Forum:Who Admins the Admins?

Forum:Who Admins the Admins? Tompkins Does... and BENSON

left

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Who Admins the Admins?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6595 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Sorry about the provocative title, but I wanted to float a little idea past you all, and this is what popped into my head. I'll be brief, because it's a simple idea.

In the last two days, we've had Tompkins briefly de-opped because he banned a user for adding "in bed" to a few pages. We've also had Benson (yes, that Benson) banned (although some would say, no shock there) for creating forum topics in all caps. All of this may or may not be justifiable, depending on your point of view.

However, based on the Tompkins situation, I think a better ban system would protect both admins and the rest of the users, and I also think that the Benson ban for the capitalization sets a very bad precedent. As I noted in another forum page, can admins ban users now because they have an annoying signature? What about if they use the letter "Q" where it doesn't belong? How about if their username is annoying? I don't want to go in that direction, and I'm sure most of the people on uncyclopedia don't want to go in that direction either.

So here's my two cents. Let's establish Uncyclopedia:Vote for Bannination and Uncyclopedia:Quick Vote for Bannination. Admins will still have the ability to immediately ban without recourse to these pages in cases of vandalism and the like. Let's let the consensus process solve the problem, rather than the wild west style situation that we've stumbled into. I think this method is more in line with the wiki concept.

If anyone has an opinion on this proposal, positive or negative, I'd be interested to read it.

--Hrodulf 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The banning of Tompkins was an inter-Admin joke, just a windup set in motion by "another" Admin. With regards to a "forum" for bannination, tbh it would be unworkable. How long do we wait before action is taken against an unruly element? How do you stop "sockpuppet" votes from defining the final figure? You are entitled to your opinion, but Admins have a keen nose and can smell banworthy individuals a mile away. We view the previous edits of the individual and take the appropriate action, which for the most case is pre-defined (though open to some variation). Mistakes happen, but its the only method that will work. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Unfortunately, Mhaille's right. (No, not unfortunately because he's Mhaille, but because I generally like voting). We tried a vote system for Much Ado About Some User, and all it did was humiliate the person in question and didn't resolve anything. Bans need to have a quick passage from Ban-worthy action to Bannination. People can always be un-banned for egregious violations of policy, but generally, most admins' bans are fully justified.--<<>> 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Number something rule of Uncyclopedia

Nothing is ever serious.

All of what you just mentioned were jokes. Tompkins was desysopped as a joke; BENSON was opped as a joke; Benson was banned cause he couldn't control his CAPS-LOCK (not a joke, though). Basically admins are allowed to ban however and whenever they please. But they don't. Admins are picked to be fair and have senses of humour. So either they ban and it's fair, or they ban and it's funny. And nothing an admin does is ever irreversible. So don't worry about it. --KATIE!! 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that the Tompkins thing was just an entertainment, but what about Benson's ban? And if voting is an unworkable method, then I'll just have to think of another answer, but I don't think there's any doubt that there's a problem, and maybe it's solvable, and maybe it isn't. I recently had the ban stick waived in my face for what turned out to be a well-intentioned, but flawed effort to try to introduce n00bs to uncyclopedia. While in retrospect, I understand why what I did was a bit half-assed, I don't think I deserved to be threatened with a ban for it either, and I feel that this current atmosphere can do nothing but have a chilling effect on users being creative about how to approach how to make uncyclopedia better, both in terms of how it runs, as well as its articles. --Hrodulf 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also... This isn't a democracy. I mean, it looks like it is, and it sometimes talks like it is, but it's really not. Enacting a forum like this would get in the way of an Admin's job. The admins here are all trustworthy individuals. They wouldn't be admins if they hadn't proven themselves. Things like VFH, VFD, etc. help the community, because they are a measure of what uncyclopedians find funny and unfunny. Vandals and whatnot should be left to the admins. The proposed forum would just get ignored by most admins anyway. If anything, it would only serve as a speed bump. If you really have a problem with a specific admin, talk to them, or talk to me, or put up a forum post about them. It'll get reviewed, but I don't think anyone will have any major problems with any admins we have. --PantsMacKenzie 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Case in point; I think I was banned for a minute or so for posting this. Tell me, is this the type of atmosphere you think is appropriate for uncyclopedia? You're entitled to, and I'm not taking it personally because it was a joke, but tell me that this doesn't have a tendency to make people afraid to say what's on their minds. And isn't that part of what makes a wiki work? And I know now the voting idea is unworkable, is there another solution to this issue? And as for the caps lock thing, I don't really see what the problem was, and if it was a problem, I don't see why it warranted a ban. I certainly don't see why what I said here warranted a ban, apparently, either, even though it looks like it was a joke--Hrodulf 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's called an edit conflict..   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great parody of the power hungry mods of wikipedia, of course. And remember, this isn't a democracy any more then America is. Uncyclopedia is a democratic republic.--Moogle.EXE 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were an autonomous collective... (sorry, couldn't resist) --cScott 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the massive amount of cruft we get. Some toes will get stepped on as an admin tries to keep users from doing questionable things. Each admin is reasonable, if you are threatened with a ban and didn't deserve it, it is only because of the tight rein that needs to be exerted on the stupidity of the general populace, and is no way intended to be an insult to a person. When 80% of the pages we get are "OGM, Ghey!" or similar, sometimes trigger fingers get itchy. --PantsMacKenzie 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With regards to what Pants said...have a look at my deletion log [[1]] for just today, to see the amount of rubbish I have to get rid of. Thats only what I delete, if doesn't show what I have to read and judge, responses to other users, and everything else that Admins have thrown at them. Not complaining, its just the way of things. With great power comes....something or other.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Yeah, Users can always question there bans, and whenever a user contacts me about a ban.. or even a deleted page, I try to be as lenient as possible. Granted, I'm not gonna go around unbanning Crack vandals, but if it was something minor that I may have over-reacted to, I'll do my best to fix the situation.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to come up with a counter-proposal based on what's been noted here. Although it'll probably get me banned again. I suppose that's the cost of caring sometimes. And I try not to have personal issues with anyone here, after all, I'm the author of Uncyclopedia:How To Get Started Editing#A_few_words_about_personality_conflicts--Hrodulf 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And no, Tompkins, it wasn't an edit conflict. I was banned. Here's the log. You can see for yourself if you like:

"18:08, 7 June 2006 Savethemooses blocked "Hrodulf (contribs)" with an expiry time of 5 minutes (NOT PUTING FORUM TOPIC IN ALL CAPS!!!)"

I'm not quite enough of a moron to be able to confuse an edit conflict with being banned. But I'm working on it, and maybe someday I will be! --Hrodulf 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I just kind of assumed because I was getting a ton of them as well... and you said like a minute... whatever.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, my ban log is probably ten times longer than yours. And I deserved NONE OF THEM. YOU HEAR THAT, RC?? NONE OF THEM!!! --KATIE!! 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mine's quite lengthy as well... but I deserved a couple of them... maybe.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind getting banned as long as it's not long enough to unqualify me for GotM. I do mind what this may be doing to uncyclopedia if we don't find a way to deal with the ban first ask questions later situation. Maybe instead of changing procedures we just need an equivalent of my HowTo article for n00bs, only for Admins. --Hrodulf 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean Imaginary Admin Guidelines? --KATIE!! 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of Uncyclopedia:How To Get Started Editing. And the gag bans are funny, but you're kind of making my point for me better than I ever could in the process . . ."18:35, 7 June 2006 Tompkins blocked "Hrodulf (contribs)" with an expiry time of 30 seconds (HowTo my ass...)"--Hrodulf 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My bans contain not even a single gag ban (;_;), just ones with actual length that were unwarranted. --User:Nintendorulez 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I see a gag ban that I simply never noticed... So that's one gag ban. --User:Nintendorulez 22:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

HEY I ADDED IN BED TO A COUPLE OF SENTANCES NOT PAGES :) Rivselis 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, annoying sigs? Who the FUCK uses THE CAPS LOCK, the letter Q, and annoying sigs??!?!

~MisterSimulaqrumQaputosis18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I thought I put in a "nounderlinelink" span. ~ Simulacrum Caputosis 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you came in kind of lateon that one, Simmy...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to post a while ago, but I am at work, so the uncommon event of me actually doing something for my pay occured. Oh, well. I did fix the sig. ~ Simulacrum Caputosis 18:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've come up with an alternative solution. It doesn't really address the ban situation itself, but puts it in perspective so the banee can deal with being banned a little better. User:Hrodulf/BanChapel. Comments? --Hrodulf 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Too appealing to people like me. If I had to see that everytime I got banned, I probably would get banned everytime I logged on. ~HE who likesto seeimages of death18:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We could always change the pictures. Anyway, you don't have to be banned to go there. Otherwise, you could always go to User:Irrlicht's userpage. "Yay" indeed. --Hrodulf 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think obvious bans, such as vandals and such shouldn't require much paperwork to perform. But, for situations that are more of a gray area, there ought to be some sort of check/balance on an admin's impulse to ban everything that moves. If it isn't a clear vandal, maybe warn them. In the case of things like Benson, the Tompkins de-op, and reverting an admin's revert of many edits on an article you wrote (yes, I got banned for that. Famine basically screwed up the page, I reverted, he reverted back, I reverted again, putting details in the edit summary, unexpected ban), bans shouldn't be made so quickly. I understand a full-on voting process is too time-consuming, but at the least things could be brought up at the ol' cabal, and let some other admins and users give some input as to whether something is a banworthy offense. This way, admins can keep each other from getting out of hand. Also, one importand thing I'd like to bring up is that on Wikipedia, banned users can still edit their own talk page. They can stick a template up disputing the ban, and things will be looked at. Here, you have no voice at all to tell your side of the story until you are unbanned. --User:Nintendorulez 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Being able to discuss this matter without being micro-banned would also be nice :D --Hrodulf 00:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's another thing. A calm discussion over disputes could easily be done rather than banning those who disagree. I've been banned for things I had no clue would be banworthy, such as trying to remove one of two contradicting templates. Did anyone simply warn me first, and tell me not to do it again? No. Just a 30-day ban out of nowhere. --User:Nintendorulez 19:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, "the Tompkins de-op" was a JOKE and has NO PLACE in a serious discussion of admin behavior. He hasn't sent me any therapy bills so I assume he actually has the maturity and sense of humor to take it in stride and move on like a true Uncyclopedian. —rc (t) 01:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ya know...

I think we're all missing the point. The bureaucrats admin the admins. There, argument solved. Now we can all get back to throwing custard pies at permabanned losers! —Hinoa KUN (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay, pie! --Hrodulf 00:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But I was going to eat that!!! ~He whois nowlacking pie14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh but it's not solved. The bureaucrats are admins. If the question was "Who sysops the sysops" then it'd be easier, but it isn't. The answer, is, in fact, Oscar Wilde. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point, and anyway, Sophia is more highly ranked than Wilde. (throws custard pie at Ghae) —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, custard! (eats pie chucked by Hinoa) ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 14:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The bureaucrats don't seem to be doing anything about itchy trigger fingers on the "ban" button, corruption, etc. --User:Nintendorulez 15:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad point, and I think it's a good direction to take this conversation in. Of course, anything that does get done about it will be open for debate from everyone on uncyclopedia, which I believe is a good thing. Even if nothing changes, I think it's good that we're just talking about this. That has a value in and of itself. --Hrodulf 23:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have no extra powers (that I know of) other than to +Op users. What Hin said was presumably a joke based on that fact. We have no special authority over other sysops. —rc (t) 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of the sidebar I read in the paper a few days ago, where they interviewed an ice cream truck guy, and he said he's his own boss, so when people say they want to complain and ask who his boss is, he says "Talk to the guy on the side of the truck, that's my boss. Talk to Mr. Softee." --Hrodulf 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay, RC gets it! —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 04:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They can -Op in addition to +Op, right? That's what I was talking about. --User:Nintendorulez 18:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No. —rc (t) 19:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Only stewards can -Op as well as +Op. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody up the discussion a bit wrote "Uncyclopedia is a democratic republic." Point of fact, it ain't. It's an oligarchy: the oligarchs control who gets promoted to oligarch status, yes? Perfectly natural: once a wiki or forum gets too big for the founder to moderate personally then he/she/it has to choose some helpers. That ends up as an oligarchy. Happened to Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy forum and to the Halfbakery wiki/forum. And no, the admins can't respond to spammers and turd-based vandalism by calling a vote -- they need to hit back fast. Yes, abuse will happen and admins will shrug it off because they don't like their decisions criticized any more than I like my articles criticized. Fortunately this is not a real power-mad group right now...in my cranky opinion. Discussions like this one are good because they are a socially sanctioned place for common, dirt-eating groundlings to shout HEY YOU ASSHOLE ADMIN! and provide quasi-democratic feedback to the oligarchy. ----OEJ 21:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)