Forum:Sweeping reform

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Sweeping reform

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4905 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Actually forget those two votes, this has turned into a royal clusterfuck.

Dear apathetic wiki-goers,

Hi. My name is Ljlego (almost wrote my real name there...that was close), and I'd like to talk to you about change. As you may know, I've been inactive for a long time, but in the two days since I re-lost my will to live, I've noticed we need change around here. Everything is too alive. Too vibrant. Smells like two-day-old body odor. Yes, we need change. It needs to be deader. More regal. But it needs to still be functioning. We need, in short, undead royalty. Something like a baron...that's also a zombie.

Ljlego, you say, how can we achieve this? We'd LIKE to have some sort of regal zombie reigning over us with an iron pen for paperwork, but where can we find such a person. I direct your attention to Zombiebaron. He's a zombie, a baron, and, most importantly, willing with an idiot's enthusiasm to accept this proposal.

Zombiebaron for 'crat. You know I'm right.

~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 05:27, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to be dishing out tools, I'll take 'crat with a side order of checkuser -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 05:31, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'd really prefer Zombiebaron. 1234 ~ 05:34, 28 April 2011

I'd really prefer a helicopter gunship -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 05:39, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Good point. They tend to smell better than either of you. 1234 ~ 06:01, 28 April 2011

I don't mean to be a naysayer, but fuck Zombiebaron up the ass with a sandpaper dildo. --173.192.187.133 07:11, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with mr IP, and say that both Olipro and Zombiebaron should have this... - Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 07:13, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Extract your icy cock out of their collective arses please Mr Snowman. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:31, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

HEY I'M AN IP TOO FUCK YEAH!!! --72.24.228.44 07:14, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to read the above, so I'm going to say that although I agree with the sentiment, I disagree with the approach, and would suggest a seven person sub-committee be formed to look at the problem from numerous perspectives, and see if they can come up with a plan of action that will expedite processes and cement stronger inter-wiki relationships. I also believe that due to the highly inportant nature of this committee that a sub-sub-committee be created to nominate members of the sub-committee, and a sub-sub-sub-committee be generated to oversee and ensure the working practices if the sub-sub-committee to ensure that the optimal policies and procedures are being followed to reduce overall costs and increase productivity. This sub-sub-sub-committee, having two separate functions, should of course be broken into two sub-sub-sub-sub-committees. Once all this is in place then I suggest that an admin come along and unilaterally decide that all the processes put in place are incorrect as there is an issue with the initial concept, and to abandon the entire idea. So, in conclusion, so save any ill will, I am changing my initial perspective to fuck you all in order to reduce any potential ill-will. Do I have a second? Pup 10:10 28 Apr '11

Seconded. A sockpuppet

Motion carried. Fuck you all. Thank you. Next item on the agenda? Pup 10:10 28 Apr '11

Shotgun! Fuck all of you! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 12:31, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest Modusoperandi instead because he has a higher edit count, has taken fewer long-term breaks, and doesn't want the 'crat-ship anyway. --Mn-z 02:01, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I would second the nom of Modusoperandi. He seems sane and grounded compared to many people. And would be a 'crat with a username starting with M, since Mordillo seems to have disappeared during my absence... Something about balance and equilibrium. And if they don't want it, they sure as hell need to get it. - Basic marketing wisdom... -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 05:49, 2 May

Yes we need more 'crats. I've gone to every bureaucrat on this list begging for rollback, now whether or not I deserve it is not relivent. Buy Mhaille says prove to me you'd not abuse its power, then disappears. Rcmurphy hasn't even replied. And well I won't expect anything from this guy. -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 07:48, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

This piece of friendly advice is brought to you by Kittens™: It helps if the 'crats know you have tits, and think they'll see some in return for user rights. It worked for both Lyrithya and me... And everyone else I know has tits. However they may be biased against man-boobs. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 08:17, 2 May

Amazingly they seem to have no issue with mine, which suggests they like quantity rather than quality. Pup 11:02 02 May '11

Officializing this motherfucking vote

Admin votes count double here, as they would for a VFS vote

Score: +17

• I nominate Zombiebaron for 'crat, for the abovementioned things Ljlego said. -- 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 07:30, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. - Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 07:37, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Actually he only gets my vote if he gives me rollback, sorry should have mentioned that earlier o_O -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 22:45, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

• For I would also support giving the goatfucker crat rights. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 13:14, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
• Obliterate....I mean for. (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2011
•  Obvious for – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:03 Apr 30, 2011
• I wanna be opped by Zombiebaron. 1234 ~ 21:11, 30 April 2011
•  Sure but I'm confusedamosis. Doesn't "crat" mean admin (or is it something different), and isn't ZB already an admin? Please explain to this moron. Thanks. Aleister 21:59 29-4-'11
  • 'crat = controls user access levels (including admin). – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:00 Apr 30, 2011
    • I still don't get it, so never mind, I'll look up the term and try to edge-u-crate myself. Thanks. Al, seconds later.
      • Special:ListGroupRights is your new best friend. -- Jack Phoenix, professional killer admin (Whine?) • (Wikia ♥ ads) 22:26, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
• If I support this nomination, there's a chance that he supports my bureaucrat vote one day. Sounds like a fair deal to me. And you can never have too many bureaucrats. At least not over here. -- Jack Phoenix, professional killer admin (Whine?) • (Wikia ♥ ads) 22:26, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. We need more Gaddafis 'crats! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:30, 30 April 2011
• Obliterate. That ZB guy has been annoying me for ages and I think the best way to deal with him is give him more work to do for exactly the same pay, so I'm all  For. 'cratting all over him. Pup 01:40 01 May '11
•  For. this. Also:  For. 'cratting every user. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 01:27, Monday 02 May 2011 -
•  Against. As a user who is much more established, well-respected, and more talented than that Zombiebaron hack, I feel that voting against him here could not be considered a complete dick move, and make me a total tool. So, you know... Against. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 01:33, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • I was joking you hacks. Obviously for. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 13:07, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
• One forward thinking genius, please.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 01:43, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Against because I read somewhere that it's good to have enemies in high places. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 05:19, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. Yeah, OKAY! Seems like a nice guy and has lots of edits and membership time. LuLz! Lando-SpacePimp 23:43, May 3, 2011 (CDT)
• Zombiebaron - I'll say yea. He smells better than Olipro... On chilly mornings. Something about temps below 30F slowing down decay... -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 05:49, 2 May
  • Addendum - And I would support the above suggestion of considering Modusoperandi for 'crat, too. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 06:10, 2 May
• Oh did I not say for yet? -- 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 06:50, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
•  Against.Or make all admins bureaucrats and elect Sannse Dictator-for-Life with the power to remove everyone from this wiki. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:05, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
•  Against. You guys would vote for the Antichrist to be president if he were your best Uncyclopedia friend, I swear. On that note, ChiefjusticeDS 4 Prez!!! --EMC ^[TALK] 10:47 May 2 2011
  • People really don't remember the score counter on top here... -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 10:51, 2 May
• Against, if anything we need less bureaus, less admins, less Jews and less Canadians. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• Abstain. Sicamore said why here. Id say more, but ive been intimidated enough to be afriad of giving a sincere view and of being blocked again. --ShabiDOO 04:03, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
•  For.Sure, but i'm slightly confused anyways. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair1667 (talk • contribs)
• Against. Mirror Mhaille's sentiment, to many roles, admins and other crap on a comedy website.--Sycamore (Talk) 08:10, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
• Support, on the grounds that his name is just so awesome. And as a side note he might use the tools well, etc. Ajraddatz _Talk 04:15, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

But seriously

Can everyone please make their votes clearer here? I think I see a lot of joke againsts, but I can't be sure. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 04:33 May 04, 2011

Yeah. Um. Welcome to Uncyclopedia. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:56, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

I would very dearly second this request. The whole voting thing is usually a big joke with the awards being the binary equivalent in value to having your house toilet paper rolled (without the cleanup), but user rights tend to have a more serious connotation here... I think. (Still no coffee here...)

If there are any joke-againsts, great. Make sure the rest of us get the punchline, too. If your against is serious, correct the score accordingly, and check out via the *hug*-station as thanks for not wasting a punchline that flies over at least my head. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 08:39, 4 May

A Note From Zombiebaron

• Hey guys. I am truly flattered that I have been nominated for bureaucrat and that so many of you have voted for me in the past few days. There has also been much discussion about this subject on the IRC channel in the past few days, so I'm going to summarize the key points here for those of you who have not been following. First let me direct your attention to our list of bureaucrats. There are twelve users on the list, four of which have been active in 2011. And I use the term "active" loosely. What we are really voting for on this page is making new bureaucrats, so that we can have active bureaucrats. There were some issues recently (now, thankfully, resolved) that arose due to inactive bureaucrats misunderstanding the will of the community, but I won't mention the specifics because there is no need to complain about those specific events now that they are resolved. I do no have to be the new bureaucrat, but I think that it is clear that we need at least one new bureaucrat. However, the current bureaucrats all seem opposed to the idea. That is why we must prove to them that a very large majority of the community supports new bureaucrats. If you do not support me for bureaucrat, I urge you to nominate someone you do support and to vote for them. Thanks, -- The Zombiebaron 19:43, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • The word bureaucrat looks funny now. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:46 May 04, 2011
    • Only to those who haven't had to face the Finnish Socialist Welfare System. I'm fairly sure you need a human rights lawyer to get dental care here... And I mean what I say. Immigrating legally to the US is easier, and only requires one folderful of paperwork... *grumble* In me, the word "bureaucrat" causes a debilitating urge to twitch, reach for the nearest sharp object and to stab someone. Which is why I try to ignore the whole B-word, and try to stick with 'crat. Or Cabal. Which does not exist, and if I were stupid enough to allude to the contrary, this message would self-implode. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 21:23, 4 May
      • But why are they called 'bureaucrats' at all? Why not something... more cuddly, eh? 1234 ~ 00:36, 5 May 2011
        • How about "Bureaucats"? Actually, how about "Walt Disney's Bureaucats"? --Black Flamingo 22:37, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
          • How about "...The Bureaucrats!" Except we'd have to preface it with an increasingly filthy joke each time, which might be a bit cumbersome. -- 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 22:42, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
            • O_o Yes, just... a little. 1234 ~ 08:04, 6 May 2011
              • Can I just ask something, is there any difference between a regular admin and a bureaucrat, other than the fact bureaucrat's can change user rights, and if there is no difference I don't see the big deal, I can hardly see Zombiebaron going around changing user rights without a good reason. -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 22:01, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Insert serious votes here

Keep flame wars and stupid jokes in the above sections. Also remember to update the total score and admins count x2

Score: 14

•  For. -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 07:59, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. What I said above.--Sycamore (Talk) 08:10, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. same reasons. 09:23, May 4, 2011 (UTC) --Alistair1667
•  For. - both for Zombiebaron and Modusoperandi. Especially the latter, since he doesn't seem to want it. Perfect victim Volunteer! -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 08:39, 4 May
•  For. We need more active 'crats. That is to say, at least one active 'crat. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 08:47 May 04, 2011
•  For. What Luvvy said, actually; both would be nice to have around. I don't really see how overpolicing or whatnot would be an issue, either, seeing as bureaucrats don't actually do anything, normally. It's just when we do happen to need one to do something, it rather does help to have one or two around, both so they can change the rights in general, and also so they can determine with any efficacy if rights even merit changing, such as adding rollback, which is hard to do if they're not actually around to see how users act and whatnot. 1234 ~ 08:49, 4 May 2011
•  For. Minor cons, slightly less minor pros, and can't see either or both doing any real harm. (On a side note, I'm assuming that Hype and I count as only one vote each, despite having been temp admins. If someone feels otherwise, then I am only putting one vote in anyway.) Pup 09:06 04 May '11
•  Against. I was in favour of new admins, I don't see a reason to create new bureaucrat(s). --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:28, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
• For More crats. Zombiebaron, Olipro, and Modusoperandi are all good candidates. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:57, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. I follow Dexter around. And looking at the list of 'crats, there is actually only one left, Mhaille, and even though I don't know what 'crats do having more than one is probably a good idea. Aleister 12:04 4-5-'11
•  For. (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2011
•  For. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 19:30, Wednesday 04 May 2011 -
• Against. I looked over the thing in the place with the stuff, and I see precious little that requires the "right now" kind of action that, say, admins get bothered with. Banning's important. Giving rollback privileges, not so much. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:48, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. From what Zombiebaron was saying, it seems to be less about "right now" and more about getting it "right" when one does act. As he says, the 'crats currently "active" don't always do things that best represent the community's wishes, mostly as a result of being as inactive as they are. It would be better to have someone (anyone at all, really, not even ZB necessarily) who isn't quite as out of touch with the community's wishes when they act. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:53 May 04, 2011
    • Oh. Well, in that case, Vote Zombiebaron. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:01, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
• Fourteen~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 20:11, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
• For! Out of all the non-bureaucrat currently active admins except for Modus, Socky, Lyrithya, Ljlego, Dr. S, MadMax, RDB, Olipro, Chiefjustice, and myself, he is definitely the best. -- 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 00:43, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
•  Against. I know I'm being predictable here, but I don't see the need and (just like with the Admin Mixup) we should be downplaying user rights. —rc (t) 02:34, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Now, I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I have noticed that, in the past two days (really more like 36 hours), you have granted rollback to four users. I understand that rollback isn't a huge right, but it is a user right nonetheless.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 03:06, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
    • That's true, but rollback is a menial amount of power - which is why I don't have much of a problem handing it out without too much fuss. (Now, if I get inundated with requests I am going to start some kind of voting page that basically acts as interference between me and the requester, so be warned.) I guess I shouldn't have used the phrase "user rights" there. Maybe "user rights, except for rollback which is hardly a significant user right at all." —rc (t) 03:13, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
      • Isn't the step up from admin to b'crat similarly negligible, then? -- 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 04:22, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
        • No, because actual damage can be done with 'crat powers, which is one of the reasons it should be limited. Rollback isn't even a power, it's just a shortcut for something any user could do anyway. —rc (t) 17:13, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
          • *goes into rcmurphy's contributions and hits the 'rollback all' button, and then moves a bunch of his pages around and on top of each other, suppressing the redirects* Hi. 1234 ~ 18:19, 5 May 2011
            • Bad Lyrithya! Let me just take that power back from you... oh, wait, that's the only thing a b'crat could do that an admin can't. Well, I suppose I can just ban you then. -- 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 18:49, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
              • Right - except for opping people, 'cratting people, and de-opping people. And there have been some poor choices made in that arena already. ---> —rc (t) 22:04, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
                • But opping and 'cratting is not unilateral. It's decided by the community. All a crat does is have the ability to op once the decision has already been made. A 'crat, really, is nothing more than that oddly-shaped wrench in the toolbox. -- 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 22:34, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
                  • No, a 'crat can op whenever he/she wants, and that has been abused before (in my opinion) in non-community decisions. —rc (t) 23:34, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
                    • Which would reflect the attitudes of the current (and inactive) bureaucrats. Zombiebaron (or Modusoperandi) would be a balancing addition and a level head to the current 'crat list. -- 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 23:44, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
              • There is no "rollback all" button. What she has is a script. All you'd have to do is go into her JS and take it out. Though disabling her rollback would also break the script, so yeah. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:07 May 05, 2011

•  For.--NoNamesLeft 05:43, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
•  Strongest possible against --EMC ^[TALK] 23:59 May 5 2011
•  For. - wait, there are two votes O_o Ajraddatz _Talk 04:16, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'm a self important wanker

I am firmly opposed to granting authority to anyone blah blah too much policing blah blah creating a spiral of destruction blah blah unfulfilling sex life blah blah self loathing existentialist blah blah obesity leading to gangrene blah blah nobody should have more authority than me blah blah want to spend more time writing comedy blah blah.

FFS! If you want to write comedy then write comedy. If you want to police the site then do so. Giving the right to change user access to an admin who has proven himself over and again is not going to harm a fucking thing, so why get on your high horse about it. Have you ever seen a horse that's high? They buck like crazy and jerk about the place and then tell everyone that they fucking love them! Give him/them cratting powers and ignore the fucking forum and go write something if you think more time should be spent writing and less policing.

Blah blah stupid rebuttal blah blah creating drama out of nothing blah blah Pup 03:55 05 May '11

That's why my horsey is one of these. It's waiting to be shipped to the US when gets caught from the wild by its owner, and taught to tolerate Luvvies on its back without doing all the bucking PotR talks about... She's almost up to my belly! And I can easily use the plunger Mordilly gave me last year while riding her, without fear of losing my balance and breaking my neck... -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 06:20, 5 May

Royal clusterfuck

Okay, we have a majority consensus but still divided opinion and as there is no tine frame to cast votes no matter what happens we're going to have people upset by the outcome. Views have been made clear on here, but by no means do we have a unanimous decision. Can I suggest that this forum doesn't give us a true reflection of wether or not we should 'crat someone, but does show there is a community feeling towards adding 'crat(s)? As we all love a good vote, shall we then say that there's significant pressure to having a formalized voting procedure for this, where people can actually nominate, and then vote for or against? Something like VFS? in fact, can I just jump ahead and say that June VFS get's turned into VFC, with each user round one getting a vote as to if there is or isn't a need, Round 2 is nominations for 'crat, assuming a for vote in round 1, and Round 3 is 'ops final vote? This way we all have said our piece, had a chance to vote on the need, had a chance to nom and vote on possible contenders, and then finally a decision is made. (And given it's out of the ordinary and it is a devisive issue, can we limit it to just one possible 'crat?)

And in much the same vein as a few earlier votes on here, I was also under the impression that 'ops had 'crat rights, and had no issues or concerns on there.

And that's me being diplomatic this time. Pup 03:31 06 May '11

Score: +7 people support that we reconvene for more voting at the beginning of June

• For -- The Zombiebaron 03:41, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
• An incredibly reasonable analysis of the situation.  Let's do it – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:42 May 06, 2011
•  For. It'd make stuff easier -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 04:06, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
• So... it only takes... four votes to make a bureaucrat? Or five? Six, perhaps? More? 1234 ~ 04:13, 6 May 2011
• PotR for Crat. -- 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 04:39, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
  • Heartily  against giving me any authority, for  for a VFB. Pup 09:09 07 May '11
•  For. - Despite being friends with some of the people voting against all the time, I see the need to have a stand-in, to be around when the currently absent others aren't. If there's uncertainty of the new 'crat's understanding of and motivation for the job, there could be a period of probation, when the title is temporary, and any misdemeanors will be answered to harshly. Say 180 days or some such... Usually people don't have the energy to play nice and not fuck around for more than a few weeks, unless they're very persistent, and the most likely candidates for 'crat-hats are all established, (hopefully) respected admins. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 07:32, 6 May

We need Glasnost!

We want reforms, we want Perestroika! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 06:23, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest all reformers read this page Bureaucrats. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:54, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Expanding on having a "VFB"

So, if we create a formal VFB Procedure as (I think) PotR is advocating above, I think it would be advantageous to expand on that and actually put down some stuff on what the MO of a Bureaucrat actually is; as it stands Uncyclopedia has plenty of material, serious, semi-serious and so forth on Admins, so I see no reason why not to also apply that to do the same for 'crats.

For example; when rcmurphy recently deopped admins with no or few edits, namely PantsMacKenzie; since Pants has 'crat rights, he simply re-opped himself when he noticed he'd been de-opped. But it's not all about opping; the most frequent operation for a 'crat should be handing out rollback to those considered to be deserving of it and that shouldn't be something encumbered by tedious voting procedures since it is a relatively limited power.

Anyway, the basic gist of what I'm saying is, what 'crat powers should only be invoked at the behest of the community and which should be at the whim of the individual.

I heartily recommend looking at this page to see exactly what rights each group bestows. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:19, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm all for this idea, personally it should some rules to it similair to the VFS rules, it should be up to the community to decide if a trustworthy admin becomes a bureaucrat or not, not 12 people, of whom 10 are inactive (Mhaille and Rcmurphy being the exceptions) and barely visit this site anymore. -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 07:40, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Brief drive by comment

I don't get is the specific need at the time to have additional user rights for some of the admins. Even if there is a period of inactivity, they inevitably return and there are active bureaus for the urgent need of granting rollback to users. There is so much of this tripe about user rights in the past few months... I suggest leaving it, Uncyclopedia is a very liberal place, and I'd like to keep the number of people with additional rights to a minimum. I certainly think the idea of an 'official' VFB is exactly the kind of thing that this user rights 'issue' creates - and ultimately solves nothing. Can we get back to making fun of Mhaille "velcro beard":)--Sycamore (Talk) 20:32, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't been paying attention, the issue isn't one of immediacy of action, it's about that when said action is taken it might not best represent the community's wishes as someone who is more active. Additionally, with non-time sensitive issues, it can be frustrating to try to catch an active 'crat just to fix the simplest things (e.g. incorrect flags for ops on IRC). And finally: the more people who have a user right, the less special it becomes, so you oughtta be happy about that. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:13 May 10, 2011

I'm a Zombiebaron. 1234 ~ 00:16, 10 May 2011

This, for example (backstory: Lyrithya has the same flags as Zombiebaron on IRC, which is less two flags than an active admin ought to have, as a result of Zombiebaron mistakenly telling Mhaille his flags instead of any other admins' flags, which was in turn caused by Manticore being a dick back when he had flags he shouldn't have had) – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:18 May 10, 2011

So, ideally, we should just 'crat someone who knows the right flags to apply without being told -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 13:46, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Vote Charitwo for crat. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 15:10, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Or cat. I read that as cat. 1234 ~ 18:03, 10 May 2011

Having "crat" status here has no bearing on what happens on IRC at all. When I set the flags I followed the same details as I've done before, not from what ZB informed me. As for "requests" there are enough admins and bureaucrats to ask via their talk pages. What is the issue? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

You... wanted me to be a Zombiebaron? 1234 ~ 15:40, 12 May 2011