Forum:Should VFS be abolished?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Should VFS be abolished?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4488 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I noticed on the VFS page this month that there's a sentiment that the system is more trouble than it's worth. It's led to numerous drama fests in the past (including the banning of PuppyOnTheRadio), and becoming an admin becomes an obsession for many. It leads to lobbying and votewhoring by people looking to secure an adminship.

I'm normally for democratization, but in the case, perhaps we should have a meritocratic system similar to a typical discussion board.

So, let's vote (irony): should VFS be abolished and replaced by something else entirely? If so, what? Saberwolf116 (talk) 19:59, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Vote!

Score: -9

•  For. It seems to cause a lot more trouble than it's worth. Saberwolf116 (talk) 19:59, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
•  Against. →L A B O R A T O R I E S ^{20:23, 3 July 2012}
•  Against. although reform would be nice. I've never thought it fair that admins had a greater say in VFS. And my campaigning to be admin a few years ago was a joke. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:12 Jul 3 2012
•  Against. And I get two votes because I'm an admin (that was a joke, I actually think that aspect should be abolished). -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:19, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
•  Against. Mattsnow 21:21, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
• Against. There's no real debate about a consensus based system or the idea of having a VFS... just one that keeps the nepotism and lobbying to a minimum.--Sycamore (Talk) 22:05, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
•  Against. While I agree VFS is a um... bad system to see the least, the idea of a RfA system would never work on Uncyclopedia because unlike wikipedia which receives close to 50 edits per minute you could have too many administrators. So unless it could be modified into some way that could make it work here I guess we'll have to make do with VFS. (Although totally impractical if we could somehow make a secret ballet, say by using some third party where all votes are submitted to that could gain absolutely nothing from altering the votes would be the ultimate solution to all vote whoring forever and ever amen) ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 23:21, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

  We could easily use google docs for this, but it would be troublesome with record keeping. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:48, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

• I've never really noticed a problem with "lobbying" unless you count, like, stating your reasons for voting for someone as lobbying. Which is a pretty big stretch. Anyway, no need to make things more complicated than they're worth. A little improvement at maybe reducing drama somehow would be nice, but that's definitely more our fault, not the system's. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:47, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think anybody wants to "abolish" VFS. The general sentiment is that the VFS system needs improvement. Perhaps we should be proposing improvements instead of voting about whether or not to scrap the whole system. -- The Zombiebaron 00:15, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  Nah. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:16, 4 July 2012
• Comment I don't think there is anything wrong with the process. I think that there has been issues with people, myself included. However we change process, we still have people involved, so I don't see how this will impact on that. Having said that, I'm happy to go with a democratic vote as to what system we have, but would suggest simplification is key. --Nominally Humane! 02:47 07 Jul 02:47, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
•  Against. I personally think there is nothing wrong with the current system and you have all convinced yourselves that drama will happen, when it only happens when you will it to happen. --MasterWangs CUNT and proud of it! 08:24, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for replacement of VFS

WP:RFA - it's simpler and if we chuck all their silly rules, it might even work here. 1234 ~ 01:34, 4 July 2012

Replace VFS with RFA (sans the silly rules)?

Score: -2

•  For. Why not. Saberwolf116 (talk) 02:04, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
• No. Not overhauling anything this drastically until a new standard is actually fully drafted out. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:38, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  For.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 02:50, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 10:24, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  Per TKF ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:54, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  Against. Mattsnow 03:15, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  Against. →L A B O R A T O R I E S ^{15:29, 4 July 2012}
•  Against. --Nominally Humane! 12:40 11 Jul 00:40, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Could you all stop arbitrarily voting on everything?

And, like, figure out what, specifically, needs fixing and then try to come up with things that might fix that instead? I suggest carefully discussing the matter in detail. 1234 ~ 07:29, 4 July 2012

Vote to stop voting on everything?

Score: 38

• For. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 07:38, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
• For. →L A B O R A T O R I E S ^{15:29, 4 July 2012}
• Forever and ever amen -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:29, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:17, 4 July 2012
• UltaMegaFor+20 -OptyC Sucks! CUN00:19, 11 Jul
•  Against. --Nominally Humane! 12:42 11 Jul 00:42, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Improvements (add any ideas)

• Admins get 1 vote like everyone else. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 00:17, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if someone could explain to me why they are given x2 I'd stop being confused. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:26, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

• Limit the amount a user can comment as they make their vote. Like limit them to two sentences worth of comment, if its any longer its ether really negative and probably not helpful or someone seriously has a boner for the candidate. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:26, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

How is that an improvement? Limiting the length of comments limits the ability of folks to explain themselves, which is particularly problematic with a system that actively discourages voters from examining candidates' contributions and the like - on the rare occasion someone does take the time to look, anything they find can be particularly pertinent to all involved in the discussion. 1234 ~ 01:32, 4 July 2012

The long comments tend to lead to arguments and such which decreases efficiency and has also (although it may not be the intention of whoever wrote it) give the user it refers to the impression they are being bullied and picked on, which was the case with POTR and the comment you left you left last time. A 14 line critique of what they are doing wrong can instead of offering simple advice on how to improve themselves and make them a suitable candidate instead can leave the user feeling unwanted and unappreciated which leads to retaliation and poor decision making, admittedly your intensions may have been all well and good but a long list of reasons why it was a bad idea didn't help matters. But limited comment length is just my personal opinion as long winded comments don't help matters at all in my experience. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:06, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I also think there's nothing wrong with explaining a vote, but when a person uses a vote as a platform for pettiness and bullying beyond the necessary boundaries, then again, that's on them and not the system. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:35, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was the intention but I'm fairly sure thats the way POTR took it as. As quoted from the forum he stated "I have now gotten to the point where I feel that I cannot contribute effectively here while she still remains as an admin, as her abuse of position and harassment and bullying of members based upon whim and favouritism is destroying the wiki." The VFS drama certainly was part of that. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:57, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

UR MOM IS SOOOO GHEY!!!!!! --WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 03:13, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to state having any relevance to this forum topic, except to say that I fully agree with Mr-ex. -RAHB 03:37, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

The intention was to point out why he shouldn't be opped. I think it succeeded, although things did got a little out of hand. 1234 ~ 07:31, 4 July 2012

The getting out of hand part is why I don't like long comments, because not everyone can just ignore it/take it on board. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 07:42, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Yet the reason why POTR is no longer with us and why you are still here, despite Romartus's comment, is because you were able to take the criticisms (no matter how irrelevant) in stride, while he took them way too personally. Perhaps Lyrithya was being too harsh too, but again this is not the system's fault. If people are going to soapbox about other people, they will certainly find outlets other than VFS if that avenue has been deprived, too. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 15:10, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I had some ideas

I had the idea of a simpler method here. While most seem to like having a lot of user involvement, it's not really led to outcomes that are agreeable. This isn't like a final draft - but it might offer some direction.--Sycamore (Talk) 10:03, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of user nominations being so discreet. Couldn't we instead allow users to "apply for adminship" like in RfA, and then allow the subsequent screening to take place? --Scofield & Friends 11:48, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a secret nomination, but I would prefer a system where more than two admins do the voting. Maybe an instant runoff ballot on a private Google doc accessible, but anonymous to, all admins decides the top 3 candidates. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 14:35, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

This idea is something I knocked together just to maybe change direction a bit - ZB's idea that I've voted for below seem to strike a balance of everyones take, while I have an idea for VFS based on personal preference. I appreciate the concerns of Scofield and I like TKF's idea. My main reason to keep things so 'discreet' is that despite the bulk of good contributers, we simply cannot depend on some people here to be sensible and as one admin stated to me a while back, most of the powers that be and community at large are often 'too scared' of standing up to certain drama creating types (who have very surprisingly resurfaced with "Their Opinions").--Sycamore (Talk) 18:11, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

That's an odd opinion. The only thing that I'm aware of where users have chosen not to voice their perspective is when they have been told that doing so will earn them a ban. Having a look at almost every forum we have ever had, users who have opinions or perspectives have felt free to express them. --Nominally Humane! 10:26 11 Jul 22:26, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well there are opinions and there's some very neurotic characters who'll mansplain to the entire community about 'their needs'. I think the community should be involved and have the opportunity to express their views, though the impression that individuals can aggressively lobby, whore or cajole the community onto their demands is unacceptable. 'Have your say, but like fuck off a bit' should be the new motto.--Sycamore (Talk) 08:52, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Drama

We've had a nice three or four month period relatively drama free. It's been nice...hasn't it? Quiet. A nice PLS. A gentle roll-over of featured articles. Time floating by. Nice jokes bouncing around talk pages. Pleasant love filling up the whole wiki. It's lovely isn't it? That's why I've decided to name myself the new anti-wiki-terrorism agent. My new powers are to kidnap anyone who engages in wiki-terrorism, bring them to an abandoned parking lot, waterboard them until they admit to what they did, then dump them on the moon, naked, with a chocolate bar and a litre of petrol. I don't have any clue that wiki-terrorism is. It is so ill defined I could make anything seem like wiki-terrorism. For instance...Mattsnow forgot to capitalise a word. That is blatant wiki-terrorism...but I'll let him off this time because his fragile mind couldn't cope with my interrogation techniques. I love you all...and so I don't want to have to use the patriot act against any of you. But I will if it means preserving the freedom of freedom. --ShabiDOO 03:01, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I just named myself as Osama Bin Laden and Hitler. My single goal in life is to spread hatred and destruction :3 →L A B O R A T O R I E S ^{15:33, 4 July 2012}

New system, Mr-ex777 selects new ops based on how "ghey" their mom is

Score: INFINITE, BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• You know I'm right ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 03:41, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
• For. I have never been in more support of anything in my entire life. -RAHB 03:43, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
• HELL FUCKING YES →L A B O R A T O R I E S ^{15:34, 4 July 2012}
• Antifor I'd lose. My mom isn't "ghey" : ( Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 18:00, 4 July, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:18, 4 July 2012
• My mother is more gheyer than all of your mothers time a nillion! --ShabiDOO 22:38, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Just do what I suggested last year

Score: +10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001

•  For. --EMC ^[TALK] 02:52 Jul 5 2012

Switch who can vote for round 3 & 4

Score: 2

• My proposal is simple, currently users get the vote in round 3 and then the sysops take that result to vote in round 4 and eventually picks the new sysops. I propose we make round 3 (still with nominees selected by anybody) the sysop only round, anyone who is able to get x number of votes may proceed to round 4 where everyone gets 1 or 2 votes (depending on how many we want for that month). Now some of you ask, whats the point? We still have an admin only round and a user round. Will think of it this way. Currently its probably the most universally liked people that get past round 3 and into round 4 where its the best candidates that make it through. Essentially we get the most competent of the most popular elected, which isn't necessarily the best result. Reversing it will only allow the users that have the confidence of our administrators past round 3 and into round 4, where with a much shorter list of candidates users may vote more rationally and not just for their favorite user. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 10:49, July 5, 2012 (UTC)
  • To be frank the problem is not favoritism, it's characters such as yourself constantly bringing up the issue or whining about how the community has turned against because you were not the 'Sysop candidate you felt you were'. The issue it not so much the voting of sysops, it's devising a VFS where we don't have this behavior or detrimental activities. These are just horrible to be around, see reputations such as Puppy's destroyed and take us collectively away from comedy. --Sycamore (Talk) 11:16, July 5, 2012 (UTC)
    • BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I was pissed because being an ED admin seems a valid reason to vote someone done and the community has in part turned against me because of ED and proved by all the bullshit I received on irc and over email. Also I wanted new sysops simply because doing nothing but reverting vandals that are allowed to get to 50+ edits because nobody is awake to ban them and it fucking sucked and I'd had enough. But ok, I just won't except noms in VFS for a very long time now, tired of all the bullshit related to ED, also tired of being labeled as "a whiny little bitch who just wanted things to run more smoothly." ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 23:02, July 5, 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually I suspect your attitude in general might raise issues and misgivings about your involvements elsewhere (and their reputations/issues) . More often than not, keeping calm and building some kind of consensus is better than trying to bludgeon your points across... This is a maturity thing, and as I suspect, a life experience thing. That's not something that comes with extra vigilance towards vandals. Again the impetus is on you, not on the community to resolve this need for admin status:)--Sycamore (Talk) 23:56, July 5, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. →L A B O R A T O R I E S ^{15:07, 5 July 2012}

New hierarchical structure

I saw the so-called fanboys at Bulbapedia (one of my all-time favorite wikis), and they seem to be organizing their admins into three tiers of adminship. Here's basically how it works.

Right above the administrators, but lower in rank than the bureaucrats, are the Senior Administrators, who "can add and remove users from the abuse usergroup, view the checkuser log, delete pages with large histories, and more." These guys are just a bit more experienced than your average admin. (Further information: Bulbapedia:Senior Administrators.)

Just below adminship is the Junior Administrator rank. (I've documented a proposal for this rank here.) Junior administrators can rollback, edit protected pages, view deleted pages, and show and hide individual edits to a page. I've added the extra privilege that they can archive old VFD and QVFD nominations. (Further information: Bulbapedia:Junior Administrators.)

Let's discuss. -- Sir CuteKyuremOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 16:22, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I'm in! Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 16:25, 5 July, 2012 (UTC)

Hm... what's it like to be j-- oomph! :3 -- Sir CuteKyuremOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 16:26, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

I mean, ideally, about 5 of our sysops would become senior admins and about 7 of our regular users who contribute a lot would become junior admins. -- Sir CuteKyuremOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 16:30, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not kissing anyone's ass but if Zombiebaron, Lyrithya, ChiefjusticeDS, Romartus and someone else would be senior admins. And Shabidoo would be a great junior admin. Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 16:37, 5 July, 2012 (UTC)

Zombiebaron's already a bureaucrat, and Shabidoo's a sockpuppet of a well-known admin. Yeah, Shabidoo should be a junior admin. -- Sir CuteKyuremOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 16:40, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

This proposition is technically impossible. We do not have local CheckUser, separate admin usergroups, an abuse usergroup, or the ability to hide individual edits. And I doubt that Wikia is going to turn any of these features of for use (especially local CheckUser). -- The Zombiebaron 17:02, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

At least there's bigdelete and browsearchive. Wikia may be able to create new usergroups, or we'll do that stuff manually. -- Sir CuteKyuremOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 17:09, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Or we could do what RationalWiki does and make anyone an op if they contribute regularly. --EMC ^[TALK] 18:40 Jul 5 2012

 For. →L A B O R A T O R I E S ^{19:28, 5 July 2012}

 Nah. They might not have good judgement. -- Sir CuteKyuremOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 18:34, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Qzekrom Well, they wouldn't be automatically op'd....we could see their contribs and decide if they deserve it. →L A B O R A T O R I E S ^{18:40, 6 July 2012}

Ah. I was thinking, though: the runners-up for VFS or whatever process we use could be made junior admins. As a side note, check this out: --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 18:44, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Not feasible, plain and simple, for the reasons Zombiebaron stated. The difference in the toolbox is extremely marginal, plus it's just another way to make bureaucracy and rank seem more important on this comedy site where no one's supposed to give a sliver of a fuck about such retarded, menial things. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:30, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Shabidoo should never be nominated as any kind of admin

While I appreciate the idea (though I'm not entirely sure if you guys are joking or not), I don't want to be an admin. There's no point as I wouldn't use the tools. However, you can vote for and feature my articles more often. And love me. I wish you guys would love me more. --ShabiDOO 23:11, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Zombiebaron's idea

Score: 8.333... in favor

Ok, so here's my idea. This is the VFS model that was used at the time that I was made an admin.

1. The admins privately decide that more admins are required to keep the site running smoothly. This is because we the admins are the ones who are on the forefront of adminning the site. We collectively know how many pages get deleted and how many bans are given every day. We know when the site is running smoothly and when it is not.
2. The admins hold a two week nomination process, on a sysop-protected forum page, in MiniLuv. Anyone can nominate anyone. Both for and against votes are encouraged.
3. All registered users get to vote on the top scoring nominees from the previous round for the following 2 weeks, on a semi-protected Village Dump page. No against votes. No comments.
4. Top scoring users become admins. The number of admins is determined based on the voting totals and general community consensus.

I think two votes for everyone in both of the voting rounds makes sense. -- The Zombiebaron 02:10, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

So, in this case, instead of everyone nominating anyone, only admins can nominate? Then, instead of Admins-only getting to vote in the final round, everyone does? It just switches when Users can vote from the first two rounds to the final round? Why was this switched away from in the first place? The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™02:15, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why it was switched in the first place. The other important change is the first step. -- The Zombiebaron 02:18, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

A compromise for this I think. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:34, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

The switch occurred far, far earlier. I think MadMax and Strange but Untrue were the first admins to be elected by the system we currently have, and me and Mordillo rode the wave in shortly after. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:51, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

While Zombie may have some kind of sort of point about the admins being on the "forefront" of how many pages are whatever and how many users are whatever, there isn't any explanation as to why it should be "private". Since when were things done out of sight? Without transparency and a clear dialogue and communication available? Its disturbing that things have come to this, where the admins will get some kind of "carte blanche" to do as they please and not even have to account for it. --ShabiDOO 17:32, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

The admins already do many important things in private. Mostly arguing. But we do also have civil policy discussion and what-not. There are some things that we simply cannot discuss on the wiki. One recent example of this that I can think of is when I banned PotR. Several admins approached me privately on IRC to discuss that event. The fact that the admins will be deciding when we need new admins doesn't mean that we will no longer be listening to the views of the community. I mean, if somebody were to hold a vote where a vast majority of the registered users were calling for new admins, and the admins just ignored it, that would be stupid. --The Zombiebaron 17:46, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Thats even more disturbing that there are important conversations going on that we don't even know about. I hope they don't involve policy or major decisions.--ShabiDOO 20:24, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Privacy also works pragmatically against interloping absentee admins returning to the community with little idea of what it's been like for the past few months having an immediate say in policy/important votes. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:07, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

What kind of decisions are you guys making behind the scenes?--ShabiDOO 22:19, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Beats me. I didn't even know we had a "scene." -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:20, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

And why precisely should "deciding if the wiki needs new admins" be held behind closed doors? Why can you not have that discussion with each other, at the VERY LEAST on the wiki, blocked so only admins can edit it? We should be able to see the positions of each admin, their reasons for and against and what the debate entails. Users should not be kept out of the dark about this. Theres no reason to. --ShabiDOO 12:51, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

It does not mean the admins won't entertain the whims of the community, it just means we can discuss it without fear of inciting drama, personal insult or implausibly high expectations of what will happen next. --Black Flamingo 13:13, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

But thats just putting bad faith on the community. Just because there was one particularily exagerated VFS drama, doesn't mean users should loose the right to know why a decision has been made. Just because there is the possibility of a problem doesnt mean you should hold your sessions behind closed doors. VFD has the potential to induce drama...does that mean the admins should now deal with VFD...and even more so behind closed doors? Besides, the big drama fest came from the "selection" of the admins and not wether to have admins. This solution just disenfranchises the community even more. Instead of having one step of the vote involving admins only making the decision, now, one of the steps is admins making the decision AND doing so with absolute secrecy. --ShabiDOO 18:35, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

• For -RAHB 02:32, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
• Spiritual for If change is required, then this is a good proposal. --Nominally Humane! 02:51 07 Jul 02:51, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
• I like it, aside from an issue already discussed with Zombiebaron. This makes me kind of want to come back and do stuff on uncyc again. Kind of.--OliOmniOmbudsman 03:48, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

  The "issue" was whether or not against votes would be allowed during the second round of voting. I have changed the proposal to clearly state that against votes will not be allowed during the second round. -- The Zombiebaron 03:53, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

  Does that principle also extend to the first round? (Just for clarification.) --Nominally Humane! 06:48 07 Jul 06:48, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

  Apparently not. I would also add in something protecting against "non-against comments" or comments in general, too, since some people love doing those so much, too. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:53, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

  Seconded. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Jul 7 '12 7:14 (UTC)

  I'd allow for the provision of comments on the talk page. Votes for where votes go, comments elsewhere. (And I realise the irony of me saying this when I'm not actually voting here.) --Nominally Humane! 08:51 07 Jul 08:51, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

  Ok I haved added "No comments" to the proposal. -- The Zombiebaron 16:20, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

•  For. Saberwolf116 (talk) 04:14, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
• Also let's do this. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:54, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. And if it doesn't work... We can argue some more. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 07:02, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

  No we can't! --Black Flamingo 23:35, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

  Shut up! The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 23:40, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

•  For. Especially the "No comments" part. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Jul 7 '12 7:14 (UTC)
• NO Admins should not be quietly tiptoeing around making decisions for users in a non open and non-trasparent way. Im surprised this is even being suggested, and that users would consider letting admins make decisions on our behalf behind closed doors. --ShabiDOO 14:05, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
• WTF? I'm not sure about this. Per Shabidoo, official Uncyclopedia processes need to be transparent. Here's my proposal: anyone should be able to request that an admin nominate them during the admin-only nominations (or else open up nominations to all autoconfirmed users). On an ideal wiki, it would take an expert to distinguish a regular user from an admin or a junior admin and so forth, but it's different here because we're kind of an odd community that actually has vanity pages about admins being dirty turds. --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 22:40, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
• For. --Black Flamingo 11:09, July 8, 2012 (UTC)
•  Upvote. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:11 Jul 08, 2012
•  Against. A major step backwards. My biggest issue is that it still leaves VFSes up to admins. Why should the decision for new admins be left to the group of individuals whose absence necessitates VFSes in the first place? Shouldn't those who need admins and are irked when they're not around to help decide when it's time for some more of them? --EMC ^[TALK] 18:24 Jul 8 2012
• Yeah. This seems to strike the balance.--Sycamore (Talk) 20:05, July 8, 2012 (UTC)
• Against, especially that commenting bit. Regular users can have as useful of things to say as admins, even if they usually don't bother; there is always potential for misuse with any system, but that most votes here have a comment attached is also evidence of the potential for good, and well-worded supportive comments can still make a world of difference for a user faced with a general lack of other support.
  I also just don't like the only op if it's needed model; just because more admins aren't specifically needed doesn't mean that, provided capable candidates, it would hurt to lessen the workload for the current admins to help prevent burnout and give then more time to do other things, like write articles. Because people still do that here, from what I understand. Write, I mean. Don't they? -Lyrithya 12:01, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

The Burninator's Idea (Joe The Burninator/Kyurem+Woodburninator)

Wait, I think we can have a very democratic application here. How about we get the general public and the admins to vote if we need to have any more admins every two months? Then if the voting is passed upon agreeing that we need more admins, you can nominate someone or yourself to become an admin. The top five candidates who received most votes will afterwards proceed to the third part: discussion with the sysops on why they want to become an admin. After the interview, the sysops proceed to vote, with bureaucrats' votes worth three (Zombiebaron et al.), and only sysops can vote.

So the process will be like this:

• First week: General public decides if we need more admins. Needs for and against votes. This will take place every two months instead of monthly.
• Second week: If we have enough votes for wanting more sysops, then we proceed to an election. You can nominate yourself or another person. Expect two-week voting process. For votes are only allowed, as the public will use a numbered system. The process will be explained:
  • To prevent rigging, the proportional voting system must be used.
  • The general public and sysops number their preferences for admin candidates, 1 being in most favor of being an admin, and the last number (7, 8, 9, 10, etc.) being in least favor. For example, if there are seven candidates, people number them from 1 to 7. Qzekrom will create the voting process.
  • The ones with the most votes are selected. The top five candidates with the most votes proceed to the next round. The rest are eliminated.
• Fourth week: The top five candidates (the ones with the most for votes) are interviewed by sysops and bureaucrats. Expect a two-week process.
• Sixth week: Sysops proceed to vote in a Hunger Games-style elimination round. Bureaucrats' vote is worth three votes. Again, two-week process.
• Eighth week: The new sysops are announced

Any questions? |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 08:54, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Too long, too complicated and Zombiebaron's idea is simpler and works better. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 09:00, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

[[Thatwasthepointdumbass.jpg|thumb|left]]  ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Jul 7 '12 9:07 (UTC)

Agree with Frosty. Fails on the K.I.S.S. principle. (Keep it simple, fuckwad) --Nominally Humane! 10:59 07 Jul 10:59, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: The point of that that I agree with and could be used if we keep a system similar to the current is the 2 month rule. It takes users around 3 months (from what I've seen) to get to grips with the admin role. Two months is enough time though to see if they are coming to terms with it. It also reduces the "Yes/No" arguments to only 6 a year. 3 months would probably be a better term, as I don't recall seeing a VFS go to voting within 3 months of the previous. (I could be wrong on that though.) --Nominally Humane! 11:04 07 Jul 11:04, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Typically since we changed the rules to include users in round 1 its been around every 6 months. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 11:18, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason my name is associated with this? Or am I just being vain again? I do that sometimes! ME! ME! ME! The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 21:27, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

It's because Joe likes to call himself "Joe the Burninator". —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:53, 7 July 2012

JoeNumbers has a better ring to it. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:09, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

I like Joey Numbers. Sounds like a racketeer in the Mafia. Is that cool with you, Joey Numbers? The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 22:14, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

No, call me Kyurem. And how the hell did you get unbanned, POTR? |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 05:48, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

I've been unbanned? Wow! --Nominally Humane! 12:49 11 Jul 00:49, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, Joey Numbers. The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 06:12, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Joey Numbers: Don't Lose My Number or I'll Do a Number on Your Face! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 08:27, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Voting process

You asked me for it, here you go. Feel free to revise. I think rather than ranking all admin candidates, voters pick their top three choices to prevent ties, and so that no one gets offended finding that Joey Numbers ranked them sixth rather than fifth. (And it saves brainpower for writing articles.) (Though admins can pick more than three.) During the voting process, candidates are free to do campaigning as long as they aren't misleading.

Then, the votes get tallied. Each vote gets put in as follows:

• 1nd place: 50 points
• 2st place: 38 points
• 3th place: 25 points
• 4rd place: 13 points

The top five candidates are then nominated for the second round, and the next two become poopsmiths. --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 22:56, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

The process is still overlong (two whole weeks for interview when a single day will suffice) and unnecessarily complicated. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:01, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Then we should fill up the rest of the time with conventions and debates between candidates (made on public Dump forums where a bureaucrat is assigned to moderate the forum). --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 23:12, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

And hey, do we really need two weeks for the elimination round? --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 23:17, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of words on this forum. Should I be paying attention? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 23:21, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Not really. If anything noteworthy comes from this collection of words, it'll be reflected on {{VFSrules}}. So as far as paying attention is concerned, just putting that template on your watchlist will suffice. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:07, 8 July 2012

I think we need two new admins every two months. This should keep the numbers small. Also, I think we need a maximum of five candidates, and top three choices to prevent ties. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 05:33, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

This is similar to the instant-runoff voting system that Spang proposed last year. I am all for it and the revised rules that The Burninator has proposed. --EMC ^[TALK] 18:27 Jul 8 2012

Instant runoff voting is better than that voting system we currently have. An if we have a two-week long voting process, we could give time for those unable to vote on one week, to vote the second week. And I'll change the numbering system (Qzekrom, I modified it because four is better than three) |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 08:01, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Quick note on the instant runoff suggestion and the two month rule

The two month rule is a rule in which two new admins are picked every two months, while the rest will choose becoming a poopsmith or a rollback as a consolation prize. In the fourth and fifth weeks, there will be debates and conversations between candidates. All of the current goings-on regarding the debate and conversations for the VFS will be promoted on the UnSignpost and the VFS section of UnNews. The final three weeks will be a trial run on how the new admins are going. As a final note regarding campaigning for VFS, advertising campaigns will be placed on the board (where the PLS announcements and so on are placed), and must be approved by the Advertising Ombudsman (a bureaucrat). |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 08:27, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal there has several flaws in it:

• We do not need 2 new ops every 2 months, currently we have been getting 1 - 2 every 6 months and some see this as too many. You do the math 2 every 2 months = 12 a year and with our current user-base size that is far too much.
• Poopsmith is a ridiculous "consolation prize" we have 3 active ones and 3 is plenty we archive 3 voting pages on the whole site and administrators also do this task as well, granting an otherwise meaningless title is a) a poor prize b) Pointless, we have enough and don't need anymore (I say this as a poopsmith as I can typically archive the 3 pages in a the space of a few minutes, without any help)
• If you want rollback, be like a normal person and just ask Zombiebaron or Thekillerfroggy giving it as a second prize is a dumb idea because typically (under your proposal) anyone who comes second is going to already be a rollbacker (I base this off the fact we haven't had a non-rollbacker promoted to admin since 2008.)
• Five weeks? As TKF pointed out everything you proposed can easily be done in half that time
• Potential opping candidates before last VFS already did banter, argue and carry on. It's called IRC we argue and debate a lot there and guess where it typically will take us? No where
• You are proposing a system that involves debates and voting almost like a presidential election, and yet we can't even manage a simple vote what on earth makes you think this will work?
• UnNews is a namespace for humor and making fun of IRL events and being funny, it is not for carrying on about VFS which nobody in the real world cares about

~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 08:40, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Clap clap clap hey -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 17:47, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Three weeks will do imho. --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 02:07, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

NEW PROPOSAL

I'm so fucking tired of forum debates. VFS sucks. It will always suck. Nothing you do will ever improve it to the point where less than half of the user base can find some problem with it. We have mob rule here, and mob rule produces three things: tyrants, angry people, and angry dead people. If this were a country, I might give a shit. But it isn't a country, it's a comedy website. So I have a NEW FUCKING PROPOSAL (read closely, chimps, because it's about to get complicated):

NO OPS EVER AGAIN, WITH THREE EXCEPTIONS:

1. If you give Zombiebaron sexual favors, instant oppage. Boom.
2. If you give Thekillerfroggy sexual favors, instant oppage. Boom.
3. If you post again in this forum, you die. Oh, wait, did I say there were three exceptions? Consider this one "oppage in Hell".

Who's with me!?!?

Score: INFINITY + 2

•  Boom. I hereby apologize for starting the last three forums I have been responsible for, and I request that y'all just fuck off to your respective corners, and start spewing comedy like comedy was shit and you fuckers just drank ten gallons of Log-Out™. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, Jul 9 '12 14:12 (UTC)
• If this had been the rules from the beginning, I would have been opped years ago! The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 14:41, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
• Strong For. More sexual favors from Woody please. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 14:44, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
• What if I give Zombie and TKF sexual favours at the same time. What then? --ShabiDOO 17:19, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

  Crat. C'mon, Shabidoo, logical progression. Work with me here. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Jul 10 '12 2:14 (UTC)

•  Hell, no! What happens when all the current sysops have retired? --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 01:58, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

  Did you even read the exceptions? ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Jul 10 '12 2:14 (UTC)

  Yea, they make no sense. --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 02:15, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

• Strong boner ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:32, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Euroiphones

New proposal: Whatever the voting rules are, let's create a new rank in the (Most Excellent) Order of Uncyclopedia and award that to VFS runner-ups, poopsmiths and rollbackers. We still don't have any use for Her Majesty's Flying Rat's Ass Medal, do we? --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 02:16, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Thats hardly a proposal, this forum is for fixing the problem not adding pointless consolations to it. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:30, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

New proposal: Any admin (excluding bureaucrats) who edits this page will be de-opped. no jk lol --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 02:32, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

Week one. The entire community equally and openly decides if a new admin is needed.

Week two. The entire community nominates nominees.

Week three and four. The entire community equally and openly selects the admin.

Its simple, clear, equitable, transparant, participatory and uncomplicated. I personally like it. --ShabiDOO 02:59, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Score: 6 for / 0 against

• Ooh... that feels good... Forgive me, I was just thinking about the new system... Support. --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 03:13, July 10, 2012 (UTC)
•  Kinda. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Jul 10 '12 4:19 (UTC)
•  Strong for And no word limits. Scofield & Friends 10:04, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. Ticks the right boxes in my mind. --Nominally Humane! 12:30 11 Jul 12:30, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. --EMC ^[TALK] 13:13 Jul 11 2012
• This Shabidoo guy is a communist fag. --ShabiDOO 19:08, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• If you included "all first- and second-week comments are limited to 20 words or less" and "votes are limited to 'For' or 'Against'", I'd vote "yes". ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Jul 10 '12 3:10 (UTC)

  Less complicated would be: "don't be a dick during this process". --ShabiDOO 03:18, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, but certain pompous blowhards who shall remain nameless here would just say "I am not being a dick. I am simply offering up a 10,000-character comment (which I have, incidentally, chosen to label a 'non-vote') because that's how we do things on Wikipedia." So I think "no vote comments" and "keep all other comments short" needs to be carved in stone. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Jul 10 '12 3:30 (UTC)

  In an open, equal and transparent process, you cant tell users what to say, how to say it and when to say it. No matter what you do, nasty users will find a way to be dirty. Brush away unconstructive criticism to the side and move on. Just dont be dicks during the process and keep things equitable, fair and uncomplicated and a good admin will be selected. --ShabiDOO 03:51, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

  You can't tell them what to say, but limiting how much they can say will certainly make them choose their words more carefully, and make it less headache-inducing to read. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Jul 10 '12 4:19 (UTC)

  We should have a televised debate for all of the candidates and we should get the cookie monster to be the moderator. His first question would be: 'peanut butter cookies vs. oatmeal bars'.--ShabiDOO 04:24, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

  Which is better: "No. I do not think he would make a good admin. Perhaps in the future, though," or a paragraph which wastes 500 words to say EXACTLY the same thing? ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Jul 10 '12 4:44 (UTC)

  I myself am very guilty of writing very long blocks of text. Its actually embarassing to read them. My three largest blocks of text were all written to the same user...who reacted in different ways to the different texts, 1. told me they didnt even bother to read it. 2. banned me. 3. tried to work things out. I still laugh my ass off when I read the longest one...and I laugh even harder when I read Aleisters commentary on it. It was very funny. --ShabiDOO 05:19, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, but lots and lots of words on VFS puts some people off, and enrages others. Since VFS is such a controversy magnet, can't we cut the wordiness out of it? It would help just a tiny bit, I think. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Jul 10 '12 5:34 (UTC)

• To avoid controversy, let's not allow explicit non-votes. If you're not going to vote for someone, just don't fucking vote! --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 21:29, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry that Lyrithya was nasty and dirty to Frosty and Puppy, but thats no reason to shut up users who have constructive comments. Zombiebarons proposal will make the process secretive and limiting to avoid "controversey" ... which is a very exagerated response to one bad VFS experience. Simple is better. --ShabiDOO 00:36, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

  Let's keep it simple and see if Puppy has any ideas for how to change it. --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 00:40, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

  In a Wikipedian manner, let's reserve the voting area for votes, and allow the comments in a separate section underneath, or preferably, on a talk page. That means that when someone wants to non-vote, they can do that, and write war and frigging peace if they like, but at least a vote is counted as a vote, and commentary is counted as commentary. In much the ame way this particular vote here has been framed. Clear, simple, concise, and equitable. --Nominally Humane! 12:26 11 Jul 12:26, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

  Sounds like a compromise. Let's add it. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Wed, Jul 11 '12 15:41 (UTC)

The collegiate system

At the present we have members of the community broken into various time zones. I propose we tabulate how many members we have in a particular time zone, and give that timezone a number of "collegiate" votes accordingly. Then the voting is done broken down into timezones. The majority of votes in a particular timezone means that all of those collegiate votes are put toward that candidate. That seems the only logical method to me. Oh, and terms cannot last longer than 2 years, and an admin cannot have more than 2 consecutive terms. And the admin candidates can be chosen by parties representing the retention of existing articles, or "conservatives", and the other party can represent the growth of new articles, or "liberals". And an individual cannot become an admin via merit alone, but by the country of their birth. That way we become the most powerful wiki on the web. GOD BLESS UNCYCLOPEDIA! --Nominally Humane! 12:59 11 Jul 00:59, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of conservatives and liberals! Conservatives want to conserve the supreme position of featured articles while leaving every other article to starve to deletion for all they care. Liberals seek to divert the focus away from the featured articles, towards the often ignored majority of non-featured articles. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:52, 11 July 2012

USA! USA! USA! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:06, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

It's impractical to de-op admins just because their terms expired. And what if someone doesn't want to reveal their time zone? --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 22:17, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

We can get time zone information from the Order of Uncyclopedia. --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 22:23, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think all of the current and active admins are good ones (though we all have our moments) and I cant see any reason to de-op or rotate or give terms for any of them as they'll probably always be useful and good admins (though we all have our moments). --ShabiDOO 23:14, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Boner. --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 00:06, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

This forum

...is too long and confusing. In fact, it's longer than my penis even though it's erected now. Can someone please tell me what the hell is currently being discussed here? --QZEKЯOM Proud sponsor of Team Zombiebaron Tw$*ty Tw%#ve G*me$ FTW! Let's go for the g^@d! 22:52, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

When a man and a woman love each other very much... --Nominally Humane! 01:19 12 Jul 01:19, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I say that we just go the Bulbapedian way.

Where's my boner tag? I want an extensive erection like Cilan had! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 06:33, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Also, Boner. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 06:42, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

on a side note

Sandwiches are fucking awesome. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 09:18, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

You're too young to be engaging in group sex. --Nominally Humane! 09:24 12 Jul 09:24, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

MasterWangs' great idea with a 100% chance of success!!!

All of you stop bitching and write comedy -- Do you know why this system doesn't work? Because you all have it set it out in your head and have convinced yourselves that something will go wrong. In my humble opinion it's more an attitude problem more than an actual problem with the system. If you all could try and be more positive about it you might find it works.

So my advice is as follows:

1. Leave the current system
2. Adopt a more positive mind set about it
3. Watch the results when it starts running more smoothly
4. Go back to writing comedy

I personally think it's a mind thing, does anyone agree? --MasterWangs CUNT and proud of it! 08:20, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

From the mouth of madness. I MEAN, "babes". ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Jul 15 '12 8:33 (UTC)

Mr Wangs is right...its all about a state of mind. We dont need to argue anymore...lets clean him, pull out all his hairs and then steam him and eat him alive...to celebrate our new and profound conciousness :) --ShabiDOO 14:22, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Fuck the system

If we can't get admin rights, then we'll be doing it the hard way. We just need a new system. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 11:18, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

And uh, that means what exactly? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 11:19, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

VANDALIZE THE WIKI OF COURSE

VANDALIZE THE WIKI OF COURSE

VANDALIZE THE WIKI OF COURSE

VANDALIZE THE WIKI OF COURSE

VANDALIZE THE WIKI OF COURSE

VANDALIZE THE WIKI OF COURSE

VANDALIZE THE WIKI OF COURSE

--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 11:26, July 16, 2012 (UTC)