Forum:There needs to be transparency when banning an established user.

Forums: Index > Village Dump > There needs to be transparency when banning an established user.

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4921 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Here's some bread to go with your wine.

Here's some cheese to go with your bread.

Let me first state the obvious: there are non-admin users who work as hard on Uncyclopedia as many admins, and harder than some. In fact, some of the hardest-working Uncyclopedians, who work tirelessly on the site in completely good faith, are non-admins.

It is absolutely wrong that these users can be banned, even for a period as brief as one hour, without some kind of transparent discussion, e.g., on UN:OFFICE or something similar.

Any admin who unilaterally bans an established user who edits in good faith should immediately be de-opped for abusing his or her power.

Discuss. pillow talk 12:13, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I like cake. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:19, 15 May 2011

Do me a favor and put on your serious hat for just a moment. pillow talk 12:22, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

*puts on his tinfoil hat* Well, I think immediately de-opping an admin is arguably more rash and drama-inducing than banning an established user for a couple hours when there is a valid reason for doing so. That being said, I think more transparency would be a good thing. I don't think every hour-long ban needs its own entry on UN:OFFICE, though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:49, 15 May 2011

I could not disagree more, perhaps that is because I am part of the entirely consequence free, wicked cabal that oppresses the struggling editing classes but I think that your suggestion would hinder the administrators ability to halt vandalism or disruptive editing to the site. Regularly established users while incredibly helpful and hard-working are also the cause of the majority of drama incidents, they have been known to edit war with good faith IP changes to their favourite pages, they can be pugilistic in discussion and this can cause real lasting harm to the wiki either through causing prospective users to leave or simply stunting the wiki's ability to grow. Admins play an important role as mediators and rule enforcers, this doesn't make them better than regular users and they wouldn't be admins if they thought it did. We need to intercede and sometimes ban regular users who are causing problems simply to allow them to cool off and consider what they are doing. Your suggestion is that this ban should be preceded by some kind of discussion in which we wrangle out the pros and cons of blocking someone for 1 hour to let them cool off. This discussion would likely take longer than the ban itself, cause administrators to have to edit war with the user in question while the discussion goes on and generally descend into the almighty clusterfuck that most discussions here do.

You yourself Hyperbole are not entirely innocent of various offences yourself, you have reacted poorly to edits to your articles and certainly haven't minced words towards admins either. The vested interest you have in the outcome of this discussion is plain for most to see. I accept that the admins are not infallible and I stress that we are not above the rules even though we enforce them. However we do hold a degree of authority because of the power to block, this does not translate into oppression or unjustified blocking. We are a website, not a fascist dictatorship. --ChiefjusticePS2 12:38, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, DS, I don't see any reason why (as random examples) Sycamore or Mnbvcxz should have any less right to give you "an hour to cool off" as you should have to give them "an hour to cool off." And I can't see any way for you to respond to that without essentially admitting that you are above the rules. An admin can "be a dick" to his or her heart's content; no one is going to say or do anything about it. And that is wrong. pillow talk 13:05, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Someone has to enforce the rules Hyperbole, if I block someone I am doing so because I believe they are breaking the rules. I am in a position to do so because I was voted into that position by the community, the reason Sycamore or Mnbvcxz are not is because they have not been either because they don't want it or just didn't win the vote. I dislike banning established users and do my level best to avoid it when possible as I don't get off on it and nobody enjoys the aftermath. I agree that it is an issue that admins have very little accountability, but I do not think that the way to handle that is by making registered users exempt from blocks until a discussion has happened. Surely any discussion should be along lines of making admins accountable if they are visibly being a dick towards a certain user, which doesn't happen very often. --ChiefjusticePS2 13:19, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the admins are not held accountable, not so much the ability of the admins to enforce rules. Since Socky and Modus are above the law, it seems reasonable that Sycamore or Aleister should be above the law too. I think if the adminships were rotated in some reasonable manner, we wouldn't have this problem. --Mn-z 16:13, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that someone has to enforce the rules. I don't think that the passing fancy of an admin should be enough to take someone who logs in frequently, possibly every single day, and just slap a ban on him for any reason or no reason at all. The real-world equivalent of that would be giving a police officer the legal right to walk into your home and gun you down. "Someone has to enforce the rules" is not the equivalent of "Some users need the joint titles of judge, jury, and executioner." pillow talk 16:54, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'd say that's a pretty large and false premise; for a start, there is no "law", simply what is considered reasonable by the majority. secondly, neither Socky or Modus are above anything; if someone does something considered to be out of line, someone will point it out and ultimately either ask the original executor to make a U-Turn or if that person has clearly gone rogue, or with sufficient outcry, another admin will reverse it. By any measure, it's quite a leap of logic (and arguably disingenuous) to link rotating admins with preventing excessive or inappropriate bans... quite the opposite in fact; given that any level of discerning when it is or isn't appropriate to ban a user is something learned with time and experience. On a side note, I find it very interesting how this has shifted from arguments about transparency to the resurrection of the same old topics brought up previously. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 16:46, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

It's all part of the same issue, which is that admins are not held accountable. When was the last time a admin was de-opped for abuse of power. There was a recent de-opping of people who had been inactive for over a year, although I believe those de-opped admins still have the right to request restoration of admin powers. --Mn-z 16:55, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what qualifies for "law" around here is "what is considered reasonable by any one of 17 users at any given time," with the sliiiight chance that their actions could be undone if people were sufficiently outraged (and willing to risk a ban) in order to "start drama" by pointing out that what they did was wrong. pillow talk 16:56, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Accountability != retribution and avarice. A good-faith ban of a good-faith edit doesn't put either party more in the right than the other. The fact remains that these are essentially political machinations aimed squarely at affording a "do not touch" status to certain individuals.

There's already "do not touch" status on certain individuals - the seventeen admins. That status should be extended to everyone who logs in consistently to work on the encyclopedia in good faith. You should have no more right to decide that Mn-z is out of line and ban him than he has to decide you're out of line and ban you. pillow talk 17:11, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree, what we need to do is to narrow the "Do not touch" status to a few people as is possible. See my Immodest Proposal below for how I suggest doing that. You would still have people who have "do not touch" status, but it will be limited to a few as possible, and it would only apply to those who have a history of not abusing power (or rather, abusing power less than other people). --Mn-z 21:46, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

As for risking a ban in order to dispute what you believe was inappropriate; if an admin is contacted in a polite, discreet manner, I don't see that issue arising, if you disagree, then the natural option is to do the same thing via a different admin. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 17:08, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I despise that double-standard, Olipro. If I disagree with you, I have to contact you discreetly and politely. If you disagree with me, you get to call me a fucking moron in public and throw me off the wiki. That is neither fair nor right. pillow talk 17:52, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

So, everyone should just be nice I guess. Of course equally, there's no smoke without fire and in cases where that happens, tensions run high etcetera. Either way, whilst such occurrences are definitely something to learn from, they aren't in my opinion anything to have a massive shake-up over. As it stands I would say that I don't think it's necessarily true that you need to tiptoe around issues with admins, at least judging by the content of this topic. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 18:02, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Is it really a "massive shake-up" for admins to agree that if a user has been here a long time, editing the wiki in good faith, they need to consult the community at large before banning them?? pillow talk 18:05, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid this kind of huge blocks of serious text *points up* by saying "I like cake", as in "I think you've phrased your issue in a (potentially intentionally) controversy-inducing way and we should talk about cake instead." —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:55, 15 May 2011

We are confusing transparency with bureaucracy; The process of banning *anyone* is already totally transparent; you can see exactly who is banned from the precise moment the ban is enacted and you can also see exactly who did it; any other admin is able to reverse that ban if needed and any user is free to raise an issue privately or publically about that particular ban, therefore this is not an issue of transparency it is an issue of bureaucracy (or the lack thereof) - if you wish to have us impose procedures and checks before an established user can be banned then you can equally argue that we should thus have the same for ascertaining when a user can be unbanned and also when they actually qualify as "established" (something I completely oppose in principle as we should not have first and second class users)... or we could simply not do that and avoid what I would say are unnecessary, onerous procedures. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 13:16, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

You're right, but my problem is I like cake too much. If I start eating one piece of chocolate cake with other chocolate things laid on top of it, I would much rather keep going and eat the whole cake than stop at one piece. Aleister 13:25 15-5-'11

If anyone gets a ban, can a note be left on their user page or a link to why the ban has been implemented? Certainly for bans that last more than a day like those given recently to SPIKE and Zana Dark? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:33, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Oh damn, Romartus is getting too close to the heart of the matter. Cake, let's get back to cake. The sprinkles remind me of stars in the heavens, and when they are spread along the sides they look like stars ready to leap off the cake and into my mouth. Aleister 14:43 15-5-'11

Also, when they try to edit, the ban reason comes up right in front of them.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 14:47, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I meant that the notification should be available to others to see as well without digging through the blocked user page.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:50, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Digging? just type in the user's name and hit search, it's not difficult. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 14:52, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

There are first and second class users right now, Olipro: the classes are called "admins" and "non-admins." Given that years of diligent service to the wiki can be rewarded with a ban just because some admin's Cheerios got soggy, it's obvious to me that the line between "first class" and "second class" is in the wrong place. pillow talk 16:54, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but can we talk about cake instead?

1234 ~ 16:56, 15 May 2011

Well that's the central point of the disagreement; yes, there certainly is that clear line of authority between admins and users, established or not, but I don't really see any reason to engage in some radical shake-up and blur those lines simply because every now and again someone fucks up. Unfortunately, someone is bound to fuck up at some point to some varying degree of severity. My view is that implementing some essentially retaliatory power-shifting measures simply because bad events X,Y and Z happened in the past is not really a good way to go, just look at the TSA. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 17:30, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of having procedures is to prevent people from "occasionally fucking up." As much as we hate getting bogged down in bureaucracy, bureaucracy exists for a good reason. The idea of policing a community by simply giving the police total power has been tried before in the real world, with ugly results. And yet that's exactly our model. And now one of our hardest-working and most diligent users has a bullet in his skull, so to speak. Yes, I think a bit of a shake-up is absolutely warranted at this time. pillow talk 18:20, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

So, essentially, you want to slow down the site with even more bureaucracy, drama, and discussion, taking even more of the average user's time away from writing, voting, or maintenance to participate in small tribunals each and every time a user needs to be banned. Usually users get banned as a way of preventing drama, or more drama from occurring, and this idea would only serve to kick up more drama to the point where:

a) nothing would ever get done anymore; and

b) many users would likely become frustrated and leave the site.

This has got to be the most ass-backwards idea I've ever encountered on these here forums, not least because the very definition of "established user" would become a point of contention immediately. There is a reason admins take quick and sometimes harsh action, and that's for the good of both other users on the site and the person being banned. I can think of many situations where a user, if they had been banned earlier for shorter amount of time, would have fared better than if admins hadn't waited until the situation was irreparably bad to ban. Under such a "transparent" system (and I do use the word loosely) users would only get banned once it's too late. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 15:02 May 15, 2011

So, Skullthumper, what happens if you decide to break the rules by "being a dick?" And more to the point - what happens if you decide to be a dick by banishing an established user for really no reason except a terse edit summary that boils down to "I don't like you." Where's the "quick and harsh action" then? pillow talk 17:01, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

When did that last happen? When did any of the current admins behave that way without the user first having caused them problems? --ChiefjusticePS2 17:04, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

All right, let's talk about the elephant in the room, then. SPIKE has been basically railroaded off the site because he has a history of being stubborn and insisting that his way is the right way, with little friendliness and humor.

If that's a bannable offense, we need to ban you, Olipro, Mordillo, Mhaille, Lyrithya, and Skullthumper from Uncyclopedia ASAP. In fact, if being serious and stubborn is a bannable offense, our entire admin staff needs to be condensed to UU, Socky, and Modus. pillow talk 17:07, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I could list several examples. Some examples include: the half a dozen times BUTT POOP!!!! was deleted, either due to admin fiat or VFD dickery, the time PP was banned for a week for openly voting revenge against on VFH, when Mordillo banned Clemens177, the time when Mordillo forbad pr0n on User:CheddarBBQ/Pile_Of_Shit (yet SSGP's are ok). I'd grant that in most of these cases, the regular user did do something wrong or questionable, however, the admin in question over-reacted. Also, there is a tendency for admins to overlook overreach of authority, if not outright dickery, by other admins. --Mn-z 17:18, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

If you guys believe that certain admins have overstepped their authority or have been dicks, I urge you to start a serious vote to deop them. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 17:32, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I'll be plain: I think you overstepped your authority and acted like a dick. I don't want a vote to deop anyone. I just don't want it to happen again. And I don't want that sword of Damacles hanging over my head every time I log on: tell an admin you think he's done something wrong and face a long ban. pillow talk 17:33, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Joke bans

I really don't care what the admins do to each other with joke bans, but with non admins, it needs to stop. Like for example, Frosty was banned for 5 hours yesterday so "he could be added to his stupud ban patrol list". Unless the user asks for a joke ban, then we shouldn't be doing it to non admins. It's like getting a gun, and shooting productive people on the street. I mean, while we're folling around, some blanker can show up. If admins really can't stand not banning users, then 1. maybe they shouldn't be admins, and 2. they should play a good game of Ban Tag. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 17:57, 15 May 2011

Joke bans should be set to a specific time limit for non admins, say, 5 minutes or less, for example. Anything much longer pushes the limits of the joke. The length of time for joke bans perhaps should be voted on. Too long, and the admin might be gone while a vandal/blanker shows up, as mentioned above. Some users find the occasional joke ban funny, and some do not. There should be more discussion on user pages for users to communicate to admins if they didn't find it funny so the situation could be avoided in the future. Also, admins should certainly leave a note if a ban is longer than a certain length of time for an established user, to open up the lines of communication as to why the ban is given, and what needs to happen to avoid future issues. For instance, a simple note to "Please do not abuse Ban Patrol", or "Please be polite to other users", for instance. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 21:26, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

The ban Lollipop describes yesterday was for five minutes. The guy got banned again for his reaction to said bad joke, which was a completely different matter.

1234 ~ 22:01, 15 May 2011

But i'm also referring to others bans too. Like when Ljlego banned me for 2 hours just because I created a forum he didn't like. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 22:05, 15 May 2011

If it was a matter of creating unnecessary drama, or if it insulted other users I could understand it, otherwise, that should be the type of thing that needs to be communicated with a note explaining why on your page or else an entry on the UN:OFFICE page. Again, if it was a joke ban, I think 2 hours is excessive. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 22:10, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think if an admin feels he or she should ban a user for a certain reason, they should leave a message on the user's talkpage and tell them what they need to improve. The thing is, that can happen to users and scare them off. Look at Spike, he got banned and it scared him off. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 22:24, 15 May 2011

Joke bans (should) never last more than ten minutes. If it's longer than that, it's almost certainly not a joke.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 04:45, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

If they're "productive people", why are they on the street? (Also, I'm against joke bans. Bans, like comedy, are serious business) Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:44, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

An Immodest Proposal, as per the suggestion of Zombiebaron

Here is my suggestion for ending admin dickery. First off, de-op all admins and bureaucrats except for User:Modusoperandi, User:Sockpuppet of an unregistered user, and User:Under user, and make the said 3 admins bureaucrats.

Admins will be elected every month for 1 month at a time. An admin can not serve consecutive terms. The 3 bureaucrats will determine how many admins we need each month. The elections will work the same as we did for the temporary admins although so minor tweaks might be in order. The 'crats will have the power to de-op admins if they abuse their authority or otherwise engage in dickery.

Also, please note that this a rough draft proposal. --Mn-z 18:02, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

New Thread regarding the above idea. --Mn-z 22:16, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

AGAINST: This suggestion is like taking a sledgehammer to a fly. The admins work hard, and I think most of them work in good faith. They are also only human, and make mistakes. You could always start your own wiki if you wanted to start over from scratch. We need enough admins available on board to ban the vandals and blankers and huff the QVFD pages created by spammers etc. Besides, how do you decide which admins to keep on board? Most admins go inactive after a certain period of time, historically, and some are inactive for a period of time, then decide to come back for their own reasons. Keeping voted admins on board maximizes the number of active admins to do the necessary maintenance work. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 22:43, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is not a radical as it might come across. I'm just suggesting some term limits (which have been suggested before), and limiting the accountable oligarchy to be as small as is possible. The main point of my suggestion is to have a narrow group of 'crats and a group of admins who will be held responsible by said 'crats. Like how in real life policemen are held accountable by higher ranking policemen, who in turn are responsible to elected officials, and only a very few high ranking leaders have diplomatic immunity. Or like on about every other site in which the site owners/administrators keep the lower-ranking moderators in line.

Actually, there was a time when it looked like the 'crats were starting to take control over the admins, and they actually de-opped a couple admins, albeit, only briefly. It was mostly the natural working out of 'crat powers, no so much a "coup" and definitely not a conscious change in policy. However, I digress.

Also, I don't like how certain people think that threatening someone's admin flag is a personal attack against said person. Just because someone was elected by the community to be an admin does mean that the community can't change it's mind. This would be true even if the elections were democratic and not controlled by the current oligarchy. Also, an adminship is a job, not a right. People get that position because the "community" thinks they would be able to do that job well, not because they did X number of edits, or wrote Y number of features, or because they are cooler and better than everyone else.

I'm not suggesting getting rid of adminships, under my proposal, you'd probably see about as many acitve admins as we have now. I might guess there might more since increasing the number of admins wouldn't dilute the authority of the 'crats, and you wouldn't run the risk of giving someone who turns out to be a dick effectively unaccountable authority at every VFS.

Regarding which admins I proposed to have as 'crats, I took it from an related comment that Hype made earlier. I know Socky has more edits than anyone else, Modus is 3rd in total edits, fairly high in features, and is almost always around and Underuser is also very active. More importantly, all three of these persons are generally easy to get along with, don't cause or escalate drama, and aren't power whores. I would have also included MrN9000, but he hasn't edited in over a year. I am also not married to the list I suggested, or the number of 'crats. --Mn-z 23:19, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

1. Most of the admins most of the time mostly do their job, mostly. If you've got a problem with the actions of one, either try to talk it out with him/"her" or, if the Fear of Retribution takes you, go to a second admin to act as a neutral third party. Changing the system because some of the admins are sometimes bad ("BAdmins") seems excessive and unnecessarily complicated.

2. While I enjoy seeing my name above, as it warms my cockles, I'm easily the most useless admin. I can't access Uncyclopedia at work, and spend most of my time at home mastur...boiling rice. Yeah, that's it. Masturboiling rice. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:48, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

A Bold Declaration

Here is my suggestion for ending user dickery. First off, ban all users and IPs, except for the ones the Admins like and then make all Admins bureaucrats.

Users will be elected every month for 1 month at a time. A user can not serve consecutive terms. The Cratmins will determine how many users we need each month. The elections will work the same as we did for admins except for a nominal fee of £5 in order to apply for usership of Uncyclopedia. the Cratmins will have the power to re-ban users if they abuse their privilege or otherwise engage in drama.

Also, please note this this is not a proposal, it is mandatory effective immediately. Fortunately, there will be Cake*. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 18:11, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

*nb: The cake may be a lie

So, what, instead of welcoming new users, we just ban them? And whenever an IP pops up, it gets banned? -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 18:22, 15 May 2011

I really don't see the need to have +40 permanent admins. I think a few permanent crats (like 3, maybe 5 or 7) plus alternating admins would work. That way, you wouldn't have the problem of half the userbase being unaccountable. --Mn-z 19:16, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think we need more cake. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:42, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Is it gluten-free cake? -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 21:27, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Olipro's suggestion still is easier and cheaper than immigrating to the United States (unless you're a Mexican, when you're exempt from their rules). 4-shaped cake*! -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 09:29, 16 May

Admin Cat Theft

Let me first state the obvious: Non-admin users have as much right to own domestic animals as anyone. If we could all put serious helmets on again for a minute: I have a real problem with the ability of Admins to come around to my house and steal my cat from my front garden. All of these dicks refuse to publish their addresses, meaning if Sammy Davis Junior does goes missing, I really have very little chance of identifying which cat-hating Bureaucrat has secreted my pussy.

Any admin who steals animals from non-admins, or even comes within 100 yards of their property, should be de-opped and have some kind of template placed on their userpage that identifies them as a low-life-cat-theiving-fuck-pot! I HATE THESE PEOPLE. mAttlobster. (hello) 23:02, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I knew there was a reason my address is kept secret from the internet! -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 23:04, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Lyrithya stole my kittens! She should be de-opped! -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 23:06, 15 May 2011

Transparency

is one of the shittiest super-powers ever. Also, fuck your ideas of "established users." What the fuck does that even mean? So suck a dick elitist prick! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:23, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

@Dexter111344: This probably means, to use Thekillerfroggy's words, cronyism.

@Hyperbole: I think that if someone acts like a dick, they should be banned, whether it is an IP, Jimbo Wales, or Chronarion himself. It is the admins' job to ban whoever they think acts like a dick, because they, as ChiefjusticeDS has pointed out, have been voted into this position, and, as someone else pointed out, being only humans, they can make mistakes. If they learn from their mistakes, good, if not, de-op them. Now, about this issue: If you have a problem with Zombiebaron banning Spike, I personally would suggest you do the following:

• Discuss it with Zombiebaron privately. If you cannot find a consensus,
• Start a public discussion (but about the specific issue, not a general one like this forum). This would basically have the same effect as your proposal, only afterwards. If this doesn't get you anywhere,
• Start a vote to de-op Zombiebaron. If this does not yield your desired result,
• Get over it.

Schamschi, 01:24, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

I tried to start a vote to de-op forum, but I it was protected by the admins, but I digress. The point of this forum is not that Admin X abused power when he did that one thing that time. I could easily name 3 admins who engaged in worse abuse of power than Zombiebaron. (For the sake of drama control, I won't mention their names.) The point if the whole system is broken, i.e. we need a system in which doesn't do the equivalent of giving every policeman diplomatic immunity.

Also, I wouldn't put too much weight on that fact that a person was voted into a position. If you are unfamiliar with how VFS works, the admins effectively control it. And even if it was one-man-one vote, admin-ships exist to administer the wiki, not as a reward for having a high edit count, writing featured articles, winning popularity contests, et cetera. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that a person should be removed from such position because of abuse of power, inactivity, or even because having 40+ being co-rulers of the wiki is believed to a bad idea. --Mn-z 01:49, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Also, I predict that there is a 99.9999754% chance that any vote to de-op will be unsuccessful or protected/deleted by the admins. Also, ad-hoc votes for de-oping are a bad way to go about doing that. The wiki would need some sort of system to de-op people before we could even have a vote on it. --Mn-z 01:50, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

An established user is someone who's been around long enough that it's obvious he's not a vandal or troll. Don't make this more complicated than it needs to be. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 02:32, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds pretty elitist to me. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:34, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Let's make everyone unhappy: A compromise

Being banned sucks. I don't know if admins realize this, but it really sucks. Being blocked from a volunteers project that you're contributing to in earnest is not only a slap in the face to the user, but (believe it or not) it holds back the project, because chances are the user is making 100 good edits for every 1 that rustles an admin's jimmies. I don't know if I'd go so far to say that it's like being gunned down, but logging in to find you've been banned is like being handcuffed and thrown to the ground while you're on your way to work.

So if being banned is a serious punishment (and it is; didn't you read anything I wrote?) then serious thought should go into it. The way it is now, the deliberation that goes into the ban is nowhere near appropriate considering the crime. For instance, Hyperbole was just banned for a day by a hot-headed admin who was mad over this debate. Wait, am I allowed to mention real bans that happen between real people? I'm not stirring up drama, am I? Please don't ban me.

It's hypocritical to issue unilateral "cool-down blocks" because the issuing admin oftentimes needs to cool down just as much--if not more--than the user. I don't know what ChiefJustice means when he says "Admins play an important role as mediators and rule enforcers, this doesn't make them better than regular users and they wouldn't be admins if they thought it did." It's plain to me that admins think they're better than regular users and they treat their fellow admins accordingly. That's why it's okay for an admin to ban someone without any due process but it's taboo for another admin to undo the block. I've only been seriously banned twice and both times I had to get on IRC and orally pleasure the condescending twat prick admin who banned me in the first place. The second time, other admins refused to intercede even though it was clearly just Hinoa being pissy.

What needs to happen is that admins need to give the same respect to established users as they do to each other. Having extra tools doesn't make you above common decency, and not having extra tools doesn't make you below.

So this is what I propose:

1. If an established user is doing something you don't like, talk to them. This isn't rocket science, people.
2. If an admin flies off the handle unilaterally bans someone one, a neutral admin should by default unban the user until a real decision is reached. No more having decisions from members of the Cabal being untouchable. Admins make mistakes just like users do.

That's what I have to say on the matter. Commence spamming irrelevant images and non-sequiturs. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 02:23, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Who said the images are irrelevant? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:26, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Being banned does not "suck". I say this as someone who has been blocked several times before becoming an admin. Unless Uncyclopedia is literally the only thing in your life that's important - and if that's the case you really shouldn't be editing here - being banned is an opportunity for users to return to the glorious Real World and realize that their pointless feuds and blatantly sarcastic forum posts are really meaningless in the boarder context of the rest of their lives. Then they are given the opportunity to return with some kind of perspective that they are fighting over a bloody website on the Internet. Not only does that sound silly (fighting over some aspect of an insignificant website? come on) but it's fighting over some aspect of a humor wiki. You know, the wiki created to not be serious. Everyone here needs to walk away from this forum, get a day or so of fresh air - maybe go for a walk, you know, or talk to some people - and realize just how stupid they're all being. Yeah, I include myself in this. So go on. Go out there and experience life for 24 hours or so, then tell me how bloody important this whole debate is. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:33 May 16, 2011

Hey man, I'm all for having a sense of perspective. Let's all forget about technology, wear flowers in our hair and fornicate under trees. But the fact is that when that when you're unilaterally banned, the admin is saying that it doesn't matter how you think or feel because I have the final say over who can be here on my wiki and who can't, and if you don't like it, you can kindly get stuffed. Perhaps this doesn't matter in the cosmic sense, but it makes it very hard to want to come back once you're done with your mandatory perspective break. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 02:42, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

But really, even a day ban from Uncyclopedia is hardly an insult to anyone. It just means that, for a single day out of their lives, they do something other than edit. It's really not the big deal everyone here makes it out to be. If a user takes it personally, it is their choice. I was banned several times - once when I was doing a constructive edit using AutoWikiBrowser, and the ban completely fucked up everything I was doing. But I didn't take it personally, I just went back to it later. I was banned for editing Famine's talkpage, laughed, didn't take it personally either. And so on. I don't think I've ever taken a single one of my bans personally. If someone sees a ban as personal, chances are they are already taking this site and their role on it too seriously and it is already too late for them. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:46 May 16, 2011

Oh dear!

Beware! The evil eye is upon thee!

Hello, There needs to be transparency when banning an established user., and welcome to Uncyclopedia! Unfortunately, we've noticed that your contributions - not to put too fine a point on it - have been crap. Basically, we think you're a spammer/vandal/10-year-old. But don't despair! We have ways to make you talk.. ahem. I mean, there are ways to get you out of this mess.

• Beginner's Guide
• Our Vanity Policies - why we don't care about your friends
• How to be funny and not just stupid

If you read anything at all, make it the above three links. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, try these:

• About Uncyclopedia and The five pliers of Uncyclopedia
• How to get started editing on uncyclopedia
• Everything you ever wanted to know, but were afraid to ask
• Help Pages - if you need help with a specific issue

Good luck and I'm sorry you got off to such a bad start. I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button () above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help or think this template has been placed unfairly, please ask me or an admin on their talk page, rather than going bat-fuck-insane. Alternatively you can ask at the Dump, or add the following: {{help}} to this page along with a message and someone will come along and help you if they can. Again, welcome!  1234 ~ 02:35, 16 May 2011

Right to Fork

In addition to strongly encouraging anyone taking this debate seriously to get some fresh air, when you come back after those walks in the park, read this please. If you strongly disagree with something about the way this wiki is run, such as administrators administrating the site, you are completely welcome under the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license to take all of the content of Uncyclopedia and move it somewhere else. It's called the "Right to Fork," and it's a legitimate way of doing something constructive (read: not whining) with your complaints about the deepest, most immutable aspects of how this wiki is run. If you think you have a better idea, you are free first to express it to the community and hopefully get it implemented. But if this fails, you are also totally free to create your own fork of Uncyclopedia and implement those ideas yourself! And if neither of these two things work, you are equally free to shut up or leave. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:41 May 16, 2011

"Shut up or leave" may be the solution if an impasse is reached, but you have yet to provide a reason why there shouldn't be a change on Uncyclopedia. Dismissing users out of hand is exactly the problem here. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 02:47, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing users out of hand. If a change ought to be made it is usually arrived at with a forum that isn't topping 40KB. There is clearly going to be an impasse here. There are clearly users way too invested in this debate to make any actual contributions to said debate. There is already a ridiculous assumption that Uncyclopedia is undergoing some epic battle between the users versus the admins, and the users are the ones who have made it that way, not the admins. I've seen the word "cabal" thrown around here quite a few times. If anyone's under attack here, it's the administrators, and if there's anyone dismissing facts and rational arguments out of hand, it's the users ranting and raving about this schism that doesn't exist, that they made in the first place. The admins act in the way they feel best for the wiki, and any time they do not, other administrators make it a note to talk to that administrator privately or on their talkpage. Yes, there is no system of checks and balances in place here, but the admins administrate themselves fairly well. When there's a huge uproar among anyone - be they admins or users - admins react and correct their actions. But whenever an admin makes a mistake, it's immediately an issue that needs to be brought to the forums and/or cause for public humiliation; when a user makes a mistake, apparently they don't even deserve so much as a ban anymore. What you've got to realize here that between the administrators and everyone else, the administrators are taking the most abuse. The way that many people in this forum have acted towards administrators, if administrators had reacted to users in that manner, they'd be lynched. There is an inherent unfairness here, and it's against the admins. Every time we say something, you scream "cabal". Every time we do something, you scream "unfair". Every time we try to react in a timely manner in a way we feel will benefit the community, you scream "no consensus". You are not letting us do our jobs, and when we do do our jobs, we get abuse and/or yelled at. Think about that for a while. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:56 May 16, 2011

You guys are all wrong

Clearly, the only admins that are evil are me, Skully, and RDB (in that order), so there isn't any problem as long as everyone knows we're evil and treats us with the courtesy that evil people deserve. Like kindness and candy and that sort of thing. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:38, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

How does that stop transparency from being a shitty super-power? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 04:39, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that notion, actually. Transparency is the only way to stop Professor Opaque. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:17, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

What in the fuckity fucks name, what?

Since I visited these shores last, this page has evolved into a multi-headed duck of some kind. Maybe one possible bottom line is to say the wiki misses SPIKE and all his hard work and we all want him back. Why don't we all consider telling him so on his talk page, if you can get into it. SPIKE is an equal opportunity dick, he speaks his mind and his mind is that of a gruffy news editor keeping the pressroom running. All this other stuff is probably a way of saying "SPIKE, come on back" and meaning it, because he did lots of good stuff and I don't think anyone was really offended by him (maybe I'm wrong about that, but he seemed fine). He usualy treated me like a dick, we had some great arguments, and have a couple of running jokes between us that we never acknowledge, and I bet that's how lots of you experience him. A very interesting guy. And he has a great outhouse (have you seen the pictures?). Aleister 5:34 16-5-'11

Disregard all of that, except for the outhouse. Romartus seems to have inside info that SPIKE is away pruning his flowers and spraying for aphids, as if any of that is an excuse, and seems to between-the-lines it that he'll be back. So I spouted off for nothing, and SPIKE is a dick, and should be banned for months or years at a time. Aleister 5:47

Fresh, New Idea!

Stop worrying about how to add pages and pages of pointless new rules to the website, and figure out a way to make this site Fresh. And possibly New. (See what I did there?) Or am I the only one who thinks we spend too much time worrying about worthless, idle drivel? Be funny, you dicks! Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 05:57, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

This. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:28, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Your mom is funny with a dick. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 08:38, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

my dick smells --Roman Dog Bird 08:48, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

I like dicking around... A while ago, I could have gone on another flamewarrior drama queen rampage, if I'd have found there's something I don't like, but in the long run, getting a 3-12 month "walk in the park", getting laid, and after returning, avoiding the people or pages with people or asshats that upset me actually works better... Whining rarely helps, and arbitrary attempts to implement more rules to a system that - despite occasionally folding in on itself and creating pockets of warped space-time - works surprisingly well, and has the ability to laugh at itself. Alright, off to do stuff AFK, like finishing a couple of girly dressy bits of fabric that require me to get my mind off impending doom in the real world. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 09:37, 16 May

So far

Well unfortunately to start a fresh you need rules, but to go with it you need rules the community can agree on.
Reading the gist of this discussion I see that a few users are worried of admins banning established users.
As Ljlego taught me the hard way, no amount of hard work and tireless effort exempts you from a ban if you are nasty or an idiot, but banning a user (not talking about joke bans that last under 20 minutes) just because you fucking can is pointless, stupid and only proves the admin shouldn't have been opped, again no amount of hard work and tireless effort excepts you from the fact you are abusing your powers, if you are a dick to users and rate them as second class citizens temporary de-opping and banning should become a real possiblity here (if we had a fucking active bureaucrat).

Please feel free to argue with me, if you feel its required. -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs KUN PLEB 09:54, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Snowmen have no opinions. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:40, May 16, 2011 (UTC)