Forum:Do you want this?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Do you want this?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3546 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Happy 4th/5th July. :) Sockpuppets are usually a bad idea that is funny only to the person who created the sockpuppet. I hope you will excuse me that one. I do not intend to edit again using JFC, so call me MrN or Mark if you like, as that is my name.

When I recently came back to Uncyclopedia after a long absence it appeared that the wiki had more active sysops than users and because I was not needed I stepped down as admin and took the time to edit articles and attempt to put together some ideas which I have had for many years. I have done this to some extent on the user page of Jesus F Christ and subpages.

Right now I want to make some significant changes to Uncyclopedia:

• Remove semi-protection from virtually every mainspace page
• Remove most of the user and IP blocks

I also want Uncyclopedia to:

• Give bureaucrat and checkuser rights and to all community appointed administrators
• Give sysop rights to lots and lots of other users.

I have lots of other ideas about many other things including how to deal with the split in Uncyclopedia, but for now I'm only talking about the above 4 issues. Maybe the single most controversial thing I want is the making of lots of sysops. On the English Uncyclopedia I think we can give sysop rights to virtually all past winners of UN:WOTM, UN:UOTM, UN:NOTM and UN:ROTM. Probably a few others also. I'm not suggesting making all these users "Admins of Uncyclopedia". I'm suggesting giving them sysop, that is a huge difference. I want all "admins" of Uncyclopedia to be bureaucrats.

I believe that all wiki hosting Uncyclopedia should do this. I believe that if this wiki is Uncyclopedia it will do this.

If wanted by Uncyclopedia I can do this, but I would need to be made a bureaucrat by the community.

If Uncyclopedia do this I will promise to be around Uncyclopedia for at least the next 6 months during which time I will guarantee to keep the feature queue ticking over as fast as VFH allows.

I have included details about my reasoning here, here, here and here.

I have also written a parody of what I consider to be one of Uncyclopedia poorest pages 'UN:JOB', which is here. That page does not completely accurately reflect my views, but it is still much overdue parody. This page is an overdue parody of UN:WORK. I'm talking about those, because they are relevant to what I want overall.

This is a really big problem and I have some additional ideas which I have not yet written down yet, but I'm not here to talk about that now...

I just want to talk about the 4 issues: Remove semi-protection from virtually every mainspace page, Remove most of the user and IP blocks, Give bureaucrat and checkuser rights and to all community appointed administrators, and Give sysop rights to lots and lots of other users.

I don't expect everyone to actually read all my crap, but I have written User:Jesus F Christ/for Dummies which you might please take a look at as it attempts to deal with each of the 4 issues in turn. That is, perhaps before you decree my crucifiction... MrN 00:05. Jul 5

For the record... There was a vote ages ago to remove all infinite IP bans which was ok'd. I was doing that but then neglected to continue. Oops. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I'm happy you brought this into the open where the light of the truth may shine down with gloriously flowing hair and a perfect hourglass figure with breasts like - oops, that's not how it goes. Anyway, I'll read this tomorrow but for now I will just say I don't want bureaucrat rights. I wouldn't trust me with them if I were you. I'd probably do something stupid just to make people mad. But do give checkuser rights to Frosty. I think he's earned them. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 5 Jul 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia

So let me get this right... You have criticised others for not stepping up to the plate when asked, but when MrN asks you the same question you refuse? Actually, I don't think you would refuse because you have balls. ... If my proposal is accepted, I would make you a crat (because you have a community mandate to be an "admin"), and then tell you (as a friend) never to use it. If you make that decision then the "problem" goes away. Tools are only tricky to use sometimes if sometimes you use them. I'm never using that lawnmower again. That's how I lost my hair you know? But I still keep the lawnmower because it takes up no space in the garage. Also... If you did do "something stupid" then we would just take your crat away, revert whatever, and apologize to whoever you did something stupid to. It's not a big deal. In my proposal there would be lots of other crats looking over your shoulder... Also... The point of being a crat is so that you can threaten the troops to keep them in-line if need be. You would not need to use your crat tool because in my proposal you would almost certainly never need to do any of the actual threatening the troops and keeping them in-line stuff. That's what we keep Zombiebaron for. MrN 13:32. Jul 9

Don't worry about it. I've stricken my statement; it was ill thought-out. I actually have no particularly strong feelings about the matter either way. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 13 Jul 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia

Actual response

• Removing semi-protection from all mainspace articles - If I re-call, semi-protecting all our features happened because of this forum. We agreed collectively that we wanted to preserve "our very best". However, this could be very easily repealed and our features monitored and kept clean accordingly. Why? May 2011 was when this semi protect every feature started, and a lot has changed since then. May 2011: The patrol feature was limited to sysops only (rollbackers now also have access, and we can flag people we trust as autopatrolled), patrolling edits could not be done as rapidly they can be now (due to scripts) and a result every single edit is checked, very easy to identify damage to featured/other articles and remove it.
• Remove all IP/User blocks - Removing user blocks from 2007 and shit has no real point to it, since these people will have long since left to never come back. Most infinite userblocks are given out to people who sign up with the immediate intention of being a vandal or who through consistantly being a twat and not improving get thrown out, simply because they don't want to listen. IPs are a different story. People move house, IPs get reassigned and some just caught in range blocks through no fault of their own. I've rarely resorted to infinite IP bans myself (except in cases where it's a long term vandal who I know is editing on open proxy or such), however in the past this wasn't the case and infinite IP bans were given out for trivial reasons (vandalism to a few pages), I started removing these blocks in 2012 but I simply neglected to continue, sure, I could start that up again.
• Give bureaucrat/checkuser to all current sysops - I disagree partially. Bureaucrats can only do one thing that admins can't and that is appoint administrators and other bureaucrats (very rarely done)/remove these groups (even more rarely done). Although it wouldn't damage the site, it wouldn't really benefit the site to have 50 bureaucrats. Illogicopedia and ED both get along just fine with less than 5 each, Wikipedia has 35 (and over 4 million pages), so as you can see it's a right that only really needs to be held by a few at any given time to see the site function well (Zombiebaron and RAHB are the only currently active ones, MadMax was recently active but now isn't). If anything, I'd be in favor of removing it from the bureaucrats that have buggered off. Checkuser is a different story. True, it's again only one extra right and also deals with privacy issues, but it could also be heaps useful to administrators blocking spam accounts who also want to stop the IP from creating more spam accounts to just do it themselves, if people are paranoid about abuse, that is what the checkuser log is for, so check users can keep an eye on each other, to make sure it's not being abused.
• Give sysop status to lot and lot of other users - Yep there are plenty of users on this site that have been here for years and could easily be trusted with it. Conversely, there are plenty of users on the sysop list that haven't been on the site in years and should have it removed for inactivity. ED does this, it keeps it's sysop list nice and up to date to reflect the most active, trusted users. Their system not only merits users that should have it, but removes it from users that show inactivity/abuse it. You edit regularly and are trustworthy you get it, you snooze you lose, you abuse you lose. We have far too many admins on out list that are just plain and simple not active, and more than likely to never come back. If they do come back, the rights can easily be restored if they show signs of wanting to hang around. Seriously, Kip the Dip, Mr-ex777, Shabidoo, Leverage, MagicBus, Matthlock; these people have been around for some cases literally years. Black flamingo11, PantsMacKenzie, RabbiTechno, TKF, Rcmurphy; these people have been absent for some cases literally years. I don't think it's fair that people absent since early 2013 (or even earlier) can just waltz in, and be higher up the chain of command than people that have been here all along. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 01:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is one of many reasons why we need to make lots of Bureaucrats. I think I'm on the money when I say that the perceptions of others matter. I want to send a very clear message that Uncyclopedia is controlled equally and collectively by all community appointed admins, currently some people don't think that is the case. I want to change that.

Thanks for your comments man. MrN 15:52. Jul 5

Per "Although it wouldn't damage the site, it wouldn't really benefit the site to have 50 bureaucrats. Illogicopedia and ED both get along just fine with less than 5 each, Wikipedia has 35" Well we are a parody of wikipedia. Why do we only currently have 2? Why don't we have 35? I think it would be funnier if we had more crats than wikipedia. Actually I think that would be very funny. I agree that most of them would probably never edit the wiki again, but what the hell. Does it matter?

I do understand what you are talking about with wanting to trim the admin lists and keep things fresh. Maybe I'm trying to go about doing something similar in a different way. My main wish is that everyone on UN:AA is the same. I'm not against adding and removing user rights over time in principle, so long as the motive is to encourage users to return to Uncyclopedia. So, maybe in the future we could change things again in whatever way if we wanted to spice it up again. Right now, I want to give crat to EVERY sysop Uncyclopedia has ever had. I wonder if that might make some of them return to Uncyclopedia... Also, per freshness... I happen to think that right now, doing what I propose would freshen things up. A lot... Can you not smell that clean air drifting through the window which is open just a crack? MrN 13:32. Jul 9

Response from a newb

If I make a long post, I'll ramble, so I'll keep this quick. I'm in support of all the points made by you, MrN9k, and once I get on a real computer, I'll make a slightly better response than this, but I'm mostly in favor. -The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 07:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Go for it! MrN 13:32. Jul 9

My two cents

In my humble opinion as an experienced Bureaucrat/administrator ( abeit on other wiki's than this one )

• Remove most of the user and IP blocks
  • This is not a good idea because most of those blocks are there for a reason

• Give bureaucrat and checkuser rights and to all community appointed administrators
  • This is a real bad idea, not all administrators are bureaucrat material. On every and any wiki including this one.
    • This is an even worst idea, Checkuser rights should be given to a very select group of very matured users, Checkuser is a tool that should not be taken lightly, the same goes for deleterevision.

• Give sysop rights to lots and lots of other users.
  • This is a vague one, please define lots and lots of users. Sysop rights should not be given out too soon, not even when the traffic on the wiki demands it, it's very easy to grant sysop tools to a user but when that user proves him/herself not stable and able enough to use them you create SPIKE'S this is how you get SPIKE'S!! DO YOU WANT SPIKE'S ON YOUR WIKI?!?!?

I don't care enough about the unprotecting of a bunch of pages, sure those protections are there for a reason, sure you could re-protect them when they become prone to edit wars / vandalism, sure you could request a specific page to be unlocked to edit it, be you an anon or whatever, sure you can register an account to edit semi-protected pages, sure I could go on and on about this one but I won't.

Madclaw @ ^talk 16:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You said "This is a vague one, please define lots and lots of users". I assume that you did not read User:Jesus F Christ/for Dummies. My reasons for wanting all these things are complex and scattered throughout JFC and his subpages. Also, not all of my reasons are written down. I will not debate your points directly now, but will wait for some more comments from others first. :) MrN 16:59. Jul 5

+Extra comments later... All Uncyclopedia "admins" are a "select group of very matured users" and so are suitable to be bureaucrats, and to have checkuser and all other user rights on Uncyclopedia. If there is any user who is not suitable to have checkuser and have crat then they should not be an "admin". If you disagree, please name the admins? ... This is Uncyclopedia I'm talking about. Per Spike, if he is struggling currently it is because the dwindling community user base at wikia is unable to assist / replace him and so has no choice. That is a problem Uncyclopedia will never encounter with sysops. There will always be people who want to be sysop on 'Uncyclopedia' and so it will always be possible to replace a sysop.

Also I will welcome Spike with open arms on the day he decides to join this wiki. MrN 13:32. Jul 9

Zombiebaron's Private Header

• Hi MrN, I read most of your subpages and stuff (some of it made no sense to me), and here is my response. I agree we should unprotect most pages and remove a large portion of the of bans (all IPs banned before 2013 should be unbanned by now, for example). I disagree with almost everything you say about handing out user rights en masse. There are definitely people who find being an admin fun, and those are the sort of people we need as admins. This is why the process of nominating and voting for admins exists, so that we can elect people for whom maintaining the site will be a priority. A good writer is not necessarily a good janitor. You claim that Uncyclopedia has a "pyramid based system of control", but I see no evidence of this. In fact I have seen the site move away from a pyramid based system of control. Did you know me and TKF were the first bureaucrats elected by the community? Before that it was handed out with no community input. When I first arrived at Uncyclopedia all of the high level decisions were discussed in a private IRC channel open only to admins, now we hold community votes for everything where everybody has an equal voice. Sure we may need one or two new admins, but I would suggest following the usual method instead of picking random names off the award winners lists. Also, me and RAHB never use our crat powers so I don't understand why we need more crats. -- The Zombiebaron 21:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yo ZB. Sorry if a lot of it does not make sense. Obviously JFC is the juicy parts of the new testament of the bible translated into Uncyclopedian. I guess that makes you Caesar of Rome, and me.. Um... MrN. :) ... Most of JFC is not really about the sysop and crat stuff. Mostly JFC is ranting on about editing, although some of what the bible said applies to Uncyclopedia's structure of power.

Awesome that we apparently agree about "we should unprotect most pages and remove a large portion of the of bans". With the amount of traffic we have now we would be crazy not to open up the wiki as much as we can. ... Dude... How long have we known each other online for? ... Getting on for 7 years or so? ...So I will pass on stating the obvious. You know I love ya, and that I'm not attacking you personally, but I disagree with you on a few principles perhaps. Wait. I stated the obvious. Obviously... :P

Anyways...

If I take the phrase: "There are definitely people who find being an admin fun, and those are the sort of people we need as admins"

and change the word 'admins' to 'having power over others'...

Then we get: "There are definitely people who find having power over others fun, and those are the sort of people who need to have power over others"

In my experience the best leaders are those who do not wish to be leaders, but have leadership forced onto them by others because leadership is needed.

Per "A good writer is not necessarily a good janitor". I agree. I don't think we need janitors. I gave many reasons at User:Jesus_F_Christ/for_Dummies#Give_sysop_rights_to_lots_and_lots_of_other_users why we need to give sysop to lots of users not least my I would very much like for lots of our best users to be able to fish back through the archives of deleted content because actually much of it will be useful for them to write with. comment. Did you have anything to say about any of that?

Per "You claim that Uncyclopedia has a "pyramid based system of control", but I see no evidence of this."

When I went to Egypt recently I went inside the Great pyramid, and I know that from inside it did not look much like a pyramid. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to climb to the top of the pyramid, but I imagine that if you are standing at the top then it does not look much like a pyramid to you because of your close proximity and perspective. I assure you, that when you stand back it's obviously a pyramid. Actually the Great pyramid has got 8 sides, but that's another story... Anyway please excuse my dodgy chopping skills. Yes. I used paint. :( ...

This is what Uncyclopedia looks like now.

This is what I want.

Uncyclopedia and all wiki will always have a pyramid based system of control because there are various different levels of user rights. What I want for Uncyclopedia is a less pointy pyramid with a nice wide flat top.

In my proposal the users who are "sysop" and not "admin" will not be 'allowed' to do all the things which the "admins" are like close a VFD or place {{BPC}} on BP. I propose that they have limited powers which we as a community have yet to establish. If they breach these powers they will have their sysop removed.

Per "In fact I have seen the site move away from a pyramid based system of control." I agree. That's good. I'm trying to take that process another step forward by doing what I am doing now. I want this site to be a lot better than wikia if we are going to win... I also want us to be different and do things which wikia can't. I would like to see wikia try to do what I am proposing... I really would...

Per "Did you know me and TKF were the first bureaucrats elected by the community? Before that it was handed out with no community input." - Dude, I don't know what you have been smoking, but it's clearly too much or too little... Before you and TKF there was Mordillo at Forum:Mordillo_for_'crat and Forum:Codeine for Bureaucrat where Codeine and Mhaille were made bureaucrats. I know that because I was on the site myself then when Codeine and Mhaille were made crats, but did not vote, but I actually voted in the forum to make Mordillo a crat.

Per "all of the high level decisions were discussed in a private IRC channel open only to admins" I don't want to argue the toss over the history of Uncyclopedia as IMO it's not relevant to this discussion because I want to talk about the future of Uncyclopedia, I want to change some things and improve Uncyclopedia.

Just for fun, I thought this was quite funny when I found it: To do with Dave and User_talk:Dave lol. The first edit on his talk page is apparently him getting asked if he wanted to be an admin. Lol.

I will paste again for those who do not click any links...

“

Hey Dave. It looks like you know your way around the wiki by now, and you obviously have the best interests of uncyclopedia in mind. What would you think about becoming an admin so you can delete and move pages? --Paulgb Talk 20:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup, you were right with the messages. I took a look at your edit history and I don't see any problems with making you an admin without a vote. Instead I have made you an admin and I will watch your edits for the next few days, but I don't expect any problems. A few notes: When deleting, if you have any doubts about an article, put it in VFD or QuickVFD so someone can have a look at it. Make sure you check page history and talk pages. And be more linent than you would be otherwise. Other than that, have fun. I can answer any questions if you have any. --Paulgb Talk 20:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

”

I agree with Paulgb. Giving out sysop is really not that big a deal. Just as giving out bureaucrat is not that big a deal because whatever happens it's just a wiki and everything can always be undone should problems arise.

Per "Sure we may need one or two new admins" Actually I don't think we need any new "admins". If my proposal is adopted by the community I would be happy to be a "sysop" and not a "Uncyclopedia admin". I think some others would also. That way I/they would be able to edit the FA queue as I promise to do, but also then I can not be accused of creating this entire JFC farce to gain crat status which is an obvious assumption some may make, although I would also be very happy to be UN:AA under my definition of UN:AA if wanted.

Per "but I would suggest following the usual method instead of picking random names off the award winners lists" I don't want to pick random names. I want to pick the lot. I think some of them will come back to Uncyclopedia and edit if we do.

Per "Also, me and RAHB never use our crat powers so I don't understand why we need more crats." I'm not going to get into personal stuff but others did use their powers without community approval so the precedent is set. In addition to that most crats have in one form or another made unilateral threats to provide discipline when they felt it was needed. I have no problem with that at all. That is what crats are for... Threatening someone with an action is a lot better than doing it, and I don't think crats should need to ask for community approval before warning someone. What I do have a problem with is a situation where a small group of only 2 or 3 users are the only users who are able to effectively threaten that same small group of only 2 or 3 users. Considering that potentially a 1 to 1 confrontation could happen that's unfair pressure to put on anyone. Even Zombiebaron and RAHB. I want more people to share that responsibility. Obviously I accept that in practice various people have access to the physical server in different ways, but what I'm talking about here is the perception of others.

I wonder how different our views are. I wonder if you would agree (for example) with a statement like: "All 'admins' on Uncyclopedia are equal." ? MrN 13:32. Jul 9

My favourite thing about this diagram is that it shows the users partying. That is most certainly the case. And that's why I'm a user. As long as there isn't an admin doing retardedly unnecessary shit and disrupting what users do...then I don't see any reason why users shouldn't just be users. Unlike the spoon...no admin here will allow another admin to do retardedly unnecessary shit or disrupt what the users do...so why do we need to change anything? It's not like users are asking for more rights. I'm not. I don't know many others who are. It's not like users don't want to just keep partying (writing, voting, pissing on each other's talk pages). --ShabiDOO 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, man, users are the ones who have all the fun. That's very accurate, and indeed the way it should be. I dunno why we'd want more rights for older folks unless they specifically need and want them, either; otherwise it just adds an extra gap between new folks and established folks. Don't we want the new ones to come in on the same level as the others so you can all get right to drinking and frollicking and generally partying without any fret of who is above whom? And guns. -— Lyrithya ? 03:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Shabidoo: Firstly I am NOT suggesting that anyone stop partying, writing, voting, or pissing on each other's talk pages under any circumstances. Regardless of whoever or whatever has whatever user rights. Partying, writing, voting, and pissing remain the cornerstones of the creative process on Uncyclopedia. I have no wish to be 'trifling' with that... Allow me to explain...

I'm glad you liked my choice of picture. :) Yes I agree that the users have the most fun. Ask ThatGuyThatEdits who never gets involved in any community discussion, and just edits. He knows what's more fun... Trust me. However what is even more fun than just editing is to be a just a 'user' and still get involved with all the community discussion, but then know that you yourself will never actually have to do any of the things which are being discussed. That is the most fun... Trust me... Voicing off without responsibility. Hell yea. Now that's fun... However as we all know Uncyc is run collectively by us all and we are all volunteers who love Uncyclopedia and so sometimes help out with the not so fun stuff for the good of the overall project. Like you and many others do... Anyway... "And that's why I'm a user" Nope. I respectfully insist sir Shabidoo that according to the above diagram you are a 'rollback'. Put down your glass of wine, and pick up your rocket launcher.

You were able to chose to accept the privilege of rollback because the community decided that you are more useful to it if you have rollback. It decided that because you like to watch RC sometimes and sometimes help fight vandalism. No one likes fighting vandals. Not in the long term anyway. ... They do it because they love Uncyclopedia and want to help out.

According to JFC rollback is a very powerful weapon which can destroy the lives of many. It takes just one lapse of judgement from a rollbacker who mistakes a good edit from a noob for vandalism and with just one click, that noob may then give up editing and go edit another wiki assuming that every user on this wiki is also a dick who will never appreciate their humour. That's what happens. It happens all the time.... Do you not understand the power you already wield as a rollbacker? If a user did not have rollback they would have to click "undo". That would force them to look in more detail at the edit. That would take extra time, and might make them reconsider the revert. They would then also have to click 'save'. It would dramatically increase the chances of the user typing an edit summary to explain why the revert was being made. That explanation in the edit summary can often make the difference between a rolled back noob who leaves the wiki and another who was given an edit summary to explain why their edit sucked who decided to stay. The whole situation is much better for the user whose edits we are reverting if no one has rollback at all. Maybe no users should have rollback? We trust them with it though, because we think it's worth it.

To take this point to the hypothetical ... I think in some ways rollback is a more powerful and dangerous tool than crat. Taking an example: If a crat messed up and gave a user right or took one away in error then the other crats would just undo what the faulty crat did wrong. No users would actually have quit Uncyclopedia, and so no real harm done. I expect there would have been some drama. Good. ... However, if a rollbacker is rolling back good noob edits when undo or better judgement was needed they could easily scare away many new users in a short period of time. Crat tools don't affect the new users and so any mistakes they make can not damage new users and established users are different. ... So long as there are lots of other crats around to fix any problems we are fine. Having only 1 or 2 users around who are able to fix certain problems is not as good as having a large group of people who can fix those problems. What I am talking about is the perception of others outside of Uncyclopedia also...

"so why do we need to change anything?" I created JFC and subpages and specifically User:Jesus F Christ/for Dummies. Also rewrote I parts of the bible, and gave a ark load of other reasons why we need to change. Those are my reasons. I'm not typing them all out again now. What is wrong with these reasons? Basically... IT WILL BE BETTER. and... How about this for a reason...? I WANT IT. Yes. MrN9000 Wants it. That is a reason ...

Rather than asking why we need to change how about you tell me why we don't? I'm not asking you to change anything or be anything different. This place needs a good shake up now even if you don't...

You said:"It's not like users are asking for more rights. I'm not. I don't know many others who are" Dude. In this forum you asked for more rights you said:"Though I've asked several times if I could be given permissions to take care of the feature cue. ". That's asking for more rights, as I said below, only sysops+ can edit sysop protected pages and the main page must be sysop protected which means the feature que template must be sysop protected.

Also if my proposal is accepted I would not force any user to accept any user right. It sounds like you don't want sysop. Fine. If my proposal is accepted I would not give you sysop. Also, if my proposal was accepted and I gave sysop to a user who did not want it then they could simply remove that user right themselves if they wanted to. Either immediately or wherever they wished to do so. Sysops can remove their own user rights...

Jesus F Christ... The day that everyone stops partying, writing, voting, and pissing on each other's talk pages we are all fucked...

For Lyrithya: "I dunno why we'd want more rights for older folks unless they specifically need and want them" I have provided lots of specific reasons why more rights are needed. I have done that here and here. I have also discussed additional specific reasons in the various other subpages of JFC, and in this forum. I have provided MANY specific reasons. Are you suggesting that all of these reasons are invalid? "otherwise it just adds an extra gap between new folks and established folks. Don't we want the new ones to come in on the same level as the others" Yes. I agree, as much as possible I would like that. When you said "same level as the others" Who are the 'others' ? Those guys who all currently now have rollback right? There is also another 'auto confirmed" level which is between new users. So we don't have a flat system now, so changing what I want would not be different in this respect. ...

As I said, ideally I want a nice flat system where everyone is on the same level as much as possible. Especially at the top. However wikis are not flat systems of control they are pyramid systems of control, and actually the more steps you have up the ladder on a pyramid system of control usually the better that system actually works. I don't mind pyramid systems of control. I just have a big problem with the ones which have pointy tops. If you like we can get into a debate about the merits of mystery schools, and the elite and the occult in merit to pyramid systems of control, but perhaps we should take that debate elsewhere maybe... What I am suggesting in terms of user rights is not a one way decision. It could be changed back in the future. I suspect it could all be undone with a few clicks of a bot. So long as "someone" has overriding "staff" or whatever control over the server then its not possible for the world to end. Everything can be undone.

I have seen no reasonable reason given other than something along the lines of that's not what we always did and something like why change? when I have provided many reasons to change. If my reasons are invalid, then please demonstrate to me that they are invalid? Please? ... I'm sure it's possible to pick holes in some of my reasoning, but is it all flawed?

I have many reasons for wanting these things. Not all are written down. I don't want to write all of them down here because if I did that it would make my future intentions less effective, and also distract this discussion. I have "plans" ... But I need this for them to work.

One of the things I want to change is the public perception of this Uncyclopedia. I don't want people to think that Uncyclopedia is controlled by an elite other than all the "admins" equally. I'm telling you for a fact that currently the public perception of Uncyclopedia is that it is controlled by an elite which is above all the admins.

If you have looked at this and still can not understand why I want to do this, then perhaps if you can not demonstrate why we don't then maybe you can trust me a little?

Can you trust that maybe I have thought about this a whole shit load, maybe I know what I'm talking about, and actually it's all going to be cool? ... You are Lyrithya right? Have we ever met in person? Have we ever spoken in IRC even??? I don't think so. Your socks smell just as bad as mine, but I am trusting you. I'm trusting you a lot currently. One hell of a lot actually if you know what I mean... Maybe you can trust me on this one. I really did go to Egypt in real life you know. I really did just get back. The pyramid was smaller than I expected... MrN 00:41. Jul 12

Holy motherfucking shitstomping wall of text, Batman! ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Jul 12 '14 5:48 (UTC)

• Hi again MrN, I'm glad you took the time to write such a lengthy reply to my comments, and I really appreciate the diagrams. I'm not going to pick what you've said apart sentence by sentence, but I'll give you some general replies. As to wether or not I think all "admins" are equal, yes, of course I do. The reason I don't feel like I'm at the top of a pyramid of control is because I don't control a single thing about Uncyclopedia. Community votes allow for everybody to have an equal voice. If any group has power over another I'd say it is the users with no rights over those of us with rights. If 20 users were to go vote for changing the background of the wiki to a gif of an adorable cat, the admins would have to do it. If me and RAHB were to start the same forum nobody would have to do anything. To me being an admin is not about having power over other people, it is about putting in work to keep the wiki running smooth. There are people (and I count myself among them) who enjoy doing maintenance work, those are the people we need doing our maintenance work. Being a leader in the community does not require the ability to delete pages, and having the ability to delete pages should not make you a leader. -- The Zombiebaron 06:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fucking retarded

Allow me to be the bluntest person in the world: this idea is fucking retarded.

• Remove all blocks - Yes, let's let trolls/vandalspammers rule the wiki and foil our plans for global domination.
• Make community-appointed admins bureaucrats - Lolno. Bureaucracy is an honorary title, pleb.
• Make all users admins - There are as many users here who don't deserve adminship as there are that do.

--TheRealSexyFluttershy (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I got wet at how well-reasoned and thought out that was. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 03:20, Monday 07 July 2014 -

Colin: Your mother is not a virgin. :P MrN 13:32. Jul 9

Don't lie to me MrN you know how I feel about your trifling ways - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 04:52, Thursday 10 July 2014 -

MrN 00:41. Jul 12

"Yes, let's let trolls/vandalspammers rule the wiki" - Most pages on the wiki currently are not protected from trolls/vandals and spammers. What will be different? "foil our plans for global domination" No dude. We need to do this if our plans for global domination are to be fulfilled.

''Bureaucracy is an honorary title" - actually the honorary titles of Uncyclopedia are described here and at Uncyclopedia:Order of Uncyclopedia. NO user right is ever granted as any kind of honour or reward. User rights are a privilege given by the community to a person because the community thinks that person will be more useful to the community with that user right. ... We don't do it like you suggested. You might be thinking of the House of Lords in the UK... Per "pleb". Sure, maybe, but I am the President of the United States but I guess that does not count for much these days. Per "There are as many users here who don't deserve adminship as there are that do." - Agreed. MrN 13:32. Jul 9

Blocking rights

I would never trust myself with the tool to block users. I don't have the patience to deal with a user poking me in the face or messing with my writing. I think the same applies to a few other regular users. So ... no ... I (and a few others) should never ever have admin privileges IMHO. Though I've asked several times if I could be given permissions to take care of the feature cue. --ShabiDOO 10:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The way the sysop user right works now we can either give a user sysop or not. That comes with all the users rights of a sysop. Ban, huff, and (to edit the FA queue) edit/protect sysop protected pages... However... The only difficult thing about blocking people is deciding when and when not to block them. As a "sysop" under my proposal I propose that if you and others like you were made sysop then they would NEVER be allowed to block anyone other than an obvious spammer or vandal. That way the "sysop" would never need to make the judgement call. They would know that if ever they used their ban stick on a regular user it would be taken from them by one of the many "admins" who would be looking over their shoulder with bureaucrat rights. That way we all win, and everyone gets what they want. MrN 13:32. Jul 9

Don't worry about it, I don't trust myself with it either. I hardly even trust myself with editing privileges. Obviously I just got off a 1 week block so I am talking utter deranged nonsense, but there may be truth somewhere among the lies. You can do anything if you try hard enough... sometimes. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:07, 23 Jul 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia

Bizzeebeever's comments

• Unprotecting featured articles. Bad idea, at least for articles featured after about 2009. The vast majority of IPs only ever add dumb stuff to featured articles (such as the one time I found a comment about how "Palestine rules!" in an article about... I forget. Flowers or something. It had been there for two years.) If somebody has a burning desire to improve a featured article, they can always make an account. Yes, as it is, with our five IP edits a day, it's easy to ID unwanted changes to articles and revert them, but what if Uncyclopedia ever got traffic again? What then? Huh? (Ladies! Gentlemen! Restrain your laughter! It is unseemly!) Please don't unprotect our innocent featured articles. They're like small, frail babies. Or just babies in general. You like having to clean strangers' poop off of your babies? It's bad enough that they're covered in their own poop.
• IPs that spam should get a year's block at most. That's been my practice. I usually go three or six months, unless I check it and it's an open proxy.
• Make every sysop a bureaucrat. Eh. See Frosty's argument.
• De-opping people who aren't here anymore, and giving ops to people who have been here a long time. Don't have an opinion on this one. Hurray. Don't you feel glad you just read all that?  ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, Jul 7 '14 22:50 (UTC)

But, but... The featured ones are the ones they want to edit! We let them edit, then later they join up! ... OK I will spare you by not linking you to my rendition of the Bible translated into Uncyclopedian as that covers my reasonings on the page protection thing. If you have seen that, or just still don't agree with me then how about this? ... Also if my proposal goes through and a user came to me with a list of articles which they were the only editor for and they asked me to semi-protect "their" FA pages then I would be happy to do so. Also... I up my offer... If my proposal is accepted, in addition to promising to stick around Uncyclopedia for the next 6 months to update the FA queue, I will also add every Uncyclopedia FA article to my own watchlist and will personally take responsibility for making sure that all vandalism to these articles is removed. I don't want them to stay the same I want our FA articles better!

"Don't have an opinion on this one. Hurray. Don't you feel glad you just read all that?" Wait! What. I came here for an argument. I demand my full half hour! ... Yes, glad. Glad indeed. However, I question the virginity of your mother :) MrN 13:32. Jul 9

No edits go unchecked on the wiki. We literally patrol everything. Vandalism to featured content or any content for that matter, is never missed. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I would love to vote on this

But I don't know how —  (talk) (contributions) 02:16:16 2014/07/10 UTC

I would love to talk to people to understand their point of view. But I don't know how. I want to know Y you think what you do. I don't think there is a need to vote on anything currently as I would like to get as much input from as many different people as possible. People like you for example. What do you think? ...and more importantly... Y do you think what you think? MrN 02:51. Jul 10

Here

• Make active and established UOTMs, NOTMs, and WOTMs sysoped. This might also go for all non-vandal established users, too. This would make the site much easier to use for these users and provide more functionality.
• Make all UN:AA 'cratted. Obviously. How do you spell bureaucrat?
• Don't unblock the blocks. Why did we block them in the first place? —  (talk) (contributions) 22:13:12 2014/07/10 UTC

"This might also go for all non-vandal established users, too" Don't push it dude.  :) I have no wish for everyone on the wiki to have sysop. Don't forget I'm talking about 'sysop' not being an being an 'admin'. Also, if a user has not won NOTM and or UOTM and or WOTM then they can hardly call themselves 'established'. Also what I am suggesting would be a one shot one off deal. I would do this once. If my proposal is accepted it would set no precedent for the future, and winning an award in the future would not grant the winner sysop.

"Obviously. How do you spell bureaucrat" Dude to me all 4 points I am suggesting here are so Captain Obviously the correct way to do things that I personally am finding it hilarious that I'm having to go to such ridiculously ridiculous lengths and type so many words to get my such obvious points across. Do Wikipedia have 2 or 3 crats? WTF are we doing? "but we don't 'need' more" ... I'm Jesus Fucking Christ telling them we need more... ;)

"Don't unblock the blocks" Relax. It's MrN remember? I don't intend to remove the blocks we need, just the ones we don't. MrN 00:41. Jul 12

OK. —  (talk) (contributions) 03:10:40 2014/07/12 UTC

Is this an RfC? This is an RfC, isn't it?

Neat!

I don't actually have anything useful to add besides pointing out that some people are definitely not qualified to hold rights they don't have. Like crat rights, in the case of me and BB. Now technically we already have these rights because as sysadmins we have all the rights, all the places, but does that mean we know when to use them? Not in the slightest. I'd say what happened, but I don't actually remember. But I don't think it was good?

Also also blocks are usually there for a reason - in the case of IPs, the only long-term ones should be there due to demonstrable long-term abuse in the case of statically-assigned ones, or for general things like open proxies and elementary schools, since otherwise most IPs won't even belong to the abuser the next time someone tries to use it. And stuff. -— Lyrithya ? 03:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC? RfC!!! NOOO!!! This is Uncyclopedia. I suggest that Uncyclopedia does not have RfC. I suggest that Uncyclopedia has RfA or Request for Argument. :)

Thanks for chipping in...

I would not expect you or BB to know how to use crat rights. I would not expect any user ever to know how to use crat rights. No user should ever be expected to know how to use crat rights themselves. Crat rights should only ever be used with the express permission of the community. No crat ever needs to make the decision to use their crat rights or not. Only the community decides that, they just do it when the decision is made. ... So, you and BB would never need to know when and when not to use them. Anyway, the positions which you both already hold considering your access to the server is far more of a responsibility for you both than having or not having a +b.

Per "I'd say what happened" I know what happened. I kinda remember anyway... I remember some drama, but actually I don't remember it causing less edits to be made to articles than would have been made otherwise. Actually drama like that is far less likely to be a big deal if my proposal is accepted and lots of people have crat and the responsibility is shared by many.

As per the blocks yes, I'm sure you know that I know they were put there for a reason! :) ... I put some of them there myself! Don't worry, I have not lost my mind. Well, not totally. I still remember how Uncyclopedia works, and what blocks are for. :) I have no intention of pulling the rug out from under our own feet and doing anything stupid. :) ... From what I hear in this forum especially from Frosty and ZB informs me that there is already basically sufficient community consensus to do what I want RE the blocks. Like Frosty and ZB say it's the old IP blocks which are the most important to remove. MrN9000 still has one still in place from March 2009 for example. There are infinite IP blocks going back to June 2007. Lots of them... The chances of the person who caused those IPs to be banned still being associated with those IPs is now very small. If I get approval from the community I will get rid of "most" of these old IP blocks. To do this I would give sysop to MrN9001 as I think I can find some way to get him to do most of the donkey work for me. I would be happy to draw a line at some arbitrary point and stop there. ZB suggested 2013 and that sounds like a good a place as any to me. My main wish is really to open things up as much as possible, obviously I understand that recent bans are still needed. In addition to the stuff with the IPs I'm also looking for some kinda agreement that some kinda absolution regarding old users and bans is in order. RE the user blocks. If my proposal is accepted I plan to spend some time checking out the logs in more detail... I'm not actually specifically suggesting removing any particular user blocks (I have none in mind currently) but I might want to remove many "older" user bans should I find myself wanting to do so. Currently I don't... Again I would not remove anything "recent", but I think there might be a few users I would like to unban who maybe just might be worth unbanning...

On the RfA or Request for Argument thing... :) I also want to take a closer look at our range blocks, and at some point in the future we need to get some kinda agreement about range blocks. Especially infinite range blocks. I also think we need to discuss as a community a policy on open proxies. Unless there is one already, and I missed it. Did I? To me it appears that some admins think the mere fact that an IP is an open proxy is sufficient justification to ban it. Other admins don't care if people edit using open proxi. We as a whole should try to have a single policy which we all follow. Either we allow em or we don't. MrN 00:41. Jul 12

People with paranoia about IPs that were once blocked infinitely coming back to wreck havoc, just remember that they can be reblocked and everything they do can be reverted easily. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

And we already voted on it in 2012. I unblocked a couple of hundred infinibanned IPs from 2007, and no the sun did not explode. I do however maintain that we don't need lots of 'crats. I am however greatly in favor of not blocking IP's forever/removing blocks on IPs that currently are. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks man. Links appreciated. .. I don't think we need lots of crats. We don't need any. We have what on wikia might have been called "staff". :) Why do we even have any crats at all? Because we want to share the responsibility of giving and removing user rights between users. What I want is for all Uncyclopedia "admins" to be the same and have access to all the same tools. My suggestion of giving all the current sysops crat is my way to do this. If there is another way of making all the "admins" on Uncyclopedia equal I'm open to it. I am not satisfied with the status quo. MrN 01:20. Jul 12

RETARDATION RETARDATION! WE'RE #2! WE'RE #2! PEACE! THE WORLD IS SQUARE! --TheRealSexyFluttershy (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Why can't I seem to find a desktop lately? Bah, I'll just type from my tablet. While more sysops isn't necessarily a bad thing, it isn't needed too much atm, due to lower edit counts than before. However, if infinib& IPs are getting unbanned, I'm sure some are public IPs, like schools and shit. So if IPs are getting unbanned, then more sysops might help. Of course (unrelated kinda), we should also advertise Uncyc more. Fire up the ol' YouToobez and the facespace or whatever you crazy kids use. That might bring in more fresh blood, both good and bad. But I digress... I think. In protecting feechurd ærtikulz doesn't seem necessary, and most active users can edit them. Giving the AA crat powah is fine by me. And I should stop typing before I start rambling. Stay tuned. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 19:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Lyrithya

MrN, these are some really huge blocks of text. Frankly if you can't even take the time to consolidate your thoughts into a single concise proposal (this applies even more so to your subsequent responses), I really don't understand why you would expect anyone else to take the time to consider this properly either. In that vein, I'm just going to back away now. Sorry. -— Lyrithya ༆ 22:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I did consolidate my thoughts into a single concise proposal. I was very concise:

Right now I want to make some significant changes to Uncyclopedia:

• Remove semi-protection from virtually every mainspace page
• Remove most of the user and IP blocks

I also want Uncyclopedia to:

• Give bureaucrat and checkuser rights and to all community appointed administrators
• Give sysop rights to lots and lots of other users.

That is my proposal. My reasons are complex, and this is a big deal. That is why there are really huge blocks of text. MrN 22:45. Jul 12

Most of these text blocks are him trying to sell his ideas to people that don't like them. If people actually read this whole thing, the aims are pretty simple. I'd like to propose we vote on all these points instead of just querying his thoughts and he responds to the queries, because you know, it's harder to deduce what people want to happen than having a straight forward vote. So make a bunch of headings:

• Remove semi-protect from mainspace articles
• Remove all IP permabans
• Remove all user permabans
• Give bureaucrat to all community appointed admins
• Give checkuser to all community appointed admins
• Give sysop to lots and lots of other users

This would give better results in terms of gauging what people think, rather than massive text blocks in this forum. Do it, yeah! ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You changed my words already in how you paraphrased what I said above! Now I know how Jesus feels... Can we not vote on anything yet please? There is no rush. Is there a rush? MrN 23:56. Jul 12

Yet another response of some sort

This is not complete -- I haven't necessarily thought about everything, and don't intend to; I'm afraid I have other priorities.

• Give adminship to lots and lots of users--Everyone who won those awards is a pretty wide range of people. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that; lots of admins could be a very good thing, as you say--but the main problem I see with it is that most of them are no longer active and many haven't even logged in. Adminship may ordinarily be restricted based on whether we need more admins, but even laying that aside, we have other restrictions--we pick people who are actively doing admin stuff and seem to be doing it well. That description doesn't apply to most winners of UOTM etc, IMHO. (Particularly the first part, as there are quite a few people floating around who would make fine admins if only they'd pop round more often. Puppy, Simsilikesims and Sycamore, for example.)
  There's also the issue of people not wanting to be admins. Let's face it--nobody who really knows what adminship is could easily conclude that it was just so much fun that they just really wanted to have it. As Puppy once said, it's more of a chore than a reward. There are four people who I would consider active and knowledgeable enough to be admins: Snarglefoop, Aleister, Shabidoo and Cat the Colourful. All four of them have been spoken to on the subject and all four have made reasonably clear that they don't want adminship. Shabidoo and Aleister have actually been nominated in VFS on at least one occasion and they rejected their nominations.
• Give bureaucrat powers to all current sysops--Basically the same problem I have with giving adminship to lots of users--the vast majority of admins aren't active. (Whether they should be desysopped for being inactive is something else worth considering, but not here.) Also, per Frosty I'm not sure I see a need for more bureaucrats.
• Remove semiprotection from most pages--I could go either way on this one. We have patrolled edits, a number of RC patrollers, and fewer malicious IPs, which does indeed lessen the need for protection, but I also don't see a great need for removing the protection because, well, featured articles don't really need to be edited. (There are other semiprotected pages lying around, yes, which that argument does not apply to. I have no real argument against unprotecting those (mainly since I'm not familiar with the circumstances under which most pages were protected), except that I know certain pages have been the target of repeat vandals/spambots and unprotecting them risks increasing the rollbackers' and admins' workload. We can always cross that bridge when we come to it, though.)
  Another option is to use the flagged revisions extension. Flagged revisions is a sort of middle ground between semiprotection and open editing--it allows the page to be openly editable while only showing the reader the last 'approved' revision. Approved/reviewed revisions are those that were made by autoconfirmed users or approved by a special user group called 'reviewers'. I know I've oversimplified a bit here; there's more/better information on MediaWiki's extension documentation page. (FWIW, Flagged Revisions seems to have essentially replaced patrolled edits on Wikimedia projects; they don't use patrolled edits anymore except on the first revision of a page, and autoreviewed users are actually referred to as autopatrolled on MediaWiki.)

There's my negative two cents. Hope it helps. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:39, 13 Jul 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia

Flagged revisions is generally considered to be a bad move on projects where security and the like aren't a concern, though it can be made to work when there is a real need for it. The problem is, it often has the same barrier effect as straight-up protection, with also adding the complication of logged-in users and anonymous users seeing different things. This makes it more difficult for these groups to communicate, and also gets in the way of fixing and reporting bugs and other bad stuff. Example: IP L sees blah and tries to report it and user G has no idea what they are talking about and cannot help them, or worse, hundreds of IPs see a problem and none of them know how to report it, but since no users see it, despite users being far more likely to report or fix things, it never gets fixed at all. (Example of this effect caused by something else: the mainpage was apparently recently broken for IPs only - no idea why or how long this was going on, because none of us could see it because we were logged in.) On mw.org flagged revisions was finally removed just recently for similar reasons, as well as just plan not really helping anything. -— Lyrithya ༆ 17:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's my two cents, MrN9000

You don't think users who haven't won any of those stupid "Of the month" awards are established? Well, I have been around this wiki for four years. In that time, I have scored 3 successful VFH nominations, and infinitely more successful VFD nominations (i.e, I nominated an article for deletion and it got deleted). So to your disgraceful, elitist assertion, I say good day! Lord Scofield Stark 15:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did not use my words well there. I think you and many other users who have not won awards are "established". Again I appologise. MrN 15:52. Jul 15

Vote! Are all "admins" on Uncyclopedia "equal" ???

Can we simplify this for now to just the issue of the admins being "equal"? What I want to do in this vote is actually make all "admins" on Uncyclopedia equal.

When Uncyclopedia was created back in 2005 there was no need for this because we had Chronarion. Later, when we were controlled by wikia we had no choice. Now we are independent and can make our own choices. There is no "need" to do this now, but we should because it will make Uncyclopedia stronger now and in the future.

Are you bored with Jesus? OK. Let me try some George Orwell on you... Maybe...?

It has been said that "all admins are equal", yet apparently, according to George:

...

“All admins are equal, but some admins are more equal than others.”

~ George Orwell on UN:AA

We could vote separately on granting 'crat' and 'checkuser' to admins, but I consider a separate vote on these things unnecessary. My aim in this vote is for all admins to be equal.

• It is said that "all admins are equal" yet actually they are not. Some admins have more "rights" and so in various ways effectively have more power than other admins.

In this forum I have seen no reason given why all admins on Uncyclopedia should not be given equal power.

I am very confident that all admins on Uncyclopedia actually do need to be given equal power, so much so that if this change is not implemented I would be very frustrated with Uncyclopedia. I certainly do not expect Uncyclopedia itself to care about me or to change how it does things because of me. I do expect Uncyclopedia to change because it is the right thing to do for Uncyclopedia.

There is no Cabal. Vote!

Vote: "Yes". All admins ACTUALLY are equal so give them All equal power

Give all admins with a community mandate 'crat', and also allow all active admins access to all other tools should they want them and ask for them.

Score: 2

• For Because all admins on Uncyclopedia are equal. MrN 14:10. Jul 19
• For Yes. Auror Andrachome (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think the way you have worded this vote is misleading. You suppose that there is inequality, but I have yet to see any evidence of this. The fact that we have an open "one person one vote" decision making process for such sensitive high level decisions like this should demonstrate that nobody is in charge of this site except the community. In your preamble to this vote you use the words "admin" and "crat" interchangeably, ignoring the fact that they are pretty much totally unrelated. I am not against the idea of giving more people crat rights (a.k.a. a button they will get to push once every two years), but I would feel much more comfortable voting for each candidate individually instead of all together like this. Also you say "access to all other tools should they want them and ask for them" which is very unspecific. -- The Zombiebaron 00:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Vote: "No". All admins are equal, but some admins are more equal than others

I think MrN9000 is wrong.

Score: 2

1. Nyeh All 4 level ups (Autopatrolled --> Rollback --> Administrator --> Bureaucrat) should always be earned. The first two, are simply handed out by administrators to people who have earned it by making positive edits for a few weeks/months. Adminship takes months (at the very least) of dedication and shouldn't be handed by bureaucrats at whim, candidates should be elected into the role. I know I said I'd like to see new admins replace old ones, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be subject to a process of voting. Bureaucratship takes years of dedication, and should still be subject to a vote. Lyrithya and Bizzeebeever are on UN:AA and have both stated they aren't interested in being bureaucrats, so yeah, should be a separate community vote and not just a part of the adminship package, because I mean, I don't think it is. You fucking own the place pretty much, there is literally no more rights to be gained and nobody can boss ya around. Not to mention your e-dick is about the size of a zeppelin at this point. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Rock-O-Jello ❤ (I'm listening...) 01:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose the idea of all admins being equal. If all admins were equal, why would we have different kinds of them? There are reasons for the way things are set up now. We need different user groups to accommodate editors who can be trusted with different abilities. Obviously most editors have subtly different sets of abilities and creating different user groups for all of them would be way too much of a pain in the butt, but if one argues that all admins are equal, one could extend it (not that anyone has, or would; I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth please) to saying that all editors should also be equal -- that if we let someone edit we should also trust them with rollback and blocking rights etc. That is obviously a silly thing no one would say, but think of it this way: The idea of making all admins equal could probably be phrased as that if we trust someone to make accurate decisions as an admin, we would also trust them with making decisions (as a bureaucrat) about whether others should be allowed to make those same (admin) decisions. However, that's like saying that if we trust someone to make accurate decisions as an editor (to be allowed to edit), we would also trust them to make decisions about whether others should be allowed to edit (about blocking other editors) -- and no one would ever say that, but you see it is the same kind of reasoning. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:31, 24 Jul 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia

Let's just vote in a new admin or two

HAHAHA, DISREGARD THAT I SUCKS COCKS ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Score: 10

• This. --ShabiDOO 00:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• STRONG ERECTION Llwy quit or something so yes pls. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Boner. -- The Zombiebaron 00:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Boner. :} --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 01:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Jackin' it in San Diego --Rock-O-Jello ❤ (I'm listening...) 01:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• LET'S ALL VOTE! LET'S VOTE NOW! User:Matthlock/sig2 04:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Here comes the funcooker!!! -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 07:54, Jul. 22, 2014
• Penises seem like an appropriate medium for electing new admins - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 08:09, Tuesday 22 July 2014 -
•   But I know I won't be one of them, because i'm too stupid. Chaoarren Chaohead (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Barnacle dick. - B@NZai k!tten (Meow?)B 13:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Boner. Pick me pick me!! I have an awesome signature code Madclaw @ ^talk 15:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Are we voting for one or two admins?

one

Score: 0

two

Score: 1

• --ShabiDOO 01:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

more

Score: 2

• Strongly support being able to vote for an indefinite number of admins. There is no reason why we should be limited in the number we vote for as there is no real way to tell which number would be most conducive to running the site acceptably, and no evidence that voting in multiple admins would cause any kind of harm. Wikipedia does not limit the numbers of admins that can pass RFA and they are arguably in less need of more admins than we are. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:19, 24 Jul 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
•  For. I'm not saying everyone currently nominated should be given sysops, but I agree with Llwy. I see absolutely no reason to limit the number of winning nominees to anything specific. I feel the site would be far better off with a more varied amount of sysops who are active at different times throughout the day, not to mention on IRC where issues are usually brought up before the wiki. That's simply not something only one or two new sysops are likely able to provide. — SG1|Hereish ^{[citation needed]} 08:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from your God

No, just kidding I'm not your God, just me MasterWangs who can be in fact more accurately described as your representative of the one true God here on Uncyclopedia and in fact earth in general.

So where was I? Oh yes, you don't need a rule overhaul you need writers or in fact any form of user at all, that's willing to make Uncyclopedia not look like a ghost town. Frankly Uncyclopedia is currently a ghost town. But you need people to stop sitting on their dicks and write. I of course, being a representative of a God, can sit on my dick as much as I like as well as any other form of stimulating practice. Don't give out admin access to lots of people, especially not me, I may be God like but I still put gay porn on RAHBs page at least once, possibly more often I don't remember. What you need to do is, help every new user that you can just like the filthy child molesters you are. Once you have users then you can apply fellatio to yourselves with new admin debates until your dicks start jizzing blood. --MasterWangs CUNT and proud of it! 12:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)