Forum talk:New Admin vote

HURRY UP!!! (?)

Ugh... I wasn't done with the nominations. I ask whoever decided to put this page up: why did you rush things? Why didn't you wait 3 days? And who decided to start the actual voting, anyways? There wasn't even a full 48 hours in between. ~ sin($) ^tan(€) 09:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Any reason no question was answered here? Is it because of the lack of a division title? There... ~ sin($) ^tan(€) 13:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel like this is something we're going to be doing again soon, so I was mainly concerned with just getting one of the obvious ops taken care of now. We can all think on other good noms for the next month, and if we decide to go ahead an op another, we can bring up the other op candidates then. As far as why I brought it to vote so "quickly," users have been begging for a chance to put in their two cents on this vote since it started really, and Tomp was asking if I was going to do this or not, since I said I would, so I went ahead and put it up, since we had some really good candidates. Sure, we might have missed some good candidates that aren't up right now, but we can get them up for the next vote. If we're doing it soon, that's not going to be a big deal, I don't think. I can tell you that this didn't feel terribly rushed for the users that are here a lot. All the begging for a chance to vote from the users in IRC made a lot of the ops there feel like we should go ahead and get this done, since we had some pretty good candidates to go with now. I think that may have been the reason we didn't return a rushed response. Well, that, and the fact we need more ops to watch the site on a regular basis.--<<>> 13:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In short, if you want to be pissed as someone, be pissed at me.--<<>> 13:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Flat 72, then. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How long is the vote running for? About 5 hours left until it has been 24. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking 2-3 days. So it'll probably end up as just below 48 hours like last time. ;p--<<>> 21:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I vote for it ending precicely 72 hours after it started. The less arbitrary the time, the more fair it'll be. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:06, 15 Jan 2007

OK.--<<>> 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Against votes?

Are we permitted both a For and an Against vote, or just one vote in total? --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it says "If an op wishes to vote for two users, they may split their vote in half using 'weak for' for two users." I suppose you could weak for and weak against. Also, don't use them both on the same guy.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sound advice, that.  :) I'd actually prefer everyone to have one vote, regardless of it being a for or against, but I noticed that Dawg had one of each, so I thought I'd ask for some clarification. But a weak for/weak against split by admins vote is kosher, too, I think. --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You are permitted as many againsts as you feel it necessary to use. My reasoning is this: if you vote against, it's assumed you have a really good reason (since there are only four candidates, againsts should be few and far between at this point, especially considering the unlikelihood of users to vote against a potential op ("vote against ME will you? BWAHAHAHA!"). Sure, this will leave the option of an op to vote against all three of the users s/he didn't want to win and have their votes count more than everyone else's, but it's also assumed that our current admins aren't like that. Yes, I know, I'm making a lot of assumptions, here.--<<>> 12:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mhaille just cited a previous case where that was actually abused, so I'll ask him to change the against votes rules so that only admins can do it and it's part of their "two votes," where they can vote against someone and for someone, or vote for someone and have it count twice. That's part of the problem with being an admin who's only held the position for 3/4 of a year. The ones that have been here a lot longer remember things that I don't.--<<>> 13:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, I personally don't think we NEED against votes, the FORS and AGAINST that the Admins cited during the nomination period should surfice. The people here are here now on merit, I don't think we should bring in something like against votes which COULD escalate. If you don't like one of the candidates vote for another one. Thats how it works in politics. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

P.S. Currently there is only one Against vote, from Dawg against ZB, which follows on from his against on his nomination. If we want to get rid of the Against option, NOW is the time. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I tend to agree with this. I doubt that any of our users (especially those that have been selected to be potential admins) would bear grudges in any way, but I also think that an "against" at this stage is calling into question the suitability of someone who has already been recommended by the people who know the job best (i.e the other administrators). Since they had their say about the validity of the nomination already, they should restrict their vote to the candidate(s) that they think would make the best admins. More discussion required. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I always feel we should have an avenue available if someone wants to bring up valid objections, but, as any discussion that should be addressed has, as Mhaille said, probably already been addressed, it's probably not going to serve a purpose at this point. I still don't want to outlaw againsts entirely myself, but I won't oppose it if someone else does it.--<<>> 15:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to add in more opinion... I would prefer positive votes only too, especially as we have one vote. You are voting against the others anyway, even if only because they are not your top choice, that should get us a fair result in itself -- sannse (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the Against Votes comments on the main page to reflect the support for removing it. If there is a groundswell of support in keeping it later on we can always rewrite it, again. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

One or two?

Also, since this vote is so close, I think it might be a good idea to hold another op vote next month. We opped on average one person per month last year (12 ops, 12 months) we just did it very unevenly (so if you weren't acting at the time we were opping [like Olipro], you got left out). I think opping one person a month would be a good idea, and I wouldn't be opposed to RC's ongoing admin review system (that Code brought up in IRC) so we can keep the admins who're active at the site opped (and don't have to deal with stuff like, "Well, your percentage of ops are higher than Wikipedia's, and you want MORE ops?"). None of that matters for this vote, really, I'm just thinking of how/when we could do this again.--<<>> 12:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that Brad. Or prehaps we vote 2 though this time and miss next month's vote? -Kjhf!- (feeling chatty?) 16:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I say op all four of them. It was pretty hard for me to pick just one. --User:Nintendorulez 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No kidding, hopefully we'll be having another one soon.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I had expected two Admins from this, which seems to be the way we normally do things? Or at least used to.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

If everyone just wants to op the two people that seem to be in a dead heat here and just wait until March for our next vote, I think that'd work ok.--<<>> 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The two that are in a dead heat are the two fighting for second place :)   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If we planned to have two winners, we should have had two votes. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 18:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

K. We can just op the one, then.--<<>> 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Or allow users to split their vote and place a 1/2 vote for each of two candidates. Admins already have this option. --66.102.74.160 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for opping at least two now. It's clear that all are "approved" enough by everyone, and the only thing stopping people voting for more is that it was decided by someone that we were to only have one vote. That's just unnecessary red tape if you ask me. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:58, 15 Jan 2007

Well, since I designed this to op only one, we can op one for now. I honestly don't care either way, but since there's some dispute, I think it best we just go with what I had originally intended. We can always op more people. I (or whoever sets up the page next time) will plan the next sysop vote for two users.--<<>> 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, "People are disputing my original plan, so let's just do it that way". It's original, I'll give you that :) • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:03, 15 Jan 2007

Actually, it's more "People were disputing my original plan," then "people were disputing the new plan created to solve the disputes of the first," which is why I just went "screw it" and went back to the original.--<<>> 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to op two, because they can take each other out for dinner then. --Chronarion 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about ff or Braydie, but I would NOT want to go to dinner with a Zombie. Can you just imagine the stares you would get?   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Friday, 7pm, I'll pick you up. —Braydie at 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Think the votes are going to be so close even in the dying moments (and taking into account that DG has voted more than once) that I think we should Op all three and then not have another VFS for the next 6 months. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

6 months is a bit long, but 3 sounds good to me.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An opping threesome sounds lovely! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:14, 15 Jan 2007

I think my views on threesomes are well known. </pervert> -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No-one will be satisfied to wait 6 months, or probably even 3. Are things running so poorly that we need 3 additional admins at this time? --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Planning Ahead

If I might offer my 2¢, this is probably not a procedure that should be made up as we go along. I suggest a clear, simple procedure be devised for opping. If everything's laid out beforehand, there's much less chance of things getting confused or disputed. Of course, the system will require periodic tweaks, but the basic framework should, IMHO, be in place.

A Proposal

My suggestion, in broad strokes. Some holes in it, maybe, but if it gets y'all thinking, my work is done.

1. Resurrect VFS as a monthly or bi-monthly protocol, with a caveat that the process might sometimes be quicker or slower, depending on demand.
2. Admins nominate users during the month. Limiting noms to admins keeps the noms real, and prevents noobs from nomming each other.
3. Users & admins vote for the noms over 2-3 days at the end of the period, every month or two. For votes only, to keep it simple. Admins get 2 votes, as per the current "process."

  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't plan. There's no timing because we don't always need new people. We only do this when we decide we actually need someone. Too much process and structure is absolutely against the way uncyclopedia works. Even our rules are somewhat joking and only the simple ones are followed, anyway. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, which is why I outlined a rough procedure with lots of wiggle-room, and no real specific timing enforced. :)   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1 looks pretty close to a rule... » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 03:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Naw, 'twouldn't be the old VFS, it would be a place for admins to post their noms and vote amongst them until such time as a new sysop is needed, then opened up to rabble like me.  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 03:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought that went into this, but I lean towards Dawg on this. It's just my opinion, but I think things are better since VFS went silent. I think it's a can of worm best kept closed until needed. Let's talk about it when there is recognizable need, and forget about it when there isn't. Loose is better. --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say that I agree with Todd and Dawg that open-ended is better. If someone wants to add valid input on how it can be done better, I like having the option to consider it. I don't like having rules "set in stone," especially since I feel we can carry any lessons learned to the next opping session. I feel like we can't go wrong this go around, as we've already had a vote for nom on these users as admins and already deemed them all "worthy."--<<>> 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not proposing anything be set in stone. But, look at all the wrangling up there ↑. . . will we go through all that again in a month or two? What my proposal really boils down to is taking the procedure we've arrived (will arrive) at with this vote, and noting it at VFS as a record of the lessons learned, with the understanding that it will evolve. You guys must think I'm a real nazi! :)   Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 04:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not our fault... you have "troll" in your username.  ;)--<<>> 04:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

...and the goose-stepping, the narrow moustache, the Jagdpanzer, your fondness for parades, that whole partitioning of Poland thing. The list goes on.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the joint did have us fooled for awhile. --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I've been a troll since before teh intarweb existed. I'm supposed to change for a global collection of computers? Nah. My contribs speak for themselves. . . that's why I hear all these little voices!  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 - 5?

How many users should be opped this time around?

Please vote below. Results will be shown when you have voted.
You are not entitled to view results of this poll before you have voted.

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

There were 0 votes since the poll was created on 01:04, 13 January 2013.

poll-id EEC3060BCC0EF6054B58B4A4B52B9F24

The above discussion at "One or Two" has led me to believe that there should be a (somewhat) formal vote. So... vote.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Only one, Tomkins. Unless we got to vote for more people and had more options. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am protesting because Uncyclopedia needs to reform

I refuse to vote, for the following reasons:

1. Admins have already abused their powers like disabling the USERNAME template before we could vote on it. I think we are nominating people that might be doing the same things later.
2. Some of the people nominated add in QVFD and VFD entries true, but mostly of vandalized pages. Instead of trying to fix them up and revert vandalizing and blankings, they try to get the pages deleted. I think this goes against the spirit of Uncyclopedia and the "fix it yourself" motto when you disagree that a page is not funny.
3. These people are voting against pages that have the potential to be funny if fixed or rewritten somewhat. I also think that if an article has potential and maybe sophomoric that we should not have it deleted but instead stick on a Rewrite tag or something to the effect with a note that the article should be fixed up a bit. Whomever finds it not funny should make some suggestions on how to make it funny.
4. Just because you don't know what something is, is no reason to have it deleted. Some of these users have had things deleted that were funny, but only if you knew what it was. I mean stuff like Computer Geeks find funny, maybe you Social Science and Arts types might not find funny and vica versa. That is no reason to have something deleted.
5. Most of these people are picked because admins happen to like them over other users that have worked just as hard and done just as much as the nominated people have done. That in itself is favoritism.
6. A Wiki is supposed to be a community and a community is supposed to nominate and vote for its own leaders. Playing favoritism and only nominating a select few is not just unfair, but it is not even Democratic and goes against the spirit of a Wiki.
7. Most of these things going on, are starting to turn Uncyclopedia into a Wikipedia type Wiki, we all know where that will lead us.
8. Like #7 not only is Uncyclopedia becoming like Wikipedia in that opinions are disguised as facts, and if someone's opinions disagree with the article it gets changed or deleted. Even now we are following the Wikipedia method of citing sources in our articles and displaying references. There exists a forming of a Thought Police that monitor articles and a Group Mind that make sure that articles that don't agree with the Group Mind's opinions and views get deleted or rewritten into the views and opinions of the Group Mind and enforced by the Thought Police. Remember that diversity is a good thing, and we need articles in the point of view or written about subjects and topics from all sorts of areas of the world, and not just one narrow mindset that supersedes all others.
9. We really aren't dealing with outsiders very well. I mean I am Batsh*t Insane and in dealing with a lot of these people who come here and blank and vandalize pages, I am one of the few that tries to be civil and reasonable with them. I try to explain to them the rules, why they should follow them, and why they shouldn't take anything written here to be serious. Most of the rest of you start flamewars with these sorts of people and now we are nominating some of the people who started flamewars with them to admin positions. Seriously WTF?
10. It takes more than good communication skills, and bootlicking the other admin's boots to become an admin here on Uncyclopedia.

Even if I don't agree with the nominations, I still am willing to work with those who win the votes and become admins. I am most likely one of the elders here, being 38 years old with a lot of experience from the workplace, college, the military, and I am willing to work as an adviser role when possible. I only seek reform and rehabilitation, so we can reach the potential that all of the admins, members, anonymous users, and article writers and outsiders and the whole Uncyclopedia community can reach as a whole. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I could refute your points one-by-one, but instead I'll just say you can vote or not vote for whatever reasons you see fit.--<<>> 04:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're only saying that because you're part of the Group Mind that's been formed to ensure that the Thought Police agree with the articles that are rewritten and enforced by the Group Mind, after their opinions and views are deleted by the Thought Police.  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

...you lost me.--<<>> 05:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not rocket science, Bradley... If it were rocket science, we'd be talking about how the ratio of solid fuel propellant to oxygen within the intake manifolds should be controlled by a heavy-duty hydraulic valve system capable of withstanding temperatures in excess of 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit near the point at which gaseous compression is released from the expansion nozzle. Obviously, we're not talking about that. I'm not sure what we are talking about, exactly, but at least we know it's not that.  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, did you ever wonder why I am so rabidly opposed to ZB? He'd delete all kinds of stuff without bothering to check. He pastes stuff in IRC to get us to huff it without really reviewing it first, as an annoyance tactic to get us to make him an admin. I am afraid to think what might happen if he could just huff anything he pleased whenever he pleased and reviewed them as minimally as he does now without an admin verifying it first. Two of the three on that list I know well enough that I trust they would do a good job, but I had to vote for the one that's currently more active (it was a really hard choice, trust me). I believe the third person is also reliable, based on the supporters and the fact I've never seen a problem with this person, but I haven't had sufficient contact to know with absolute certainty. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In the future, I would suggest you state that openly from the begining instead of making the rest of us wonder why you oppose someone.---Rev. Isra (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I figured others would know why, and I don't like to give much reason for my opposition because people that know me know I don't oppose without good reason. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd respond to Orion's points:

1. Write shorter (and stay on topic consistently) and you will have more influence here. Honestly, 90% of the time, when I see a block of text and your signature my thought is "I don't have time to read that." Sure, it's not fair, but life isn't fair and I am not paid to do this. Same goes for the other admins.
2. We reform our admin procedures all the time, so if you have complaints about them, condense your thoughts and post them at an appropriate time and place in MINILUV. But remember, this is not a democracy, and we have never pretended it is. We use democratic procedures when they work for us, we don't use democratic procedures when something else works better. If you want more democracy, convince us that it works better.
3. If you have issues with current admin candidates, air them respectfully using comments. You can't officially vote against, but your comments may influence the way votes go. The opping process often has very little to do with amount of work done, and a lot to do with how much we trust someone's judgment. That's not favoritism, it is common sense. If you have knowledge that bears relevance to this, please state it concisely and respectfully.

---Rev. Isra (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well like Dawg says at least one of them is trying to get stuff deleted without bothering to check it first. Others are posting stuff to QFVD and VFD that have been vandalized and do not bother to try to fix it. I post long posts due to my schizo affective disorder, it is a mental illness and it is discrimination against a person with disabilities if the admins have that attitude against me. All of the people nominated have been for quantity and not quality. We need quality admins to make quality decisions and save the humor instead of destroy it just to get nominated as an admin. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last point, to a degree. We DO have Admins who look to work with people, newcomers and oldhands alike to help to save and/or improve contributions. We also have ones who huff the crud like no one's business. We have Admins with many different views, and I think within that is strength, in that for the most part we cover all the bases. Thats not to say that all is rosy and that sometimes the wrong method is used when dealing with an issue or an individual. For the most part we are all pulling in the same direction, or at least have the same basic goals, that is to make this a funny place, and hopefully to make contributing enjoyable too. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I have posted in Forum:Concern about the new admin nominations as suggested. I was told not to judge the people being nominated. I am all for diversity and fairness. If there is a problem, I will bring it up. I know being an admin is hard work, and I am not trying to make it harder, I only want accountability for actions and some responsibility. I too want to make this a funny place, but I think there are times when a rewrite tag might be used instead of a VFD and times when VFD and QVFD and asking Admins on IRC to delete stuff has been abused. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oy, not this shit again... —Hinoa talk.kun 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I only look for a positive change in the way this site is run. Would a Mentor program work for you to help the new admins gain the experience they need to tell if an article needs to be deleted or fixed? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)