Uncyclopedia talk:VFS/archive1

This page has a history. As such, it doesn't need an archive. Thanks for not freaking out about this.--<<>> 13:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think VFS can be good as long as we're not stuck in to "once a month", and it defaults to no vote unless admins decide we need one. Something else I'd like to see is a nomination period (2/3 days) where no voting takes place. Just to level the field, as people tend to vote for the first person put up, so it becomes a first nominated, first voted for thing which isn't so great. But yeah. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 11:45, 01 Jul 2007

I agree with Spang. I have never witnessed a VFS before, but I've seen it happen to many a voting page.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that I am not an admin, but this is a good idea, I almost never look at the dump, so now I have a page that I will bother to look at because I know that this is here. --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 00:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Will somebody please nominate me? --General Insineratehymn 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

/me crosses Insineratehymn off the list --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 06:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The first rule of admin club is: Do not ask to be in admin club.. I would have thought you'd know that by now? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:08, 11 Jul 2007

Are you able to vote or nominate more than one person on the list? --Sir Manforman 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nom as many people as you want, as long as you consider them admin-worthy. And you can vote for up to three different people. --Andorin Kato 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ALREADY voting? Then I'm going in! --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it's the 21st, shouldn't the page be locked or something now? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't expecting to sneak in to the final round like that, with four extra points in the last couple of days. I'm keeping quite low expectations with regards to how many votes I'll get this round. :) Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 05:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just op all 4 of them? Then we do not have to repeat this long three layered process every month.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 13:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the admins have to approve of the candidates at some point. I don't think this system is too complicated. I'm still hoping we get more than one new admin this month though. That would be good. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 13:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with opping all 4. As far as I can tell, there's a lot of backlogged places, and 4 new admins would be just awesome, and I wouldn't say no to opping anybody listed here currently. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 07:26, 24 Jul 2007

Well, seeing as there was such an overwhelming response to all the candidates listed here, I would assume that they will all end up being opped very soon anyway. No use going through the same crap month after month until they all make it.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Opping all 4 will both make the next VFS unneeded for a longer period of time. Likewise, it will allow for more competition between the op candidates of tomorrow. -- 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 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was browsing through the admins who had voted, and started to wonder who else there was left to vote. Now I can rattle off the names of a ton of admins from ancient memory, but for the life of me I could only think of 5 or so admins who had yet to vote who I'd seen edits from in the last month. Looking through contribs for the sysop list as a whole, I have to ask, WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL OUR ADMINS?!?! It looks like June ate a large number of them, since those are their last edits.

We'll see if those 5 or so active admins who haven't voted vote, but at the moment, I'm now agreeing with y'all that we very much might want to snag all 4 of these ones. About the only thing that would change my mind is if a bunch of "inactive for a month" admins suddenly came back. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 07/24 22:34

Also, quite a few admins have been inactive for much longer. A detailed look into Special:Listadmins and the related userpages shows that CRUSHERBOT, EvilZak, Volte, and Flammable have been inactive for a pretty long time.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 23:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well young one, I hate to break it to you, but CRUSHERBOT is actually a bot of...hell, it's been so long that I don't even remember. Flammable shows up once in a blue moon, But (not to offend y'all) I'd have to say that the following should be considered inactive....wait, how about I list the active admins? It'd be far easier.

We've got: Bradaphraser, Braydie, Codeine, Famine, Hindleyite(ish), Hinoa, Mhaille, Ogopogo, Olipro, Rcmurphy, Sannse, Spang, Todd Lyons, Zim ulator, and Zombiebaron.

That's 14, and only about 2/3 of them perform regular admin duties. And of the 46 or so admins we have, that's about 1/3 of them active, and 25% of them doing admin-like things on a regular basis. I'm going to go drink whiskey and cry. Mind you, I'm not going to do anything admin-like. Don't want to go against the status-quo here or anything. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 07/25 00:38

Alright. I was gonna be nice, only list those blatantly inactive. However, I agree with you that those are the active ones. Also, I figured CRUSHERBOT may have been a bot. However, I thought that it may have just been a clever name. In any case, my point has been made. We have a lot of sysops, but most of them don't....sysop. Enjoy your whiskey.Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That I canna do. I ran out of cheep Canadian Whiskey, and had to swap to Johny Walker Black. Not that I'm complaining... Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 07/25 01:58

Really? That looks an awful lot like a Virgin Mary. The little umbrella and slice of lemon are nice touches. Festive. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are always at the bottom of my glass, no matter what I'm drinking. The scotch rides upon them. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 07/25 03:22

Tompkins seems pretty active, too, in my opinion. — Sir Wehp! (t!) (c!) — 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tompkins who? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:48, 25 Jul 2007

You know? The one that favors pink head bands and collects potpourris? ~ 07:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Err, Wehp, have you seen Tompkins' userpage lately? Methinks he's a bit inactive right now. –—Hv (talk) 25/07 10:29

Yeah, between that and My new teaching job, one huge op-orgy might actually be the way to go.--<<>> 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, so he hasn't been active in a month or so. But he's way more active than, say, KP or EvilZak. I guess I was just thinking of all those admins I've never even seen edit since I started here in mid-2006. One month isn't that long in the whole scheme of Uncyc. — Sir Wehp! (t!) (c!) — 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, most of the old dudes are gone. Uncyc isn't what it used to be anymore. That would get me nostalgic, but nostalgy isn't what it used to be anymore.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 16:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess Brad hasn't been getting the invites to Olipro's weekly "meetings" then, eh? -- The Zombiebaron 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So the consensus is to op all four, then? —rc (t) 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone speak against it.--<<>> 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm usually more cautious/stingy than most when it comes to voting in new admins, but I'm for all four. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 07/26 17:46

Yeah, all four (just to make sure). And if clear consensus for this is gained, we might as well not wait for the end and just op them straight away. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:53, 26 Jul 2007

I don't think we should op all four, think we should stick with two. I don't think we NEED four more Admins at the moment, and if the need does arrive we can always have another vote next month. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Screwing with the rules in the middle of the game tends to crush toes. Do you fancy yourselves "reality" television show hosts or something? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2007.07.26.19:14

Actually it's in the rules that the rules can be changed at any time. See, that's forward thinking!

Also, even without changing the rules... from the start, the rules never stated how many were to be opped, just that in the last round the admins were to decide who to op. That doesn't rule out opping all of them in any way. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 07:43, 26 Jul 2007

Also in the rules is a mention of deopping users. Though the tongue-in-cheek presentation of this development leads me to believe that it's just...well....a joke, I would like clarification. I'm a stickler like that.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The tide has turned against opping all four now. I presume not many people would object to opping the top two at the end of the month, though? —rc (t) 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless 12 hrs pass and the tide swings in the other direction, I'm good with the top two. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 07/27 20:02

As I said on that other page where we are talking about this, I only think we need one this month, and then we can decided if we need anouther next month. -- The Zombiebaron 20:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what the opinion is like at the end of the month, but if not four, then definitely two. We really need more admins around, and now. Who cares if more come back afterwards? All the better.

But if we're opping only two, and have another vote next month, it's clear the the two runners up from here will be sysopped. Better just op them now and just not have one next month - it'll save a lot of time. Or just wait a month and op them as well, as they've already been confirmed by the community. I'd like to see VFS as little of a once-a-month thing as possible. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 12:46, 28 Jul 2007

The good thing about all this voting is that it enables everybody to feel as though they have a chance at the poisoned chalice that is Adminhood. That only a few make it is a good thing, and "rewards" excellence. Sysoping no more than two at a time should mean we get the best of the best. Like spermatazoa rushing to fertilise the ovum, each time we run a VFS only the strongest will make it. And thats just the way it should be. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

But isn't that what the whole first round is for? Picking out "the best of the best" from the wee upstarts like myself? -- 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 01:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, that's the SECOND round you're talking about. --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 01:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well what is the point of the voting in each "round" unless its about reducing the numbers of the lucky few? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

On an unrelated note to whatever it is this discussion has become, I'm fine with opping the top 2 this go-round.--<<>> 11:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but if we're hoping for more admins to come back after the summer (per ZB on the main vote) then now would be the time we need more admins rather than later... -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We can go one more month without them. Summer ends when September begins. I'm still completely for only opping one this month, and then holding it again next month, because, as Mhaille said, as long as we keep VFS open for buissness, everybody will feel like they have a chance pass their specific genetic code to the child, and will beat their little tails back and forth as hard as they can, unaware that pregnancy isn't all that its cracked up to be. -- The Zombiebaron 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think making adminship seem like a lofty and unattainable goal will mean only those who actually really want it will believe themselves to have a chance, and the way to do that is by having sysop votes only when we need them, and opping all that are suitable. Making it seem like everyone has a chance will encourage to go round thinking "when I become an admin" and such, not realising they actually need to prove themselves.

As for opping one... well, can you honestly say that if we op one at a time, the next opped won't be the three runners up from here? That's just a waste - we'd be missing out on 6 months-worth of adminning time.

And it's far better to have too many than too few - if there's too many, it's easy to not use the admin tools when not required, but if there's not enough, no other normal user can pick up the slack. And as I see it, all four here have been confirmed by the community to be suitable for adminship... • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:31, 28 Jul 2007

If it makes any difference, I'm moderately active due to a light workload this summer. Once fall hits, I'll be less active. Perhaps even less than historically so.

And if we have too many admins, we could go so far as to break up into semi-defined groups rather than the "do whatever you feel like, whenever you have the time" that we do now. It really wouldn't be a bad thing to have a half-dozen people on ban patrol, vandal search and destroy as a primary job. If we have "too many admins", those half dozen can hover recent changes, welcome new users, and head off vandals before they even get posted to the ban patrol. If we have "too many admins", they need not do any more than that, and are free to contribute to the site. Likewise we could have a Deletions group, Maintenance template group, etc. That is, if we find ourselves with "too may admins". We're nowhere near the numbers to make that work at the moment, so I don't really think we need to worry about "too many admins", for quite some time yet.

When I go away for a weekend and come back to find VFD stocked, a dozen non-noted entries on the Ban Patrol (granted 1/3-1/2 will already be banned) I can tell you right away that we aren't anywhere near "too many admins". In fact, I personally would call it either "too few admins" or "too few admins working as admins". Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 07/28 21:59

Should we do this by Midnight EDT? --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 22:24, July 31, 2007

MadMax and Strange but untrue are now admins. Love them. And if Pants complains about me doing the opping, the IRC crew is to blame. —rc (t) 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So guys, it's the 31st

/me spins the barrel of his revolver and passes it to Zombiebaron -- 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 01:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

/me takes away the revolver and replaces it with a fully-loaded Shotgun with six bullets crammed in --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 01:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he blew his head off. Funny thing was, it didn't kill him. He must be undead or something...--<<>> 11:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Grats to Sbu & MadMax :D and commiserations to MO and Cs1987 :( No less deserving IMO. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 01:48, 01 August 2007

I think everyone agreed they're very deserving...--<<>> 11:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know :) Just trying to include everyone :) ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 09:37, 01 August 2007

Thoughts on the subject of more admins

Adminning looks like an endless, thankless and tiring task, where one gives all and any time they can to wading through the never-ending To-Do List. From a user POV, a large number of admins doing what they can when they want to, secure in the knowledge that if they don't do it, there are plenty of other able-bodies to do it would ultimately result in more work getting done, but with lower admin stress levels, which has to be a good thing. I know others will disagree and say that its better to only have as many as you need, but I just can't help but feel that more would allow the admins to all get done as much as they want, (more or less than now) while reducing the pressure on them. Milton Glaser would roll over in his grave (is he dead?), but IMO on this subject, More is more. Just my 2c :) ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 01:43, 09 August 2007

Good idea! --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 03:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree very muchly with Ceridwyn. The more admins we have, the easier it'll be for them to do important, site-related things. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:40, Sep 9, 2007

I kind of agree, and I'm gonna vote yes on more on the main page, but I just thought I'd make the point here that making too many people ops kind of negates the point of having any in the first place. Plus it damps our fix of power, and makes us all shaky and withdrawn.  :-) -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Limiting the amount of new Admins each time also means it forces people to vote for the most suitable, and not just sympathy votes for people who haven't made the grade in the past. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

This is very important, because the worst thing you can do is give someone power who does not know how to use it properly. This is why we try to limit this stuff.--<<>> 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the outcome of having lots admins who do stuff whenever they feel like, comfortable in the knowlage that others will do stuff for them, is halfassed, partially completed jobs. If I were to empty VFD, but not archive it, because I am aware that we have a Poopsmith, but the Poopsmith didn't archive it because he knew that I could archive it, nothing would ever get archived, and we would have a mess. Thus, for my money, the quality of admining goes up when the admins don't feel that there are others to pick up that slack. We need a very carefully measured amount of admins, so that the admins quality of "work" is high, but the total amount of "work" to be done is low. -- The Zombiebaron 17:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... What Zombiebaron said... --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 03:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

Shouldn't there be an archive for each month of voting?--Scott 17:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

from the top of the page: "This page has a history. As such, it doesn't need an archive. Thanks for not freaking out about this.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 13:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)"--<<>> 19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But alot of other voting pages that also have a history have a archive. Also this page already does have an archive for before VFS was brought back. It's more convenient to have archive for it.--Scott 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"¿Dijo alguien "archivo"?" <balloons and confetti fall from ceiling> "¿Usted se sorprendió de esto? ¡No esté asustado, el confeti es todos favorito! ¡Baile!" <dooooo da-da-dah!> Saucy spanish tart enters, stage right, shakes her maracas. "Soy tan feliz que usted dijo "archivo". ¡Ahora puedo bailar!" <dooooo da-da-dah!> Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Did somebody say... Balloons?!? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:20, Sep 29

Since no one specified it this month...

I'm under the assumption the top two are being opped again. Do I assume correctly? -- 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 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would assume so.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)