (which I think would be ridiculous). If you want to change that precedent then by all means start up a new forum suggesting a change to the threshold for votes. Admins don't have any more say in these kind of votes than other users do. Keep this page active for a while so that less active users will see it and give their say. Gale you need to be more patient. ShabiDOO 22:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Had I not done anything tomorrow this page would've literally locked and we'd have to start a new forum. Second of all, nothing has a simple majority yet, at all. Majority = >50%, we had 20 for admins(so the most we have is 20%), and crats is 11, so the most we have in support is not even 30%. So in order to get a simple majority would take something. This would need more then that though, as its changing policy, at least 60%. But we'll see. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 23:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I believe that the only options worth debating are "2 years", "Remove on inactivity only" and "No removal", I think the vote should only focus on those three. I'll set up a new ranked vote specifically for this purpose. Details coming soon.  Cassandra  (talk) 11:27pm  January 24, 2021

IMO it should also be a new forum. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 23:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Creating new thread... User:Kev/s