Forum:New VFS

Forums: Index > Village Dump > New VFS

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3619 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I am of the opinion that no Forum can be concidered well-done without having at least one picture of a smilling Mortadella.

I'm not around here much so I'm not familiar with your system for electing new admins but, from what I saw here, votes for sysops have been moved over to Village Dump, and, with the help of my supernatural mental abilities and by combining all the available information, I figured out I should post my proposal of starting a new VFS here. So, here it is..

I think we should have a new VFS

Yes, Recent Changes, Ban Patrol and QVFD do get patrolled by admins on a daily basis (or often enough) but wouldn't it be better to have someone here who's around almost 24/7? To sum it up, I think Uncyclopedia is going through some critical times and, while admins can manage to keep the shit out of here, a new sysop would be of a big help to them and Uncyclopedia in general. My first choice for that job would be Llwy-ar-lawr. He's basically the reason I decided to propose a new VFS but that doesn't mean I'm ruling any other possible candidate out. I'm sure there are more users who would make good captains too! And no, he didn't pay me for suggesting him as admin (It was actually blackmailing). I won't be nominating anyone until I've got the approval and consent of others for a new VFS so, please, let me know what you think about it bellow. Mimo &maxus

Does NO ONE ever check Recent Changes? It took me ten minutes to write all this and another ten to find the mosrtadella image! --Mimo &maxus 19:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I check it. A lot. Maybe too much. I like your ham picture.

Anyway, thanks for starting this forum. I approve of your ideas but I don't think the two of us, and possibly Puppy, is sufficient. (And I've removed the commented out text at the bottom, for what it's worth.) – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I second Mimo. I would have firsted him, but that might have been uncomfortable. Nominally Humane! 12:20 22 Nov

There seems to have been some support for more sysops back in February, if that's at all relevant to now. It's been several months at this point, so it may not be, but I think we have even less activity now than then. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I would feel much more comfortable supporting Llwy for adminship if she was an active presence on IRC. She is still rather new and would benefit from the community-synergy that IRC creates. -- The Zombiebaron 04:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It may come as a surprise, but I have no idea how active anyone is on IRC. But the absence on wiki of some of the names from UN:AA, coupled with her obvious commitment, would suggest an overall benefit to the site. Nominally Humane! 07:27 22 Nov
Actually it doesn't come as a surprise to me that you don't know who is active on IRC. What is surprising is that you suddenly care about electing new admins on this wiki. -- The Zombiebaron 07:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Admin, singular, and specific. On IRC at the moment, just for giggles. Nominally Humane! 07:39 22 Nov
We have IRC stats so even people who aren't on IRC often can see who is active, and when they are most active. I happen to agree that Llwy would make a good admin, but like I said she needs to come on IRC from time to time at least or she will lose touch with the main body of the community who does, which includes all of the current admins. -- The Zombiebaron 07:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
So this site is indeed an IRC channel with a wiki attached! --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I should come on irc more often. The first time I went on there I was met by a bunch of rather strange (to me) comments about a 'Welsh girl's hairy meat alley', and from logs I've seen it seems like that kind of talk or other small talk happens a lot and no offence of course, but I just don't feel like I can contribute anything constructive to most IRC discussions, because most of them, well, aren't about anything 'constructive'. But I'll see if I can pop in there now and then. Maybe my impression of it will change. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 13:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Another reason I'm not on irc very much, or maybe the same one, is that I am never on there unless there's some specific reason I should be. If you tell me to come on there on my talk I'll come on; otherwise I won't. It might be more beneficial for me to be on irc at least semi-regularly if I were an admin, as I could notice and fulfil uncontroversial requests for administrative action (deleting junk, blocking vandals/spammers/etc), but we do have qvfd and ban patrol for that already which I would keep a close eye on if I were an admin, and in any case I'm not one now so that argument isn't a valid reason for saying I should be on irc more now as opposed to a possibly imaginary time when it might enable me to fulfil requests more quickly.

You may also want to keep in mind that I am a high school student, which means that there are certain times of day (school hours) when I can't be here (even when we are at a computer uncyc is blocked by the web filter, though I might be able to use irc from school if I didn't get caught at it), my commitment to be here 'almost 24/7' might suddenly drop off at any time due to schoolwork, and also that I'm a little young to discuss or listen in on some aspects of irc chats. I know Denza was happy to talk about that sort of thing, but he did end up getting indef blocked and may not have been the most relevant or useful example of a 15 year old in any case.

Finally, I have read enough wikipedia stuff that I tend to think discussing things on-wiki is better than discussing them off-wiki because it's more transparent. You may say that everyone should be on irc and that would solve the problem, and you may be right and I wrong, but that is what I think.

I'm also kind of tired because I haven't got quite enough sleep for two weeks or so, so I may not be making any sense and I might spend the rest of today sleeping. Mainly because my time management is terrible and I go to bed really late. I'll try to get things sorted and make time for uncyc and possibly irc after I'm satisfied that my homework is out of the way. I hope I've addressed your concerns and not just mucked things up. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you may misunderstand the purpose of IRC. IRC is where we hang out and shoot the shit. We joke around, we link each other to stuff that's happening on the wiki, we play trivia. Recently our community split into two halves along a rather obvious line of division: the people who don't come on IRC stayed at Wikia and those who do left. Also, you should know that IRC is made for lurking. Get a client and leave it running whenever you're at your computer, then check in on what's going on in the channel from time to time. If you sit down and say "I'm gonna IRC now" you will more than likely be disappointed. -- The Zombiebaron 18:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I second Zombiebaron. Actually I was linked to this page by Zombiebaron. On IRC. Also, if you feel you don't have time enough for the site or irc or such, I don't understand the concept of opping another absent admin. I hope you get me. Also, I've been using uncyclopedia since I was 12. I've been using IRC since I was 14. I don't think age matters that much when speaking of just hanging around with admins and other users and speak of the site and joke around and all what he up there ^ said, but well, that's just my opinion. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 18:55, 22 November, 2013 (UTC)

MadMax is on IRC approximately as often as I write and direct feature-length blockbuster bukake epics (which is to say, "never"), and he's cool, so there's that. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Nov 22 '13 21:08 (UTC)

There are exceptions to every rule. Whether I'll be allowed to be one remains to be seen.

Zombiebaron - I suppose you're right. I think I understand now. About clients, I use this link. Is that wrong? It seems easier.

I don't understand the concept of opping another absent admin - I hear you, Cat, but the thing is, I'm not absent; as Mimo noted, I'm here almost 24/7. Even if I don't have the time, I use it anyway. If at any time one of you feels that I'm gone too much you are welcome to call this thing off or put it on hold, but at the moment I'd say I can usually be counted on to be here, excepting when I'm asleep or in school. I will also have more free time during the various school breaks and all summer, if that helps any.

So...I feel like I was supposed to conclude something but I don't know what. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

MadMax is definitely cool, but he is also not, and has never been, a part of the community at large. He mostly just acts like a maintenance robot. Wish I could play trivia with the dude. -- The Zombiebaron 05:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

MadMax is brilliant, but we don't need another hero. Nominally Humane! 05:55 23 Nov

I'm not currently of the opinion that a new admin is needed, but I also don't see how IRC has anything to do with whether somebody would do a good job at it. This is coming from someone who pretty much spends every waking hour connected to it. On whether or not we need the extra help, Mimo mentions that all of the work gets done but it would be beneficial to have a new admin anyway. Perhaps that's true but I'd like a more in-depth explanation of exactly what that benefit would be. -RA HB 03:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

IRC is more about how connected someone is to the community than how well they'd do admin work, but in theory the two could tie together. If Uncyclopedia is a puzzle (which I guess it is, in a way), you can't fit it all together without IRC. It's like the missing piece, the part that makes it make sense. If you only go on the wiki you're only seeing part of things; it may seem like enough but there's something you can't see and there are things you don't understand or don't see coming. If you go on IRC, you get the whole picture, you see everything - everything there is to see - and you're as fully connected to the community as you can reasonably be, while if you don't go on, you're only halfway part of the community. And if you want to be an admin it's better to be a full part of the community, because you need to know what you're doing and you can't be sure of knowing what you're doing if you're not on irc. That's how I understand it, at least. I may be wrong or have failed to express myself well, and I suppose it's also a little hypocritical for me to say how wonderful irc is since I'm never on there unless asked to be, but I'm just trying to understand.

As for what the benefit of a new admin would be - I'm probably not the best one to explain this as it wasn't my idea, but let's see. More admins are always beneficial, assuming they don't make a total mess of it, because things get done more quickly and thoroughly. At the moment we may have enough admins, but does that mean we couldn't use one more? I don't think so. Wikipedia has about a thousand, but you can request it for yourself or anyone else any time through RfA; we have 10 active admins, none of which are on every day and many of which are on far less than that, and yet some of us think that there should be no more admins unless more are needed. I too think that we don't need more admins, and that Wikipedia doesn't need more either, but to conclude from that that we should not have any more doesn't make sense to me.

Now, I've said that none of the admins are on-wiki every day. I on the other hand am on every day, and for a lot of time, with a very few exceptions. See where we're going with this? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think your first paragraph expresses quite nicely the importance of IRC, I'm glad you understood the stuff I was saying earlier. -- The Zombiebaron 04:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it reminded me of a Science Channel special about evolution of human knowledge...or something. As for the second point, I can't disprove that more admins is always a better thing, although I think you'll find that if you check the amount of admins per registered user on Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia and compare them, you'll find that we're much more prone to adding new ones here than they are, per capita. Which I guess isn't to say that the two sites can't have different needs. I'm still not sure what the specific benefit is though here. Not that I'd vote against, if we're having a vote (which, by the way, anybody can totally start one if they want to, that's why VFS is on the forums now, so it can be streamlined or something), but I'd have to think about exactly what reason I'd have to vote for. -RA HB 08:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

At this point I think more admins is definitely not what we need. There's not a lot of day to day maintenance going on, and more admins would just result in us stepping on each others toes. Instead of more admins we just need better communication between the users and admins about maintenance. We should totally make Llwy a poopsmith though. -- The Zombiebaron 09:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, poopsmiths are something we definitely need. -RA HB 12:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

my main reason for not using irc is that it would be another innernest activity I'd spend lots of time at, and iz has about the right amount of those now. so the definition of community used here seems odd to me, especially when saying that madmax isn't part of the community (hahahahahaha) when he obviously is one of the backbones of this community. how many backbones it has is a matter of genetics. that's my sole reasoning and two vents. Aleister 12:03 25/11/13

Sure, I'd be happy to archive vfd and qvfd; I've been wanting to, actually, and it's kind of something I should learn before (if?) I'm put in a position where I'm expected to based on user rights. I may need some time to figure out how, though. If I'm not mistaken, you remove pages after the discussion has been closed 7 days...?

Aleister, I think the idea is that MadMax is a backbone of the wiki but not the entire 'community' that extends into irc as well, if that makes any sense. And it's not necessarily a bad thing - we all have our preferred places and they're not always going to be the same as everyone else's. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 17:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Maths

Wikipedia has 1425 admins and 127879 active users.^[1] Uncyc has 48 admins and 102 active users.^[2] Of the latter set of admins, only 10 are listed as active. No such list is available for Wikipedia, but we should still have enough information to make a reasonable comparison.

The ratio of admins to active users^[3] on Wikipedia is 89.7396, while the ratio on Uncyc is 2.125, which is 42.2304 times smaller. Furthermore, as Uncyc has 10 admins listed as active, the ratio of active (as opposed to all) admins to active users is 10.2; this is 4.8 times greater than the ratio of all admins to active users, but still significantly smaller than the Wikipedian ratio.

Therefore, if Wikipedia does not need more admins, neither do we. It could be said that Wikipedia does need more admins, but this does not constitute proof that we do also, or even evidence to support that fact, as we have a far smaller ratio of admins to users, and hence of admins to work. Wikipedia is also not clearly in need of admins, though it is always possible to request the right; from here we may conclude that we are also not in need.

↑ wikipedia:Special:Statistics
↑ Special:Statistics
↑ number of active users divided by number of admins, rounded to 4 decimal places if necessary

I decided to look into ratios of admins to users and seem to have ended up proving that we don't need more admins. I admit I was half hoping I would prove we did. There are some factors I didn't take into account - I don't know if the time zones of the active admins overlap sufficiently that there's always one awake, and one or two of them don't seem as active as one might like, though still active. (There are probably others that come around only every few weeks but I don't pay enough attention and I don't have time to look into it right now.) Still, though, I doubt it would be possible to prove that we have a larger admin-to-user ratio than Wikipedia, which is the only point I was really investigating.

Anyway, I have to go disappear for a while. See you later. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is all true, although trying to "prove" something as fluid and subjective as wiki community decisions is rather like trying to "prove" the new Pope was the right choice. In the end it's determined at any given time by results of any given vote. -RA HB 23:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we should make everybody a sysop. Then give everybody logins on the server. What could go wrong? ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Tue, Nov 26 '13 23:50 (UTC)

Logins on the server? You mean like sysadmin rights?

Someone once said something about infinite monkeys with sysop tools. I forget the context. I think it was related to an earlier vfs. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has 31x10⁹ pages. Uncyc has 29x10⁶ pages. Given the 1400 odd admins, that means 1:22,000,000 ratio of admins to pages. Which means Uncyc should only have 1.4 admins. Llwr has already determined we exceed our requirements by a factor of 4.2, which suggests we need only 2.4 admins. Using this as our boundaries, we can round off to a requirement of 2 admins. So we need a VFS to determine which 8 admins we need to de-opp! Nominally Humane! 08:03 27 Nov

Good point. Just to be annoying, I'll point out that I consider there to be a minimum absolute number of admins necessary for any regularly active wiki to not get out of hand, and my guess is it's somewhere above 2.4; but this wouldn't be easy to prove without actually setting it up. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Dexter 2013!

Score: dicks

Vote Dex because he's the greatest, dammit. Not Dexter 20:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure, you'd probably be fine at it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
He's the greatest. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Wed, Nov 27 '13 21:39 (UTC)
For. We are voting for sandwiches, right? Nominally Humane! 10:26 27 Nov
Only if Dexter is a sandwich. I might be one too. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm the sandwich nobody will eat. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The other other white meat. Nominally Humane! 02:17 28 Nov
What a faggot ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
No -- The Zombiebaron 02:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

[1] wikipedia:Special:Statistics

[2] Special:Statistics

[3] umber of active users divided by number of admins, rounded to 4 decimal places if necessary

[1]

[2]

[3]

Forum:New VFS

Maths

Dexter 2013!

Navigation menu

Search