Uncyclopedia talk:VFS/archive2

Shortening the VFS process

As i have noticed with the last couple of VFS occasions, it seems that some of the steps of the process of electing new sysops are too long to be reasonable, as most of the users yote within the first few days and then ignore the page entirely until the next step. Take the current step as an example. The current admins are voting for weather or not we need new admins. currently, the tally is at 5-0 admins voting for new admins. All of the votes were cast on November 1st, and nobody has voted since then. At this point, it would seem presumable that more admins are going to be voted in this month, and that we should just move to nominating and voting for the candidates. To make this simple for people, here is a vote on the subject.

Score: +3 Users who think that the VFS process needs to be shortened, and -2 admins, who could actually shorten it

• For --General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 23:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'm for shortening the first stage to 5 days, or something. -- 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 01:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Hey look, something to vote on! for, because I agree with whatever it is they're talking about. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:43, Nov 7
• For --EMC ^[TALK] 01:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Against - I've already messed up with the silly dates for this page once. -- The Zombiebaron 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• 4 --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neigh It's fine, except for that one kink. --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Five. This is the vote number I have, and also, coincidentally, one more than my vote. --SPY Administrator (Complain|I rock|In memoriam) HMRFRA WH 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Against. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• For. And can we shorten it to 10 days? By the way, how can I be an admin? |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Giratina CUN|IC Kill | 05:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, now you can't anymore. -RAHB 05:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Another proposition

Forget the 11th and 21st, make each stage end of the 10th and 20th. I've fallen victim to these unusual dates once too often, much to the dismay of Flammable, Spang, and other admins I bitched to about opening VFS one day ahead of schedule, run-on sentence, etc.

Score: +2

• Me. -- 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, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• TheDudeMan aproves --General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Wait, you mean to tell me that the dates aren't the 10th and the 20th? No wonder Spang was acting strangely.... -- The Zombiebaron 04:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  That's not acting strangely at all. I do that all the time. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:44, 11 Nov 2007

Yet another proposition

How about we have a 24 hour period to just nom people, so everyone isn't expending their votes right off the bat? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:47, Nov 11

Score: +4

• Yeah. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:47, Nov 11
• Against. Reserving judgment should always be an option. -- 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 01:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• I've always said this would be a good idea. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 14:27, 11 Nov 2007
• I'd even suggest making it 48 for noms alone, just so we allow everyone a say. I would be easy for us to change the first 2 days of the current process over to this without changing much else. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• I agree, nobody enjoys the feeling of blowing their load earlier then they'd hoped. 48 too. -- The Zombiebaron 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you speaking from personal experience? ~Formerly Annoying Crap 17:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• For - Wow, I've never thought of this before, but it is a very good idea. Perhaps we should do the nomming on the 9th and 10th? Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 23:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin Votes

Last admin voting round, everyone only had 2 votes. Shouldn't this be the case, again? -- 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 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If Famine & Zombiebaron can have 3 votes, then I guess we all can have 3. I wish a lot of policies were set in stone & detailed but what can I do?

Also, can he vote 3 times on one person? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:41, Nov 30

I've seen 2-vote stacking done in the past, and apparently the concept of 2 votes is only a precedent that's assumed. Shouldn't this be established as a set-in-stone policy to prevent future cabaling, or something of the ilk? -- 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, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

TINC.

WP:DENY folks. We shouldn't even be talking about any "cabaling" or other such nonsense. It only encourages them. You know....them....the ones that come out at night to steal your internets. They....you know, they....say the only way to kill them is to say their name, taking away the vague nature of their pronoun-bound existence. I bet one's name is Frank.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I said, TINC aka There Is No Cabal.

THEN WHY IS THERE A FLAG, THEN, HUH? I THINK YOU'RE ALL WORKING FOR THEM! YOU KNOW, THEM!

You know, imagine that in a British accent and you've got a spot-on impression of Hugh Grant...Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As there's only two sysopings going to happen it makes sense to have two votes. I'd be against "vote stacking" though, if you only want to vote for one person do so, but don't giving two votes to the same person just seems very wrong and screws up the contest, often for very personal reasons on the part of the voter. One vote per nominee. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I'd always assumed that the second stage was for deciding who's good enough to be an admin, and this last stage is basically just an extra vetting step, where each candidate gets a yes, no, or don't mind/care each. So basically just give your opinion on each one, or just put your name under the one you'd like to see opped most, or least, or whatever. No limits or vote stacking. Or we could always do whatever feels right to you, man, in which case my 36 stacked votes stand. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:57, 30 Nov 2007

I would like to stack 37 votes against Spang's stacked votes.--<<>> 21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of vote-stacking either, although since it has precedent we should at least allow it for this month. —rc (t) 07:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with everything Mhaille said. Vote stacking doesn't appear to be a positive thing to me. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 20:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

*coughs*

Ties

Hey I think ties should go to who the users chose. What say you?--<<>> 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...maybe. Think we definately need to have a set of rules for the next one. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

User votes for ties.

You could always just op all three. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:49, Nov 30

Bad idea...what happens if we have 8 tied? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Giant op orgy? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:40, Dec 1

I vote for S&M Sports.

Brad's idea makes sense to me. The question is, do we want to put that into action this month, it being so late in the game? Or just extend the deadline for voting a bit in the hopes that somebody will come along and break the tie? —rc (t) 07:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be OK with extending the vote, especially as I forgot to add mine... -- sannse (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's just forgo the vote on this and extend the deadline for voting until, say, December 5, and have user votes determine ties in the future. Yes? We don't want to get stuck in vote recursion. —rc (t) 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the users are involved enough as is. I think we should adopt a policy of "In a tie, everyone loses. Just like in life.". If there is a clear winner with a tie for the spots below, as we have now, we should just take the winner, consider the ties as null and void, and restart the proccess if we still need more. -- The Zombiebaron 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone loses

Score: +1

• Its already December anyhow, just op the winner (Mordillo at this point), and hold anouther 3-round-thingy in December if we still need a second. -- The Zombiebaron 23:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Extend the current round

Score: +0

Break Tie with User votes

Score: +5

1. Quickest route to get us to where we want to be. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
2. Duh.
3. Though it means one of the candidates I like would lose this go-round, I like this for the future as a quick way to solve ties.--<<>> 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Seems the obvious answer really. Regnat Populus. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Yeah. It's about time we just op TKF and Mordillo, they're starting to get impatient and ravenous. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 13:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Golly...

...just make it TKF and Mordillo already. TKF with 6 admin votes/25 earlier votes and Mordillo with 7 + 23 beats that handsome bastard Modusoperandi with 6 + 17. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Godless Damn IT! We're not done bickerin' YET! Patience Modusoperandi!

Very well. TKF and Mordillo are our new admins... love them, hate them, but never, ever feed them after midnight. —rc (t) 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

/me slips Mordillo a sausage. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

GIZMO KAKA!!! ~ 18:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Scorefix

I just read all of the votes for new ops, and assuming that Zombiebaron and Algorithmare votes for, as they are, the vote should be neutral at 0. I'd change it myself, but i can't. General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 15:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One quick rant

Let's agree that it takes an extremely long time for a user to become a sysop. While there are many who want to be admins, there are some who strongly deserve to be admins. Their foundest wish shouldn't have to be put on further delay each month for this "we don't need any new ones right now" bullshit. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 13:32, Jan. 14, 2008

• Oh, and who can argue against new sysops when you have such high stress levels? -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 13:36, Jan. 14, 2008
  • WHO THE FUCK IS STRESSED OUT?! ~ Mordillo where is my DIPSHIT? 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • SHUT UP I HATE YOU -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Heh. Mordillo signed at 13:37. How much more 1337 can you be? And teh answer is none, none more 1337zors! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 14:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, I didn't mean for my comment to sound as dickeryish as it did. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 13:44, Jan. 14, 2008
    • I agree with kip. With the dickery--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And Now For Something Completely Different

How about IRC admins? I've been on and lately we seem to be just a tad short on them. Perhaps a mini-VFS should be held to elect more IRC ops. --Lord Fluffy who rains fire from the heavens 02:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking part in this discussion one way or the other... --AAA! (AAAA) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

/kick Fluffy ~ 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Fluffy, if you have any suggestions, I recommend that you ask Flammable, DavidGerard, PantsMacKenzie, sannse, or Mhaille, as those are the people (that are more active than chronarion and stillwaters, and more part of the community than Angela and Emmanuel_Chanel) who have +30 and above access on #uncyclopedia, and therefore can set the access levels of others (which, in simple terms, means they are the people who can make other people into ops). -- The Zombiebaron 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, calling Flammable and Pants active is being kinda nice, but hey! We all know you're the kindest sweetest person ever.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind being an IRC op. --Charitwo^Talk 03:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind doing your mom.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

2 dads? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:02, Mar 5

2 dads, 3 aces, read 'em and weep baby! Full house, oh yes how I just love taking your money TLB. -- 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 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

God damnit! I'm starting to think you're cheating...grumblegrumblegrumble... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:07, Mar 5

I'll take that as 3 approvals. --Charitwo^Talk 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Charitwo's incessant and deeply tedious power whoring. AS LONG AS I DRAW BREATH YOU WILL NEVER BE AN IRC OP. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's only one way to settle it now. I'm thinking bazookas at ten paces. —Hinoa talk.kun 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds as dangerous as it is hilarious! Win-win situation! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:28, Mar 24

I was going to suggest thermonuclear weapons, but bazookas work, too.--<<>> 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as 3 approvals for bazookas. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:46, 25 Mar 2008

So Codeine, you're comparing me to the fucktards who play "op warz" rather than limit the access to removing trolls? Kindly fuck yourself. --Charitwo^Talk 22:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Charitwo: Rule numero uno of becoming an op. NEVER ASK TO BE AN OP. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:58, Mar 29

Rule #2: don't insult the first op that says "no."--<<>> 00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I could care less, regardless, Codeine can take his comments and shove it. --Charitwo^Talk 01:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that popular mechanics say he can take his comments and shove them. Codeine has several unpopular viewpoints. That's why he's a bureaucrat. Oh, wait...Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 04:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, don't talk about Op Club. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Charitwo, I think you may be misunderstanding the essence of Uncyclopedia IRC. At Uncyclopedia, it's not just about banning fucktards. To be perfectly honest, if we removed all trolls

1. There would be nearly no active chat ever, because nearly every regular partakes in troll-like behavior at points
2. There would be nearly no humor, and that would ruin the point of IRC.
3. There would be nothing to talk about! Uncyclopedia doesn't technically need an IRC in regards to "developing and stabilizing a wiki." Sure, we talk about it often enough. The topic is always about something Uncyclopedia-related. But UnIRC is more a place to blow off steam, to let Uncyclopedia transcend being just a wiki and become a community of sorts.

Don't take this the wrong way, because I love you and your fast-action revert button to death (and your assless chaps, but that's a different issue entirely), but this is not the way to go about getting ops. And, if I'm being perfectly honest, I don't see the absolute need for it. Starnestommy holds down the fort pretty well as the anal-retentive pencil pusher, and everybody else is competent enough in their IRC op skills to merit their access. And if they act like retards and you don't like it . . . well, you're not exactly a regular converser there, so just go to another channel. Lord knows Freenode has a lot of them. In the meantime, lighten up! Pull up a chair! Don't look as I slip this roofie into your drink. Just relaaaxxxxx...Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 04:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been around the channel long enough to know whats "acceptable behavior", but that's not the point. I don't appreciate comments like that from Codeine, or anyone else for that matter, at all. I really don't care enough about op access to argue for it, it was just a suggestion. Life goes on. --Charitwo^Talk 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't talk all too much because I'm always on the fight against wiki terrorism (all of wikia), there are other places outside of Uncyc! I talk when I can (usually when I get pinged or notice something to comment on) and note that I also go by the kirby alias a lot so I don't get pinged by the RC feeds. --Charitwo^Talk 03:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Inside I'm crying. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Inside, I'm ice cream. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an Aerosmith song. Woah, woah, woah/Jaimie's ice cream-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have never partaken in troll-like activities. Never. Ever. -- 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 06:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes you have. ~ 07:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did not sleep with that woman, I am not a crook, and I am deeply sorry for what I've done, for the pain it has caused my lovely wife Mrs. Ljlego, and for being very vague in regards to what I'm actually apologizing for.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you're so sorry. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:41, Mar 31

......no u

Fix for the procedure

shouldn't it be that the nomination period is the 11th-12th, and normal voting is 12th-20th? Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 01:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. -- The Zombiebaron 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's all apart of a major conspiracy. I know that Olipro is somehow connected to it. Not sure how though. ~ 20:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy you say....what would a Jew know of such things... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Nothing really. BTW, what about that loan I gave you with a flat interest rate of 34%? ~ 20:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no... Oh, bloody hell, ther're all over the place. MrN 20:54, Jun 12

They? VGD >=3 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Leprechauns..... -RAHB 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be only 24 hours for nominating. We want 48. It's 11th-12th including the 12th, so voting starts on the 13th. You fool. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 14:54, 13 Jun 2008

KILL THE FOOL! ~ 14:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He went that way. ThatDudeGuy 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

DO SOMETHING!

It's 11th. Start the public votes already! --Sir General Minister G5 FIYC UPotM [Y] #21 F@H KUN 09:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

*licks Gert* — Sir Manticore 12:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

LESS ops in July?

Moved from UN:VFS. — Sir Manticore 12:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Score: -1, +whatever for creating seperate lists

• It's been proposed that we actually DEOP some of the inactive admins. If we do this (I have no opinion as of yet), how many should we deop? What should the cutoff for "inactivity" be? Should we take this to the Dump or just cabal it out over here? Most importantly, will there be any drama? Yours in there being no cabal, ~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Deop a few. As long as we deop the inactive, I don't see how drama could be caused. It's not like they're active to protest it, in the first place. 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 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And since when is the signature button only including three tildes? Someone fix 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 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Against. One of the things I liked most about this place is the fact that the old bunch always have their seat reserved. I still hope that one day I'll see EvilZak banning people for spelling mistakes and Stillwaters placing a sexy signature on my talk page. It doesn't bother anyone that they're on the op list. I say. let `em keep it. ~ 22:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• There is a problem with having inactive administrators listed on a list of administrators: if users blindly pick from the list, they are bound to pick someone who may never reply to their query more often than they select someone who will. Sure, we've all got Todd Lyon's talkpage on our watchlist, but its always rather unwiedly to be required to begin every response with "The guy you asked this question to comes around every 6 months, so you're stuck with me". Therefore, I feel we should create some system that allows the inactive (I think 6 months without a single edit is probably a good definition) admins to retain all their privileges (should they swing by looking for something to huff in a hurry), but also removes those admins from Special:Listusers/sysop. As I proposed above, I think the best way to do this would be through the creation of a usergroup (tentatively called "inactive sysops") with all the same privileges as "sysop", whereto all inactive sysops would be transfered (with a message on their talkpage explaining this whole thing, and a promise that they can be returned to normal status if they so desire). That is what I support. -- The Zombiebaron 00:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with those stuffs what Zombiebaron done said. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:10, Jul 4
• Against. Also put that away, you'll have someone's eye out with it. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
•  For deopping Zombiebaron. — Sir Manticore 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Zombiebaron put it far better than I did. That's exactly what I had in mind with the suggestion; not denying the inactive ops the status or usage of sysop facilities, but rather making sure that users looking for an admin get the assistance they need promptly. If we can create an Inactive Sysops group with no change in privileges, then that's the ideal solution as far as I'm concerned. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• For inactive sysops group. Also, for deopping rcmurphy. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 16:01, 04 Jul 2008
• Actually, I just realized that there is an opposite solution to the problem (as I outlined it in that large paragraph thing above): we create a list of active sysops (once again, based on 6 completely editless months). This could probably be at Uncyclopedia:Active Admins, or something similar. We could then replace the "Find Admin!" link on Recent Changes with a link to whatever page we end up creating. This method would do away with the somewhat messy business of making decisions about people who are not around and cannot vote on their own fate. I support this solution too. -- The Zombiebaron 16:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds better. As long as we put CRUSHERBOT on it as well. ~ 22:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Against - Sannse said once that Wikia staff tend to avoid deopping unless completely necessary. Makes sense to me. But a seperate inactive sysops list would be very good. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 15:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the original motion marginally fails, but the seperation of active and inactive sysops into different lists passes with whatever colors. When and who do we do or decide 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 13:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, people were voting on a seperate issue to the seperation of active and inactive sysops. I would suggest a vote on that specific topic is in order. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Also

I don't think +1 is a ringing endorsement in the belief that we should have more admins this month. I would suggest that we have a minimum of +3. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Yes, but +1 still qualifies as an enchanted item. Would you rather have a +1 dagger, or just a regular dagger? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Wups. This isn't the D&D forums. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been using a simple majority vote for centuries now, I say there's a time and a place to change tradition and right now simply doesn't cut 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 17:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tradition? Oh, I'm sorry Tevye, but you're mixing your traditions here. Traditionally, we only make more ops when we need them, and if only a margin of one admins thinks we need more, that's hardly a large margin, and we don't need more. An example of this would be the various "Reopen VFS Votes" of 2005, some of which failed or passed by small margins and were thus inconclusive and unrepresentative of a clear outcome. I agree with Mhaille, we should make a more obvious guideline for future months, so that nobody gets confused. -- The Zombiebaron 21:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I know on VFD we now have a rule that an article needs at least +3 before we delete the bugger, so maybe that should be our guide. Also, penis. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I'm not sure what you mean about VFD, but I've not only added that thing to the VFS guidelins, but I've also "streamlined" (if you can call it that...) the rules a bit. -- The Zombiebaron 23:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see it's a policy already. My voting form must have been lost in the post. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 23:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Er...no, its not policy yet. It only becomes policy on August 10th, and even then it might not be policy - depending on the outcome of the vote. If you want it to not be policy (or if anybody else feels the same way) they should speak up now. I'd just rather not see this discussion drag on and on inconclusively: we now have a conclusion, and we can discuss/amend it appropriately. -- The Zombiebaron 23:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No no, I'm fine with it all (except that horrendous pink background colour on the template). Just trying to encourage a little more community input and so forth, in that annoying selectively democratic way of mine. Is there such a thing as selective democracy? *wanders off pointing at random plants and flowers and murmuring quietly to himself* -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 23:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking of democratic ways... Rather than tilting the process in favour of administrators who hold a particular view point, would it not be better for admins to talk to each other a bit more? MrN 14:52, Jul 12

Guys! I have a solution! We could become an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We'll take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But, all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, or by a 2/3rds majority in the case of more major issues. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:42, Jul 12

Who's that? MrN 16:45, Jul 12

Must be a king. MrN 16:45, Jul 12

Oh, how can you tell? MrN 16:45, Jul 12

He's not covered in shit. MrN 16:45, Jul 12

I'm fairly sure that the background is purple. Also, there still is "community input": anybody who wants to change the +3 threshold can speak up now, and force a vote to reverse my actions. Seriously. If you're reading this section, and you're like "Woah, what just happened? I don't like that!", just start a vote. -- The Zombiebaron 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here it is Mr Baron sir... MrN 16:58, Jul 12

Uncyclopedia:Active Admins

Bam: Uncyclopedia:Active Admins   Le Cejak • <17:25, 11 Jul 2008>

Your list made me sad. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Past 30 days" might be a more interesting list than "past 6 months." pillow talk 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would have voted against. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I've solved the confusion with a redirect.--<<>> 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What if someone wanted to make an article on the AA? Eh? Eh! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:51, 12 Jul 2008

Changed the redirect to UN:AA, as most other Uncyclopedia: namespace page shortcuts are in this format. Problem solved. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well. I just thought it'd be awesome when someone asks for help they're directed to the AA.--<<>> 11:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Off the subject

Wouldn't UN:AA make a spiffy category?--<<>> 18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Or a userbox? -- The Zombiebaron 19:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if only I was un-lazy enough to add either. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:00, 12 Jul 2008

Back on the subject

Active Admins is a way better name than Admins On Duty. The latter implies we have some kind of duty we should be expected to do, rather than just "would probably respond to a question if asked". • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:00, 12 Jul 2008

How about Admins On The Job? Sound like a 1970's British Comedy. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Don't forget the film Carry on on the job. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Was that the one between Carry On Up The Kyber and Carry On Slipping In Innuendo? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

It came right after Carry on not bothering to use "show preview". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Three of my favourite films... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Really? I thought that the first one didn't have nearly enough cheap double entendres. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but with the latter they managed to shove in enough to cover three films. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

“Oooo! Shove in enough, did they? That reminds me of when I captained a boat, back in the war. We never did manage to send a German boat to the bottom with one of our torpedoes. The seamen under me were quite disappointed, let me tell you.”

~ Charles Hawtrey

“Oooooooh missus.....was that when the Rear Admiral got blasted all over the poopdeck? I can still close my eyes and see that mighty vessel erupting...”

~ Frankie Howerd

Is it me

Or is it the first time that everyone started self voting? What happened to "those who want to become members of the cabal must never show their intentions?" ~ 09:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I pulled out of the race, which is sort of a strong self-against. By your rationale, that creates something of a paradox... --UU - natter 09:33, Jul 14

It's always been possible, I'm pretty sure, just uncouth. -- 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 11:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Kids these days! Etc! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its you. -- The Zombiebaron 18:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG! Change to nomination stage is late

According to the instruction template, the nomination phase should have started already. --Mnb'z 17:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In GMT it's still the 10th. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination stage starts on the 11th, doesn't anyone here knows how to read?!?!? ~ 17:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the 10th for some reason, sorry. --Mnb'z 17:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was Socky who kept apologizing. O_O ~ 18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that they're both the same person. It is to me anyway. -RAHB 20:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This happens nearly every goddamn month. Who says we should just change the official start of the nominating period to the 10th? -- 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 20:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's fun seeing the citizenry stumble around each and every month. ~ 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll get you, my pretties. And your little dogs, too! -RAHB 21:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, (which you won't, pricks) Mnb seems a little eager to get started with nominations. —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He's waiting for his chance to nominate me for a second adminship. He's still too new to realize that that can't be done, but it's a nice gesture. Thank you Mnbvcxz. -RAHB 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I still say it's bogus. Perhaps he wanted to nominate me for "Regular User". Sorry, Mnb, I just can't accept that responsibility. I enjoy my current status as "Freeloader". —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Get off my damn couch! -RAHB 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Get a job, slacker! - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 22:12, Feb 10

Hippy! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bum! —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hobo. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)