Forum:Temporary Administrators

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Temporary Administrators

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5009 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Maybe time to talk about it, and no one else has made a forum, so I'll blow my wad. There, now that that's done, something to say here too. The four admins have been great, have been all over the wiki making improvements, have grown in their job, and have covered time periods where other admins are probably sleeping or wandering the back alleys. I'd suggest that if they all want the job, just make them real admins. In the early days of uncy some people were made admins for just editing for two weeks and knowing how to type with one or two fingers, and they are still listed as admins. Socky (damn, his blood runs admin blue or whatever), Hyperbole and Lyrth however you spell it, have been such fixtures as admins this month it just seems a natural progression in their time here. Puppy hasn't done as much, at least in my memory, but what he's done has been perfect and he is always so on the ball and helpful. So in my non-humble opinion, if any of them want the job title and all the fun tools, why not just add them to the corps. This may bend the rules, but rules are meant to be put aside once or twice, why else would they be called rules. Bottoms up line, if their admin powers are taken away, the wiki will miss them and be less for it. I, for three, think the grand experiment has worked in uncy's favor. Aleister 1:44 29-3-'11

No. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:19, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 04:04, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

You have rather selective memory, don't you?

1 2 3 4 ~ 04:15, 29 March 2011

My retrospective: Hype and Socky did an excellent job at doing the usual stuff they usually do best + admin bonuses, as any good admin should do. Lyrithya pushed the envelope a lot, which is respectable, and made a few mistakes, which is expected, but overall did fine in my eye. Didn't see Puppy much at all, but I guess it must be a time zone thing because apparently people like him (hey puppy!). But let's have a traditional VFS at the month to see which 2 will triumph in final elimination showdowns. Also, the the naysayers on VFS pre-vote admin-vote, nay to your naysaying! Denying a VFS next month would be heresy. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 04:28, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Against. They're making the rest of us, and our half-assed approach, look bad. Way to raise the bar. Jerks. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:35, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Lies! The only thing that's been raised is the level of half-assedness. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk)

GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:42, 31 March 2011

I disagree entirely, yes they have done a good job but I do not support them keeping admin powers. I'd support Socky keeping his as he was almost made an administrator in the last proper VFS we had, but of the other three; Puppy has hardly used his admin powers, I don't think he needs them permanently to be a fantastic asset to the wiki. Lyrithya while enthusiastic in my view isn't competent enough with how the wiki works yet, deleting VFD was a major cock up and in my view she should have known better and a bit more time writing and thinking would make her a much more effective admin in the future. I like Hype's writing far too much to see him moving wholly into the maintenance side of things, I'd be happier seeing him go through a full VFS if he is to get adminship. Ultimately I stick by what I said before this whole thing started, we don't really need any more administrators; when the month ends you have 4 older admins using their powers again alongside the other active admins. Call me the supporter of a vicious and undemocratic system if you want but I have serious reservations about just handing admin powers to these four and I am pretty sure I am not the only one. The experiment on its own has already upset a number of older users and just reinforces this idea that becoming an admin is the goal of editing here; I disagree with it entirely. --ChiefjusticeGameBoy 08:56, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with Mister Justice, if there is need for a new admin then the system is already in place to enable that. -- Sir Mhaille

(talk to me)

A good synopsis. Yet remember why people were calling for new admins? There were certain hours after 00:00 that no admins would show up for hours. Feaures weren't being put up, vandals were running loose for two or three hours blanking pages and causing havoc and some fun (mainly the 92 vandal, who I actually got a half-feature with), things weren't getting done for a big chunck of the day. The Lyrithya bot was running almost that entire time, as was Socky, and could have handled that stuff easily. I think Socky, if he wants it, should just be named admin, powers that be should just brand him like a calf. Lyrithya is learning on the job, and has done some wonderful things as well as having fun with stuff and shaking up the mundane too (as long as VFD was saved from the ashheap). Hyperbole should be writing instead of banning, I don't know if it's hurt his output or not, only he can say, but only he knows if he likes to be an admin and if he does, he's a good one. Puppy did some stuff as admin, which is a thousand times more than a dozen of the admins who haven't been around in three years have done. An election would pick Socky for sure, so why not just name him now and "elect" two or three others? Then there's Dexter, too. All better than the inactive admins who were randomly picked in 2005 just because they were here for a season or so. Aleister 9:19 29-3-'11

Why not just let VFS settle this once and for all mano-a-mano grudge match of the century? Then nobody can bitch that it wasn't "fair" or "democratic" or "something else in quotes". And you know they would. That's what Uncyclopedians do. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:23, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

"All better than the inactive admins"??? :( :( :( -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 02:42, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I didn't mean the present inactives, I meant the people admined in the early days of Uncy who've done nothing for many years. Those are the ones I meant. Aleister 2:54 30-3-'11

Let's remember what this experiment was actually about, first of all. It wasn't because most people saw an overwhelming need for more people manning the Ban and Delete buttons - that's what VFS has always been for, electing admins when the maintenance load calls for it.

What the Mixup was really about was seeing how admin-user (and admin-admin) relationships would be affected by frying some old folks and hatching some new ones. I think that's what this discussion should revolve around. We can go ahead and start a new VFS (keeping in mind the valid concerns raised in Forum:Proposal to change VFS rules) if the people wish, but that's a separate issue. Judge the experiment based on the issues brought up in that Forum topic, and particularly Hyperbole's concerns in Forum:Proposal_to_change_VFS_rules#No.2C_Romartus: did the temp admins get along better with users? Did they address user issues more fairly than the crusty old admins did? How do you feel about your father touching you? Do we as a site seem more dynamic, or does Uncyc still seem stalled (to those who thought it felt stalled before)? —rc (t) 15:01, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Boobs. Aleister 15:53 29-3-'11

I like boobs.

1 2 3 4 ~ 10:20, 30 March 2011

As a point of ensuring legitimacy, I do not think *anybody* who is temp-opped should be left with admin powers after the period is over. It turns the whole thing into a farce - the point of temp ops is to allow people to demonstrate how they handle adminship so that people can make an informed vote/nomination when VFS comes around, it should not be used as a defacto-backdoor into adminship, not least because it does a dis-service to the person being left opped as it denies them the opportunity to legitimately be appointed the title. At the same time, I'm also against pointless bureaucracy getting in the way of someone doing a good job even though I favour due process, and as far as that goes, the solution for me would have been to run temp ops in tandem with a VFS so as to avoid pointless de-opping and re-opping. Clearly it's a bit late for that now, so we can either extend the trial, or hold a flash vote for specific temp admins to be given an interim extension while a formal VFS is held or end this trial and have a VFS "when the time is right" -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:59, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

This. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 22:14 Mar 29, 2011

Ring out the old, ring in the new

Socky, Hyperbole, and Lyrithya did a hell of a job (Puppy, as Aleister said, seemed a bit quiet). But I think it's time to give others a chance too.

Two guys I feel would do great as admins are Magic man and SPIKE. When I came here to Uncyc, I thought that Magic man was an admin, that's how good he is. SPIKE is like Hyperbole. He can be really nice to you if you don't mess around with him. He also believes in giving articles a chance, by adding many ICU tags (while many admins just huff it). Round of applause to the four volunteers. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! 20:46, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Wow... I feel... Loved. Thanks. --

03:00, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you. --

Lollipop

- CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! 20:11, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

My deaugural address

Yeah, obviously, I shouldn't still be an admin in a couple days. It wouldn't be good for Uncyclopedia in any way if there were four (or even one) admins perceived as sort of sneaking into that position through the back door. Wouldn't really be fair to admins who had to make it through a VFS, either.

And, honestly, it's a mantle I'm looking forward to setting down next month. Your output totally changes when you're an admin. It stops being "Hmm, I have 90 minutes to kill, let's do a Pee Review and start work on a weird idea I have," and turns into "Okay, I have 90 minutes, let's check the 15 spots on my list and then run through them all over again." It was fun, don't get me wrong, but a lot of the stuff I normally contribute to the site, didn't get contributed. (Round of applause to User:JackOfSpades, by the way, for picking up so much slack on Pee Review while Puppy and I went off to do other things!!)

What I'd *really* like, if I had my way, is to see this experiment repeated in a few months. I mean, when we went into this, we really didn't know if the whole thing was going to be an unmitigated disaster, a dramafest, or what was going to happen - and in retrospect, it seems to have been nothing but good for the site (discounting the half-dozen hours or so we had to live without VFD, but even that just makes a funny story now). Shoot, if anything, there was less drama than we get in an average month, and I'm guessing that fewer bad contributions slipped through than usual, because we were having fun with the novelty of playing "seek and destroy."

So, in my mind this has been a huge success, and I'd really like us to hold that temporary admin election all over again - in August or September, maybe, if any admins are down to take that month off. pillow talk 00:25, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

There have been costs. I don't mean the deleted VFD sort of costs, or the sorts involving drama and broken servers and overt unpleasantness, mind. I mean... more, out of sight and around the corner things. Shadowy things, people going missing things, small emptinesses, things that are no more conscious than a whiff of longing that passes as quickly as it came, the sort of things from which a mother will try to protect her child to the ends of wish and dream, and of which there is no speaking. These are not things that I'd like to see repeat, nor would anyone under what we like to call normal circumstances, but they invariably do. The reasons behind them are as varied and sinister as the things themselves.

1 2 3 4 ~ 02:34, 31 March 2011

You forgot Oliphaunte and Shabidoo they both did a lot of reviewing this month too.

(talk) 03:05, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

And Flamingo's been reliable as ever, as well.

1 2 3 4 ~ 03:28, 31 March 2011

Yeah! My chocolate chip muffin is just a muffin now! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:24, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

As well as enjoying the antics of the temp admins, I have also enjoyed Froggy's brief stint as a temp writer. Is there any way we can impose that on him full time? --Black Flamingo 16:31, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Just massage his ego a bit. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:53, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should nom him for WotM. Someone get on that. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 18:13 Apr 01, 2011

So...

I think Socky should be able to have his admin powers back (if he wants them). Who agrees? -- 02:14, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

I really don't blame you at all for not reading the wall of text that is this forum, but the gist of it is that the temporary admin stuff was supposed to be just that, temporary, and if a VFS should be held (as I believe it shall be this month) the temp ops' actions will be considered when voting in the new admins. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:16 Apr 02, 2011

No, I read the wall of text, but I still think he should get his powers back. Just think, rules are meant to be broken, right? Someone said it wouldn't be fair to the real admins who had to go through a real VFS to become an admin, but if all the admins are okay with it, I don't see why not. Either way, I would like to see this temporary admin thing to be held again in a couple of months. Just my opinion. --

02:22, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

If you want him to be an admin then nom and vote for him in the VFS in a couple days.

(talk) 02:24, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Re: fairness: keep in mind that the requirements to become an admin have changed dramatically since Uncyclopedia's beginning. Once upon a time, people got opped just by asking a b'crat in IRC. I got opped on a technicality, and by "technicality" I mean "bitching about it". – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:28 Apr 02, 2011

Jack: It's not that, I just think he should get something for his great work. He'll probably be nommed anyway by someone else. Wait... It's in a couple of days? Wow... I better make some friends... Skully: I guess... --

02:32, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Socks sucks. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 04:04, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

The big prize

Skully, why don't we award them what we all get here for valor: a .JPG of something shiny?

I only observed the adminship of Hyperbole and Lyrithya. Hype's admin decisions were sensible and measured, but I agree with the Chief Justice that Hyperbole benefits the wiki much more with his writing than with his adminship--to which he (above) expresses an interest in returning.

Lyrithya's adminship was as meticulous and round-the-clock as when she did the same thing without the ban-stick. It featured only occasional pranking, a useful initiative to tidy up the wiki, and only one cataclysmic screw-up.

I am unconcerned that we owe it to current admins to put any new ones through the same wringer. These four had a month of probation in a fishbowl with no guarantee of being able to retain their super-powers. I don't agree with the Chief Justice that the current crop is adequate; two hours of impunity for late-evening vandals is excessive and was remedied during March. And RabbiTechno and Zim ulator are two more admins who have made themselves scarce since the experiment started. I'd favor opening a VFS this month. Spıke Ѧ 14:17 2-Apr-11

Spike, a number of admins made themselves scarce specifically because of the experiment. -- Sir Mhaille

(talk to me)

What if they don't show up again?! We could be doomed!

1 2 3 4 ~ 18:03, 2 April 2011

So we have an admin shortage then? We should fill that hole real quick, I tell you hwhat. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here

By the way, I found it annoying that the temp admins did more joke banning than real banning over the month. Just saying. --

14:47, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Having a bansteeq like that makes you nervous for the first while; you're never sure what to use it for. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 14:48 Apr 02, 2011

Oy, FFS is serious business!

1 2 3 4 ~ 15:03, 2 April 2011

No, I mean banning each other. Don't get me wrong, if I was in your position I might do a little joke banning, but the whole joke ban to real ban ratio was way off for me. --

15:06, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Magic Man should be banned for his non-humourous comments. And somebody open up a VFS already. Aleister 15:22 2-4-'11

Or perhaps he ought to look at the block histories for the users... he may or may not be surprised. And the VFS seems to be happening... though strangely. Ish. Maybe that's how the setup'll change, not by forums and votes, but by what we actually wind up doing... fancy!

1 2 3 4 ~ 16:08, 2 April 2011

Agree on the joke bans. Separating users from the pleasures of editing is serious, not a cute way to Instant-Message another temporary Admin. Spıke Ѧ 11:38 4-Apr-11

What does "FFS" stand for? Just asking. -

LOL vandalz 12:09, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Fish finger sandwich. --Black Flamingo 16:36, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

I Thought it meant "Frustration For Sysop" or similar. -

LOL vandalz 16:40, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

New header, because I'm a badass

Like Jimbo wrote a long time ago, "becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*" — or at least it shouldn't be, in my opinion. Sure, there are some wikis out there who have made it a way bigger deal than it actually is, but we shouldn't follow their example in this matter. Adminship is just an entry in the user_groups table; easy to give, easy to revoke. That's why I feel that we should be liberal with the admin rights. You're free to disagree with me, though. --User:Jack Phoenix/sig 15:38, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's funny; we've never had this problem with rollbackers... have we? Same thing but less so, though.

1 2 3 4 ~ 18:00, 2 April 2011

If he can have a header, so can I

Even though all I want to say is that I think they all did a pretty decent job, and I think the wiki can always use good admins, so I'm in favour of just leaving them opped, mainly because it means less work for me. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 11:27, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Typical Codeine. As I said to some new user, the laziest users are the best. --

Lollipop

- CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! 20:12, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Join the movement on the VFS page, then. Op Socky! And Aleister.

1 2 3 4 ~ 02:24, 5 April 2011

Actually Codeine, you should support de-opping everyone. The reasons to do this are pretty apparent. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:53, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

The final solution

I think that Mimo & Maxus should be made president of uncyclopedia, that all current admins should be revoked of their powers and that only Lolipop should be allowed to write articles from now on ... except during the 500 writing competitions there are when I guess anything goes. But ... to be serious just for a second ... what is an admin? --ShabiDOO 18:53, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Come on, even I know that's talking Bullshit. Considering Mimo is now slowly drifting away from Uncyclopedia (Or maybe not, but he's definitely not active for a while now). And some of Lollipop's work is Dire. No Offence. - LOL vandalz 18:56, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yes...thats such an interesting word ... no offense. Is no offense an appology or a disclaimer?Lets write an article about it in 5 minutes. --ShabiDOO 21:13, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

P.S. no offense, but Lolipops writing is not dire. Sometimes over the top explosively childish, in a way I find amusing, but to be honest, the only really dire thing is taking things too seriously. --ShabiDOO 21:15, April 5, 2011 (UTC)