Uncyclopedia talk:VFS/archive3

Protected?

Why is this page locked? I want to vote for the Schnitzel sandwich! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mordillo closed it again. Damn. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

He's a sandwich elitist. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess us simple people will have to do with burgers and fries. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fish and chips? You one of them billionaires or something? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed accordingly. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Burgers and fries? You one of them billionaires or something? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Past Ones?

Is there a way to see previous winners? Or is this the first one? Don Puttano cHeDDs 00:56,18June,2009

This is where admins are elected. anyone who's an admin won this.    Orian57    Talk   01:03 18 June 2009

Except Hitler. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hitler is an uncyc admin? Great.. What else? Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 01:05 June 18 '09

Ghandi used to be, but we don't talk about why that didn't pan out... Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 01:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, he ate his own shit, anyway Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 01:10 June 18 '09

That was Buddha. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a difference? Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 01:32 June 18 '09

Nes. ~ ♥ ♠ ♦ ♣ 01:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust survivor =/= Sumo wrestler. FU EDIT CONFLICT Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has ever "won" VFS, in any form. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:02, 18 Jun 2009

Except the losers. Cause being an admin is lame. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No! You shut up! Stupid! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No you, idiot. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Jesusl an uncyc admin? – Preceding unsigned comment added by Zheliel (talk • contribs)

Black Jesus is. Well, he has CIA rights, which is above everyone. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 07:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WHO IS CHIPOTLE CHICKEN CHEDDAR?

I offer here my ultimatum: whoever discovers my true identity (without using any sort of checkuser, that's cheating) first, may have a bite of my delicious chipotle chicken cheddar heart with bacon! Get sleuthing! Chipotle Chicken Cheddar with Bacon 21:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...frank stallone? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 22:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Frank Capra? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Frank Sinatra? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Frank Einstein? Don Puttano cHeDDs 22:22,20June,2009

...Charles Darwin? Wait, whoops! Staircase CUN^t 22:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Benson? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...uh... a moldy brick? Why are we even guessing? Staircase CUN^t 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Franklin the Turtle? —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Frank Zappa? -RAHB 23:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Me? Staircase CUN^t 23:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Rumpelstiltskin? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys guess who I am? If you do, I'll give you... uh... a wiki hive five. Chipotle Chicken Cheddar with Bacon 2, THis Time It's Staircase 23:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...frank stallone? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Crablogger? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...I know! It's uh... hm. Staircase CUN^t 23:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Whoever you are, you stole my damn name. I'M THE ONE AND ONLY CHEDDAR! YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE! Don Puttano cHeDDs 00:24,21June,2009

Hey, I didn't steal it. It was the first guy! I made the second one. Wait, was I supposed to say that? Whoops! Staircase CUN^t 00:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllll HAMBURGEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! -- Roman Dog Bird 00:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheddar + Smokin' BBQ > Cheddar + Chipotle Chicken. Don Puttano cHeDDs 00:36,21June,2009

...frank stallone? —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...The Beatles! Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 06:43 June 21 '09

Double Voting

Can some admin fix the multiple voting? This is a very serious page, and we shouldn't leave invalid votes on here. --Mn-z 05:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

June sandwich

so we're required to eat only schnitzel sandwiches for the month of July. but i can't find any where i live. and it's the 6th and i'm getting peckish. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What crazy rulebook are you using? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

i was under the impression that all users must eat only the current sandwich of the month, most likely due to the cabal's well-known monopoly of the schnitzel market. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He knows too much. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol

What if we all voted for a total noob just to see how much chaos he can cause in a day? lol Da man360^{Leave A Message} HAPPY 00:23, 14 August 2009!

You don't seem to understand what VFS truly is. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

how can a sandwich be a "noob" waht are you talking about —RomanDogBird (Talk•Morgan Freeman•eat my shorts nigga•Hawkman•suck my balls) 00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to understand what VFS truly is. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no sandwich. MrN 00:57, Aug 14

The sandwich is a lie???!?!?!? 17YEARSOFcHeDDaR 01:12,14August,2009

Don't be too hard on him, guys. I think it would be a good idea to see just how much chaos a sandwich could cause in one day. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:27, 14 Aug 2009

As long as there's no baked beans on toast. ~ 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean Votes for sysops is dead?

^ • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 02:22, Sep 4

It's not dead, it just smells funny. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:26, Sep 4

Smells like...victory. Lt Col Kilgore 03:23, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Vote for who? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:50, 05 Sep 2009

vote for suckydicks or something of the like. Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 03:12, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Whats a suckydicks? Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 06:23 September 5 '09

Change

Change it to Vote For Shit/Saint/Sharmoota/Sickness/Song/Sailor/SARS/whatever-starts-with-an-S. The sandwich thing has staled, apparently. • FreddThe Metalhedd • • • 23:32, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

vote for saint! we can have our first uncyclopedia saint! we will need some certified miracles though. -teh pwnerator 23:38, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Vote For Sentience. -RAHB 04:16, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Vote for Stupids. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Tuesday, 06:34, Oct 27 2009

But then everybody would win. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:47, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

How about vote for stupids and fat! Oh...wait... -RAHB 07:33, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Vote for Samuels. -- 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 07:36, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

I much prefer the biblical Samuel to American footballer, Asante Samuel. -RAHB 07:50, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up

But it's been a while. Anyone think we should have an admin vote this month? -- Also, penis. 15:56, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think so, especially since we got you, MrN and Zim back lately. ~ 16:06, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Aww, come on, please.. Just one more admin, just one. I want to see a VFS, I've never seen one before.. Pleeeease? • FreddThe Metalhedd • • • 16:18, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Well I meant should we have a vote to decide whether we should have a vote for admins. I'd probably vote no, myself, as we did indeed get me and those other guys back recently, I'm just wondering whether we shouldn't entertain the idea every half a year or so. -- Also, penis. 16:24, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, but can we, at least, pull a public vote on the issue? Please. • FreddThe Metalhedd • • • 16:29, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Let's open the first VFS round then, RAHB, see what the others think ~ 16:32, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Word. -- Also, penis. 16:40, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Who would be the nominees anyway? Rabbi? Socky? A HELL NO to both of those! It would be... Nintendorulez! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:40, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dexter. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:20, 1 November 2009

You're welcome. I'd never let them make you an admin. Never. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 18:21, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

mm... Bad time difference... Well, hope you won't scratch my noms. PSir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 01:01, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

My nomms were scratched coz there were 4 of them or there was too late? Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 01:03, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

You were late. —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 01:04, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

can't I negotiate? I want to nom Colin very much :P Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 01:06, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to nom someone that I forgot, but it's too late, so oh well. And no offense to him at all, but Colin probably wouldn't get it anyway.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 01:09, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

That's why I want to nom him ;). C'mon, admins, don't be dicks! Let Colin play the game! It's like the Canadians didn't allow to start blind skiier in the 50 km cross country event on the Olympic Games in Vancouver. Shame on you Canajans! Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 01:12, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, HELPME, thanks. So much confidence. ;_;

And the rules say that time is GMT unless someone is late/early few hours. So i can nom Colin :p .`Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 01:14, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

No you can't. Sorry, try again next time. ~ 01:18, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Goddammit! This is bullshit. With all respect, Mordillo ;D. Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 01:21, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, on GMT time, you're over a day late.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 01:24, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect if it was so important to you - you had two days to do it. The GMT rules refers to the admins that shift between the phases. ~ 01:26, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Did we forget to inform the latest batch of users that VFS isn't an award and/or game?.. -RAHB 01:07, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

It's a punishment. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:29, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was the Bahrain GP qualifying stage. --nldr 02:34, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

See? Nachlader knows what's up. What's everyone else's excuse? -RAHB 08:19, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ptok obviously has not embraced the VFS yet. You simply close your eyes and meditate, while naked and at the mercy of the admins. Then, you may embrace the VFS and vote/nom people.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 08:38, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

As one of the latest batch of users, my thoughts were the "winner" gets extra responsibility, extra hate-mail, and less free time. I thought this was self-evident. Nominally Humane! some time Sunday, 09:58, Mar 14 2010 UTC

Against voting

So, I'm a bit curious. The guidelines don't say anything about whether or not we can vote against a nominee. I'm assuming not and that the voting is run similarly to the Top 3 of the Month or any award page. And if we can vote against: since there's already a limitation on how many people you can support, would there also be a limitation on how many people you can vote against? All apologies if I'm bringing up an already resolved issue. --EMC ^[TALK] 03:35 Mar 13 2010

 Against. making excessive rules. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 03:39, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Several admins and users voted against last time. I assume each person has a total of 3 votes. --Mn-z 03:45, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link MrN 08:55, Mar 13

So, how many more sysops we're going to have by the end of the month?

Two? Three? • FreddCan Shredd • • • 03:47 • Saturday, 13-03-2010

It doesn't matter. We suture them all together anyway. It's like a patchwork quilt, but with obese nerds. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:56, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

You mean, like good ole Dr Joseph Mengele used to do with Roma kids, but with obese nerds? That's just sick, man, plain sick. • FreddCan Shredd • • • 04:02 • Saturday, 13-03-2010

According to MrN9k, only two. Yet we get three votes. WEIRD, EH?! --EMC ^[TALK] 07:14 Mar 13 2010

I predict two. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Giratina CUN|IC Kill | 11:18, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we op all three?

I mean, ChiefjusticeDS is only 4 votes behind Socky. It makes sense to have 3 spots available (to me at least). • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 14:59, Mar 19 2010

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the last round of voting though? Also, opting too many at one time might be a bad idea. --Mn-z 15:33, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that this is the only VFS that's going to be held this year, right? And no, it's not a bad idea, the site is short of admins and all three candidates can have unique roles.. Anyhoo, that's not for us to decide - The Cabal will say their word. • FreddCan Shredd • • • 15:55 • Friday, 19-03-2010

That's not necessarily the last VFS of the year. If we feel there is a short of admins, we'll open it again. I wouldn't like to op all three by default, as MnZ said, it defeats the purpose of round three and over policing the site is not necessarily a good thing. ~ 16:08, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I remember the admins voting on what to agree on in the last round last time this kind of thing happened. Maybe something similar will occur this time? Only time will tell. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:29, 19 March 2010

 For. Opping all three, per Necro and the fact that I think all three are extremely deserving.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 23:32, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

LOL gize, shut up. It doesn't matter. If there was a cabal, they would decide how many admins we're going to add. If same non-existant cabal decides we need more admins later, they'd reopen VFS. No need to start any drama. Also,  For. skipping VFS altogether and just opping me. -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:40, 19 Mar

Socky, that happened when we only had two eligible candidates for round 3. Now we have three. ~ 11:34, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

We should at least op two, I think.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 16:47, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Op-ty I think you mean. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:49, 20 Mar

Why would we op tea? Tea is a liquid, and inanimate. —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 16:54, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

*spontaneous castration* • FreddCan Shredd • • • 16:58 • Saturday, 20-03-2010

Yes, I'm suggesting a similar thing could happen with three candidates. Hypothetically speaking, of course. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:18, 21 March 2010

 For. As per this shit that was going on, and apparently no admin was around at the time. —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call crap editing of a single article an existential crisis. Plus, even if you op the entire userbase, there will always the occasional asshat that finds the opening to do so. ~ 14:06, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Why so much fuss about sandwiches? I say put all three sandwiches in a blender and serve with ice. Aleister in Chains 14:13 21 3 MMX

Even if we need 3 admins, I would think it would be better to opt two, then have another round next month (or the month after that to see if 2 is enough), so we don't establish the convention that all those who make it to the last round get opted. --Mn-z 16:12, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

If we have to establish a convention it should be the Shriner's convention. Then I won't be the only person in a fez. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:23, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying I should, or shouldn't, wear my fez?  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  22 Mar 2010 ~ 04:00 (UTC)

There's only one way to insure that crap editing won't be missed by an admin--make everyone an admin! No, wait.... King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court)  04:06, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, that's a terrible idea. Make <insert name here> an admin instead. —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 04:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Make <insert name here> and admin huh? Hm,m,m,m,m,m....  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  25 Mar 2010 ~ 01:44 (UTC)

So voting by inactive sysops is allowed then?

I only ask as the voting system is highly geared towards being solely in the hands of the sysops, and by making no accommodation for the level of activity of an individual sysop that means that an individual who has made, say, 30 or so edits in the last six months has more of a say towards the voting of the new sysops then a user who makes an average of 30 or so edits a day for the last six months. Not a criticism, just an observation. Puppy Sunday, 20:54, Mar 21 2010 UTC

I'd say it's partly a recognition of status and prior commitment to the site, every admin was appointed at one point or another and we should recognise them for the contribution they have made. But I'd say it is mostly because admins, above all know what the role of administrator involves and thus are best equipped to decide who should fill the role, note that an admin's voice carries no more weight than anyone else's in any other vote on this wiki. So I'd say it is purely so that joke nominations are very unlikely to succeed in attaining admin rank and because admins know the role of admin best, regardless of when they carried it out. That's just my thoughts on the matter. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 21:00, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Double votes on forums as well, apparently - but as I said not a criticism, just an observation. Puppy Sunday, 21:13, Mar 21 2010 UTC

I think they single votes, since that is how that one forum post's votes were counted. I don't recall what it was about, but I know Hyperbole suggested something or other, I'm think it was dropping the maximum rules for NotM, and there was drama over the issue of double admin votes, but I digress. However, that was on a non-binding vote. --Mn-z 02:01, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - that was when I came across it, and I've since checked out the double voting thing and it is VFS and Forums, but I can't remember where I came across that. Puppy Thursday, 02:10, Mar 25 2010 UTC

Page Lock?

Is the page locked so that only admins and other officials can vote on the proposed new admin? There is no edit option to vote here. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:57, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's the admins only voting round. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 08:59, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:02, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

So that means I can't make this edit? Unless I'm an ADMIN!!!!!!. there's not much difference between "Admin" and "Admiral" User:Why do I need to provide this?/sig10 19:40, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

That's admirable. Puppy Tuesday, 22:06, Mar 30 2010 UTC

Uh...

It's March 30th and past 5PM UTC by now, shouldn't this be over?—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 16:46, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Are you in a hurry to be banned by someone new? ~ 16:48, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yes!!! No. I'm just wondering why it's late- just lazy or is it because Socky and Chief are too close? Also, I'm inconvienent and love pointing out possible mistakes people make.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 16:52, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thus making your spelling of "inconvenient" amusingly ironic. :-) Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 16:57, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Wat r u takin abot? I's an grt spllr!—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 17:00, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

It's because the admins are comment removed by nonexistant cabal --Paizu • Maj. • JStw • MUN • LOB • Crap • WHORE • (Talk) 16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Damn you, cabal! You made Pelargonium spell "nonexistent" incorrectly!—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 16:56, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of cabal, Pelargonium, how is that that your signature indicates that you have multiple featured articles? ~ 16:57, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oh shit oh shit...what'd I do this time... Is it because it links to VFH? --Paizu • Maj. • JStw • MUN • LOB • Crap • WHORE • (Talk) 17:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha ~ 17:17, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Well. --Paizu • Maj. • JStw • MUN • LOB • Crap • WHORE • (Talk) 17:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Better? —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 17:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Immensely. ~ 17:57, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Heey, I have a feature and stuff. Nobody told me I could add fancy things to my sig. The Man In Black. 20:01, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

You can add fancy things to your sig. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:10, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never. —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 20:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Colin, you can't. That's for people with multiple features, not "just" one.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 20:15, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again, VFH indicates a single feature. VFH with a line above it indicates multiple features. ~ 21:58, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

I thought that's what he meant...this page is confusing. Also, I think we should just op that Mhaille bloke and get on with life.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 21:59, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question; the 30th is the last day for voting, not the day the voting finishes. There's still just under an hour in which to vote (two if you ignore daylight saving time). • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:12, 30 Mar 2010

Oh wait, that's not what the rules say. Oh well, I'm pretty sure that's what they should say. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:15, 30 Mar 2010

Are you voting then, Spang? ~ 22:17, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I don't really have much of an opinion between them - I would be fine with all of them. Also the fact that adding two votes wouldn't make a difference either way. So rather than having to chose who not to vote for, I'll just not vote - it's exactly the same as voting for all 3 :)

Also, on this rules thing - I checked and Ljlego changed it in February 2008 without any discussion about it. So I think I might change it back. Especially seeing as the 21st to the 29th is 9 days anyway. How that lasted two years with nobody noticing, I don't know! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:45, 30 Mar 2010

I think it's very clear, we're a bunch of useless idiots. Also, as this has been the 31st now for two hours in my time zone, I think it's opping time. ~ 22:49, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Fucking shit

Op Socky too, bitches :@ • FreddCan Shredd • • • 23:56 • Tuesday, 30-03-2010

Hey, I think I haven't banned you for a while. Shall I? ~ 08:14, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

New ops in June

We seem to only have two competent admins on consistently (Rabbi and Chiefy), but they are only on for a small portion of the day. We seriously need one more admin who is actually capable of handling the duties rather than people like DrSkully. Oh, and Mordillo has a kid so we can't expect him to do everything himself. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 06:35, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, we need moar site ops in the IRC. #@uncyclopedia is dead and it seems like you can never get an admin when you need one via IRC. --EMC ^[TALK] 06:37 Jun 1 2010

Seems to be a constant problem of admin disappearance. But let's not focus on fixing that and instead op more people, shall we? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:42 Jun 01, 2010

We tried that already. I baked the cookies and Paizuri dressed in stockings to try and entice them to come back. Something about our efforts did not work. --EMC ^[TALK] 06:54 Jun 1 2010

Wha? Wha? Who said my name?! /me pokes head out from hole —Pelozurian (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Decisions about adding Ops is work of the cabal - and there is no cabal.
2. There was discussion about extra poopsmiths being added the last time we did VFS, and that never seemed to eventuate. Maybe it's time to do that now?
3. There are a few regular users here who don't have revert access, or a few other bits and bob that they could use to patrol the site which would be advantageous - maybe rather than opping one of them we have more users having a little more clout in sorting things out.
4. If we have VFS again Socky will win anyway, so can we save the issue of the whole voting thing and just appoint him anyway?
5. I've lost my pants and I don't know where to find them, and little children are laughing at me. Nominally Humane! some time Tuesday, 07:45, Jun 1 2010 UTC

UnSkype is the cabal, just for the record. --EMC ^[TALK] 07:48 Jun 1 2010

What's the point in saying there's no cabal if you're just going to spit that out to everyone? Nominally Humane! some time Tuesday, 07:50, Jun 1 2010 UTC

If i get Opped, I promise to leave the site immediately. So.... I'm a shoe-in, right? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 07:52, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Woody for Sysop! —Pelozurian (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have revert access :C -- Sir SF13 (Talk) GUN WotM RotM FBotM VFH SK Maj. ΥΣΣ 18:21 Budapest, Hun 2 Jun, 2010

Response to Puppy Poopy

The problem isn't with needing another poopsmith. There's been no issue with archiving QVFD, BP, and VFD (that's all a poopsmith does). The problem isn't even with reverting the edits made by vandals. In case you haven't noticed, Paizuri, Ethine, emc, Socky, and I haven't been having any problems with that. The problem stems from not being able to ban vandals, not being able to edit protected pages (notably the feature queue), and not being able to huff pages. That's the fucking problem and it's out of the scope of a poopsmith's power (mine) to do anything. And finally, I resent Socky being the only choice to be made an admin. I see serious competition from emc. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 08:05, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'll be running with BENSON as my VP. I will srsly run in a two-party election against Socky with debates and everything. We can do it on Skype and we'll get Walter Cronkite's corpse to mediate. --EMC ^[TALK] 08:07 Jun 1 2010

Dex, chill. The bit about Socky was tongue in cheek - in fact most of those points were. The advantage in having more poopsmiths and the like is that it is less time that the admins spend poopsmithing. This means when an admin comes in and starts doing adminny things they can concentrate on BP and ignore the poopsmithery. The reality is that with two admins recently taking on paternal duties, we have a lack of active admin presence, and not enough reliable users to pick up slack. I have tried to take on more personally with IC and USP, but the first took up so much of my time I haven't been able to get to the second at all this month, and have dropped it in favour of only doing what I can. Honestly I can't see a reason why poopsmiths can't block, huff, and hack, beyond the simple case of "that's the way we've always done it." Nominally Humane! some time Tuesday, 08:28, Jun 1 2010 UTC

The only ones who poopsmith are Chief and Rabbi. I've told them both to let me do it all, but they won't. IC and USP have nothing to do with what I said. And are you suggesting adding power to poopsmiths? If that's the case, then poopsmiths will have to be elected rather than just be appointed by the former poopsmith with 'crat support. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 08:35, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

IC and USP are previously admin run and now falling by the wayside, hence why I brought them up. And yeah, more power to poopsmiths is one option here. I don't know if this means a longer process to appoint smiths - we appoint admins as caretakers of the site, and I'd prefer to think that we choose them on the basis that we can rely on their decisions, amongst other things. The difference between a 'smith and an admin is a 'smith can be unsmithified by an admin if the 'smith acts in a way contrary to what is best for the site, whereas that is harder with an admin. (In fact I don't know if it's even possible.) So I'm for more power to 'smiths, less voting on the appointment of them, meaning less red tape and less admin reliance. tl;dr Nominally Humane! some time Tuesday, 08:47, Jun 1 2010 UTC

My opinion is that we don't need to get new admins just now. The reason being that I think we are just in a period of time when we have several admins missing briefly from the site simply due to personal circumstances and laziness. I suspect some of the admins that are currently missing will reappear over summer, as general site activity tends to pick up around then anyway. While I have no objection to any of the candidates for adminship my feeling is that while there are only a few admins around right now, the site may become an admin convention over summer if we start opping now. Of course if August rolls round and no admins have reappeared then a vote would be a great idea. So in summary, I think we should wait to see if more admins reappear when activity picks up, as it normally does, over summer. In the meantime we have a few active admins around and at most there will just be a few hours wait before an admin can sort the issue out. Not a great long term solution, but I'd say it's good enough for right now. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 09:23, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

So far, this is the only logical argument against more admins. And it took you too long to say it. You should've just said, "It's summer. More admins will show up. Let's wait till September to give Socky, emc, and Sycamore admin-ship." MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 09:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I have to work up to having an opinion on something, it ruins the enigma that is Chief. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 09:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I love it how we decide on VFS up front. Shall we wipe your arse as well while we're at it? Other than that, I completely agree with what Chief says, I don't think we need to add more admins into the fray at this point. ~ 09:42, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's clear who would be nominated. Why fucking hide it? And like I said, Chief is the only one with a logical argument. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 09:45, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the arse cleaning argument is very logical. ~ 09:53, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't. Now, had you used neck sex then you would have won, but you didn't. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 09:55, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Damn it! ~ 10:00, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you've got the new sysops wrong. But I won't spoil the surprise. Nominally Humane! some time Tuesday, 10:03, Jun 1 2010 UTC

There's no need for new ops. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:25, 01 Jun 2010

Oh hi Spang. I see you've dished out your monthly advice on formatting. Now bugger off like usual. We'll see you next month. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:01, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Where are you? There you are. Where are you? There you are. Where are you? I damn well know you're right there. Jerk.

This Drama is boring. I'm leaving the site unless someone calls someone else a charlatan. -- oblivious Ape (stretch) (Riot Porn) 01:50, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

• I've been reverting vandals too, Dexter. I have been since February. >:(
  • Also, about sysops, I've noticed this too- everyone is busy with something. Honestly, the best situation would be waiting until people come back. I have a feeling UU, RAHB, and others will be back eventually.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Wednesday, 01:54, June 02 2010 UTC
    • Stop edit conflicting me, charlatan! Nominally Humane! some time Wednesday, 02:01, Jun 2 2010 UTC

The admins are all here. You don't notice them because they're tiny. And they just sit there. With curious eyes. Staring. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:45, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Can we change the header of this topic - I'm starting to feel victimised! Nominally Humane! some time Wednesday, 04:09, Jun 2 2010 UTC

There, I changed it for ya. Notice my clever irony. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court)  05:35, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

I feel so much more welcome. (I seem to remember someone saying something about strike out being used badly in most cases to make jokes, by saying to the reader "Look at this joke." I wonder who that was?) Nominally Humane! some time Wednesday, 05:44, Jun 2 2010 UTC

Yes, that was me. But if you'll check my history, I've said several times I don't generally like strikeouts for humour in articles. I take humour very seriously in articles; in my personal posts, I'm allowed to sound stupid. And, I might add, I'm quite good at it. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court)  05:54, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Some would say that it's your defining characteristic. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:00, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Stop stealing my definitiveness! Nominally Humane! some time Wednesday, 06:28, Jun 2 2010 UTC

I'll be back. I shall now prove it by banning Dex. --UU - natter 08:08, Jun 2

These are not the sysops you are looking for. Move along, move along.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Guys, I've just received a revelation from Gosh Almighty

And on the 9th day of the 9th month they met, atop a hill that hath come to be called VFS, mighty were they, the three giants didst clash, and verily! The LORD smiteth the unrightous and the rightous two doth prevail. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 16:01, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think these guys honestly set me up the bomb. UU, Spang, Mhaille, and MadMax all just appear at once. What the Hell? It's the fucking cabal... MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:58, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Egypt lol --EMC ^[TALK] 01:02 Jun 4 2010

On the plus side, you asked for more admins around the place... Nominally Humane! some time Friday, 07:51, Jun 4 2010 UTC

New ones. That guy, for example. Just look at his ego. Right where it should be. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here

A real round of VFS in the near future (read: August)?

When the most active admin is ostensibly me, and more things are being done by users than admins such as me, then things can't be good. Viable, active candidates are coming through the woodwork so I say we're just about due.

Also, before anyone talks about admins disappearing, users disappear even more frequently. Any schmuck who pays any attention to site dynamics notices that 95% of us, admins and users alike, come and go in phases. This is because Uncyclopedia is a hobby site. When we make an op, their disappearance just becomes more noticeable, since we thought they had less of a life than the average user. Chiefjustice points this out above, but instead of not making any new admins at all, which is a bad idea, what we need are "complement admins". This is why Cs1987 was such an ace-in-the-hole: because he was Australian and covered different time zones. A whole bunch of guys like Rcmurphy or Evilzak or maybe even CRUSHERBOT may magically reappear when the tides of winter approach, but that doesn't mean that should stop us from opping Andorin Kato, who has been the site's biggest asset in the last few weeks and seems like a perfect summer complement (or e|m|c or Dexter or Ethine or Saberwolf anyone else worth mentioning). -- 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 09:32, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

For a new admin. I know one of the current ones, and he's useless. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:03, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment: How about Socky? Two years and 43K edits. Plus, he's in Belgium. Saberwolf116 13:32, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

45K. And sadly, yes, I'm in Belgium. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:18, 24 July 2010

Where are our waffles, hmmm? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:25, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Why not two new admins? On a "joke" forum about deopting someone, I pointed out that at least one of the admins hadn't been heard of in well over a year. Probably quite a few in that position. So two seems about right, which would ease the burden very well on others. I like Socky too, and the rest seem very active as well (Dexter in particular, ever since I've been around) Aleister 15:45 25 7

I don't think we need new admins. I'm being constantly beaten to maintenance, deleting and blocking is going fine, and VFH queuing is working.I just don't see the need to op people when there's no real backlog.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Saturday, 04:02, July 24 2010 UTC

Sure, it's going fine, with your and other people's great help. But there have been many times that an admin isn't around at certain hours, and who know how many of them would like a break to do other things here, like write (some of the great admin writers haven't been as productive lately, and maybe the pressure of having to answer questions and navigate the site has taken their attention off of writing). So lots of the senior admins should get together and decide if a new one or two are needed, not guys like me logging on and often quickly off when I'm around a computer. Aleister 16:07 24 7

Let's be calm, here. Admins aren't usually on around 3 A.M or mid-morning EST, but most people are asleep at 3AM and at work or school in mid-morning. The longest a vandal spree has gone on has been about five minutes, and that was really a bad time. There are many lurking admins if you need them.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Saturday, 04:39, July 24 2010 UTC

Er, what? The vandals who fucked the main page the other day (literally fucked it) went unchallenged for like 10 minutes... Just saying. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:42, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, sannse and MacMania got to that rather quickly. I wasn't there for the actual incident (I just saw the talk page messages), but I saw the times on recent changes.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Saturday, 04:50, July 24 2010 UTC

Not fast enough. My daughter saw it. I had to explain to her all the uses of an anus. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:54, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

You have a daughter? Saberwolf116 16:56, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't really the place to discuss that. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:00, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Wow. How many uses of an anus are there? Paint us a mental picture that no amount of pills and alcohol can erase. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:15, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing so unspeakably horrible that happens on Uncyclopedia that can't be solved by an admin cleaning it up when one does show up. You guys act like we've never had an NSFW image before... -RAHB 02:37, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

EMC For 2003 2010

4+ years, 170+ articles, and a really big penis. That's the platform I'm running on. I'll be looking forward to being your next tyrant. --EMC ^[TALK] 10:56 Jul 25 2010

And what about the allegations that you just intend to turn this site into Insectopedia? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:32, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read your question but the answer is "Yes." We shall become The wiki that only insects can edit. --EMC ^[TALK] 11:33 Jul 25 2010

I might vote for if this was writer of the month. I'm not convinced- I need something to put you over the top. Yes, I am being serious.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Sunday, 10:35, July 25 2010 UTC

Silly EMC, he forgot that he's already an admin. User:Mrthejazz/sig 02:42, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying, as far as I understand it, is you don't want to be opped? Because that's what I understand as soon as anyone says they want to be an admin. --UU - natter 08:22, Jul 26

Of course I want to be opped. You silly liberals and your reverse psychology...if I didn't want to be an admin, why would I spend millions of money on campaign ads? --EMC ^[TALK] 08:50 Jul 26 2010

See, now I'm reading "not only do I not want to be opped, I want to have my ass banned for a month". Odd how this works, isn't it? --UU - natter 08:52, Jul 26

See, you're unlike the average voter, UU. You understand the issues. If I'm made an admin, I will ban myself not for one month, but two months. --EMC ^[TALK] 06:31 Jul 27 2010

Wait a minute...

If we vote on ops next month, then that means we won't have a sandwich of the month! The IPs will starve! Saberwolf116 23:30, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. They can just eat the losers. -RAHB 02:57, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

They're all losers. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:17, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. World hunger solved, just like that. I'll take my Nobel Prize now. -RAHB 03:23, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Template:VFS

And a hearty hurrah to you, my dear sir! I'm amazed it isn't red, white and green. Nominally Humane! some time Sunday, 09:59, Jan 2 2011 UTC

So how gay are you currently?

Is there going to be a vote for Sandwich of the Year? It's Magically Fucking Delicious!!! 06:17,9January,2011

We could hold one on the talkpage... now that could be fun. But we should be able to vote against as many things as we feel like. *shifty eyes* 1234 ~ 06:31, 9 January 2011

No, I think if we have a Sandwich of the Year contest we should only get one vote. -- 20:06, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Every year sysops would need to vote whether they need more sandwiches, otherwise VFS/Y would default to sysops instead. —DCCLXXVII (complaints • resume • • • • WP • UMF • GoogHelp • AWA • WA) 19:34, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 ops

So how many are sandwiches are going to be made? I'd suggest three or four. One sandwich is very unfilling, and no active sub should be deopped because of this either, imnho. Aleister 1:53 12-4-'11

I agree with Al. -- 02:11, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Op consensus during preliminary voting suggested between one and two new ops. Probably 1.53. -- 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 02:53, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

One average sized Uncylopedian? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:48, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

1.53... - Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 04:49, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Aleister, Romartus, Socky, Spike and Sycamore would probably add up to about 1.54, if taken in safe doses... hmm... can we op all of them anyway? I know it goes over, but come on. 1234 ~ 05:12, 12 April 2011

This month's gonna be a clusterfuck. God damn. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 05:58 Apr 12, 2011

HAHA - Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 06:01, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

We should just op aaaaaaaall of them. -- 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 06:18, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Why? - Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 06:19, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, most of these nominations are shit. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 06:47, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

You mean 'all', don't you? We don't have any users that aren't completely horrible, currently. Well, save for one... it's settled! Everyone vote for Zombiebaron! 1234 ~ 06:50, 12 April 2011

YAY, we're all horrible people, except me, am I horrible? - Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 06:59, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

You're not secretly Zombiebaron, are you? 1234 ~ 07:01, 12 April 2011

There is a large list of potential admins here simply because a handful of admins have been unilaterally blocking any request by non-admins for new admins for over a year, with the sole reasoning for doing so being "A few of the old ones will probably show up in the near future, maybe, probably, possibly tomorrow, who knows, but they could appear at any moment, maybe before I even save this bullshit excuse as to why I'm against giving anyone else ops." One can see that exact reasoning being used just a bit up on this very talk page. Couple that with all of the users who should have been opped years ago (Sycamore, Socky, and emc all come to mind), and you're bound to find yourself anally raped one of these days.

Opping at least five people is clearly the only good choice here. And allowing the community to have a say in whether or not new admins are needed instead of leaving that choice to current admins is the only way to prevent this situation from happening again. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 07:24, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Going through the active admins list, I agree. Only about 5, tops contribute with any regularity. And most of the time you have about another 6 non-admins taking everything to QVFD and ban patrol and 99% of the time the admins agree with them, and do what they would have done if they had the power. Isn't an idea to op these people that do most of the hard work? - Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 07:41, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly an idea. But a better idea is that we op User:TOAST, that way we get multiple admins for the price of one. --Black Flamingo 11:29, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

No, and I can't make this clear enough: The idea is to op people when we need ops. The whole "deserving" bit doesn't apply here - it's whether ops are needed on Uncyclopedia. I could come up with a whole slew of arguments of why this is a good system, and you could come up with a similar barrage of arguments as to why it's unfair; but this isn't the point. The point is, historically, we opped people only when necessary. This hasn't magically changed. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:08 Apr 15, 2011

Addendum, as to why this doesn't contradict my comment on VFS about opping two people: I've always been for opping multiple ops at a time, since it a) gives the new admin(s) someone else on their level to talk to and b) should a newly-made admin suddenly leave, we have a backup. Not saying that's likely to happen here, just saying that there're good reasons why, when holding a VFS, we ought to op more than one person. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:14 Apr 15, 2011

I think you make it clear enough; don't be so hard on yourself. --Black Flamingo 11:54, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

As valid as those reasons may be numerous admins stated at this time that they felt that one more into the ranks would be enough. Following the rogue temp opping fun last month a number of active admins, as well as other long term active contributors, took a leave of absence. IMHO, I've felt that we needed another admin on the books since the turn of the year, but others clearly felt differently. Thing is there is no rush, the site isn't about to disappear, even if people ran amok for a week without admin activity it could all be sorted out. If we have another vote to decide if we need more admins next month then great, if not until the month after then great. Despite some people pushing an agenda that change is needed (which I am far from dismissing), change is frequently a slow steady process rather than something sudden and violent (like my sex life). My feeling is that one new admin is good this month, we can look again next month if necessary. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

"A week without admin activity" never happens; it's more like three hours late-night when you can't find anyone with a ban-stick. "It could all be sorted out" but with more coverage, it could be stopped before it has to be sorted out. However, if you set out to vote one new Admin ("between one and two," Froggy?) then do what you set out to do. Looking at the vote and changing what you were voting on, or conceding to comments from the peanut gallery in the middle of a vote, is the wrong way to do things. Spıke ¬ 12:59 15-Apr-11

The "between one and two" is, of course, a joke. I'm also for opping two along the same lines of Dr. S. When two ops are appointed at once, they develop a kind of cameraderie and synergy with each other that works excellently towards the site's advantage. Plus, as Jack Pheonix said on the main page, the scores at the top are so near each other and far away from the rest, it would be brutally unfair to appoint one and ignore the other. -- 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 22:41, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a little less activity here than in the past, so why are we bring new people in? We should be maybe looking to vote to de-op someone rather than op. mAttlobster. (hello) 00:22, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

And then ban all the new users. 1234 ~ 01:16, 16 April 2011

Spike, it's not the wrong way to do things at all. Uncyclopedia is largely informal and the "rules", such as they are, are constantly in flux. Looking at a very clear trend in a voting pattern and completely ignoring it in favor of the "rules" (which, mind you, are as arbitrarily decided as anything else on the site, and have a unique history of their own) is being - to put it lightly - extremely stupid. To do so would be to ignore the facts in front of you. It would be relying on guidelines instead of common sense. Situations change and people have to adapt. Then again, I think you have some personal difficulty in accepting that rules are not the only way to make decisions. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:21 Apr 16, 2011

Damn. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 01:39, Saturday 16 April 2011 -

If I were an admin, I would vote to op them both. --Scofield 12:00, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

If I were an admin. Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum. All day long I'd biddy biddy bum. (It loses something without Chaim Topol) Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:23, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Crystal ball

1. Two people are opped
2. One person is opped, and we have another "temp" oppage of another
3. We get inundated by ex-ED contributors who argue that they should be opped
4. Jimbo Wales gets opped

One of these will happen. Does it matter which one? Pup 12:45 28 Apr '11 PS: I never want to be opped - all work and no play.

You forgot about Fnoodle getting opped. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 15:30 Apr 29, 2011

Or this VFS being tossed out because you suck. Also, OP Fnoodle now, plz. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 15:32, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Now why would you want to give him the first edit on the wiki when you could give him admin powers? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 15:34 Apr 29, 2011

Minor point

-- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 07:38, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

They're discussing that stupid french word 'crats, not ops. (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2011

Plus, hahahaha IE. (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2011

I am aware what their discussing, but why can't we discuss it too??? -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 07:48, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHA JackOfSpades is never gonna get laid -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 07:48, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

The fact that users get to vote for whether or not we need ops is very recent and only barely passed. It's unreasonable to assume that we'd get to vote on whether or not we need 'crats. And do you really want to feel the obligation to vote on something that might come up once a year? I don't (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2011

Actually, it was already decided that during the month of June we will be using VFS to vote for bureaucrats. Therefore the admins and any active bureaus will be using the first 10 days of the month to vote on how many bureaus we need. -- The Zombiebaron 07:56, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

Edit Count Thing

Is that really relevant for a 'crat? The only significant power that 'crats have that admins don't is the ability to change user rights, which isn't something that is urgent compared to the various administrative tasks. I'm more concerned about someone who will be around consistently on a daily/weekly basis, not someone who is on IRC 14 hours a day when active but may live the wiki for months on end. And more importantly, I'd want someone who isn't going to abuse their 'cratly authority. --Mn-z 13:10, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

If they're "user rights" but they can be changed, are they really rights at all? My apologies for blowing your mind. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:22, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

People's rights are granted and taken away in many ways. Felons are an example of a citizen with revoked rights even after incarceration. Habitual drunk drivers can lose their right to drive. A person given the death penalty has lost his "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I am just making a position that while it seems it shouldn't be so, rights are only as good as the benevolence of the authority that can take them away. No matter how inalienable they may seem to be. Blow this. --K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 19:45, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Are we interested in getting rid of VFS entirely?

Zombiebaron described something vaguely RfA-like, but simpler. Apparently it's what this place used in the old days before this turned into a cage-fight. See, it'd be nice to be able to vote for folks based solely on whether they'd be useful and actually improve things, than do we need more? and then who would be the least bad one(s) to fill in the more? We can op folks without needing more ops, and there are plenty of effectively sysop-only things on this site that don't need doing but from which we would still benefit if they were done. Those who do not get opped may also benefit from directed feedback from the failure, as such a method would actually require people vote against instead of just voting for someone else instead for who knows why. And in theory there would be reasons involved. We could even ban people who don't give reasons in a civil manner. Doesn't that sound fun, another reason to ban people? 1234 ~ 06:42, 2 December 2011

Score: 5?

•  For something more RfA-like, but maybe without so much stupid crap as the wikipedian ones seem to have. 1234 ~ 06:42, 2 December 2011
• Delicious. -RAHB 06:44, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
•  Conditional for The rules of this new system need to be very very very tightly controlled. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 06:49, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Agaiiiiinst, until concrete blueprints for this new system are actually made. Foooooooooooor if this is just an interest poll. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:53, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

  This is a vote to see if concrete blueprints should be made, you idiot. We vote on those after they're made. 1234 ~ 06:55, 2 December 2011

  The way "Can we get rid of VFS entirely?" is phrased sure is deceptive, then. I like the idea, but at least start drawing up the plan before suggesting it as a replacement. -- 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 06:57, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

  I uh... I never claimed my brain was working. I also really don't know why we would get rid of VFS, either, it being as Socky says, a vote for sandwiches. And if there's no interest in a replacement, then what's the point of drawing up a plan? This things are complicated, especially when you don't have a working brain. 1234 ~ 07:06, 2 December 2011

  Well then, I say I am interested. But I also changed the question to be less... confrontational. -- 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 07:11, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

  I ate your dog. o__o 1234 ~ 07:14, 2 December 2011

  She had it coming. -- 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 17:52, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

• Only if we keep Vote For Sandwiches around. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 07:01, 2 December 2011\
•  Against.--FcukmanLOOS3R!!! 07:20, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Not until I am an admin too. :P --Mimo&maxus 11:48, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. Nepotism and being mean spirited to one another is what fuels this community.--Sycamore (Talk) 12:15, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Yeah that could be good. Also it'd be nice to have some discussion in future about what we actually need said ops for. --Black Flamingo 20:02, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
• I am still reading the welcome pack. I don't want to keep Nicole Scherzinger waiting. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 20:08, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, let's discuss VFS alternatives again. -- The Zombiebaron 20:24, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Yea, VFS sucks. Makes being a banhammer-wielding slave of the wiki seem like a big deal. ajr 20:40, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
• this thing is fucking bullshit and i don't like it --Roman Dog Bird 08:20, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• Against. I know I'm probably unaware of a lot of shit that went down, but VFS seems the most democratic way of handling this. -- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 12:15, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

  There would definitely be a vote involved. It'd just be on a per-user basis instead of on everyone or something. If that makes any sense. But that's really all I know anyway. 1234 ~ 12:34, 3 December 2011

• Against. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 12:33, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. An RfA-style page would make us feel like Wikipedia, but better. I even wanted a spork of it! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Giratina CUN|IC Kill | 06:29, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
• I'd say let the Admins decide if a new one is needed and then let everyone vote on who it is. mAttlobster. (hello) 15:30, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. When it's VFS people complain about, what, the popularity contest, and when it's only admins picking it's a dark and secretive (and darkly secretive) cabal. I'll go with popularity contest. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:22, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
• Huh? Sorry Lyrithya, while your idea might be a good one I'm honestly not sure what you are proposing. Could you give a few more details, or a run down of how it would work?

• In any case ... a couple comments here. I am still yet to see, hear, read, dream up, hypothesise about any single reason why having a new admin is a bad thing. None.
• I also find the phrase "who would be the least bad one(s) to fill in the more?" somewhat cynnical. I don't think either Black Flamingo nor Romartus is the least bad of anything. They are in fact two of the best writers, best uncyclopedians and best acting users on the site. Popularity contest or not ... we now have two good solid admins.
• Whatever the new system (or modified system) is ... the whole total stinking rotten bull-shit of the admins making the final decision has to go. It is really a pathetic sight on a collaborative wiki to see admins making the ultimate decision of a community wide process and users silently observing the admins votes and their ultimate [jewish-cabal] decision. It reminds me of the black smoke that comes out of the chimney at the vatican ... only we don't rape little boys, we simply write about them.

• Always drink 10 litres of water a day. Your urine should be almost sparkling clear if you have healthy kidneys. --ShabiDOO 01:12, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

The less admins the better, always. Less random decisions, more harmony and more adventurous sex. We don't need anymore for a long time(except maybe Frosty for Aus time, as I do think it's a little unfair he has to revert loads of vandalism on his own without being able to stop it). If people just want to write articles, it is in no way a problem at the moment. I've never in my 27 years on Uncyclopedia had problems writing an article due to lack of admins. mAttlobster. (hello) 16:55, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Because Frosty is of course the only Australian user here... Pup 03:56 24 Jan '12

Stop chewing at my trouser legs. mAttlobster. (hello) 17:41, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

•  For. The RfA thing. -- 01:23, December 8, 2011 (UTC)
•  Against. --EMC ^[TALK] 19:53 Dec 10 2011

Once again...

I respectfully decline appointment.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  06 Dec 2011 ~ 08:37 (UTC)

And the day will end

I state my intention that an RfA-style thing would be the best. I think there are ten votes, just that people are too lazy these days. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Giratina CUN|IC Kill | 06:37, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Proposed alternatives to the VFS system

I think the vote above was in favour of changing te VFS system from my tally, but there was some confusion as to what the new system was going to be. So I figured rather than vote on a system that hasn't been fleshed out, let's argue for a while on the merits of different systems and go from there. VFS at the moment has several stages, so while we're putting it through the mincer let's look at them.

Voting on whether we need a new admin

This is done in a varied number of ways, depending on who proposes it. It usually is an admin only vote, or the admins pull out their "two for the price of one" vote cards so that it becomes admin dominated. As those cards have now been voluntarily handed over, it may make a difference to the outcome of the vote. However the question on my mind is why do we need to vote to begin with? Jokes aside, there is no shadowy cabal. It's a matter of users who have proven themselves worthwhile in site maintenance and other such bullocks who have been granted elevated rights to be able to do more complex maintenance tasks. I've swung away from the question of "Do we need another admin?" to "Does a particular user deserve to be given admin rights?"

Voting on candidates

First there is the nomination and round one voting. Next there is round two voting to ensure that there are only a few options, and there is closed voting that is admin only style stuff. Do we really need all these different rounds of voting? Honestly, can't we just say "Okay, candidates have shown themselves to be uncyclopedian by wining UotM. They are still active in that they have edited within the last month. You have a choice of 12 different candidates, and everyone gets 3 votes to choose as they will." Or something similarly simple. Rather than a long and drawn out process of nomination and elimination votes, let's accept tat we've already picked out people who have shown community spirit, and go from there.

So dot pointing:

• Can we have too many admins?

No. --ShabiDOO 21:53, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

• If someone has been given admin status and then shown to be a wanker, can we remove admin rights?

Yes, initiated, discussed and voted on equally throughout the entire community. --ShabiDOO 21:53, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

• Should there be a vote on who should become an admin?

Yes, unless a really good alternative comes up. --ShabiDOO 21:53, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

• If there is a vote, who can vote, and should some voices be heard louder than others?

Any registered user can vote. No...no louder voices ever, the process should be initiated, discussed and voted on equally throughout the entire community. --ShabiDOO 21:53, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

• Can we simplify the voting process?

That would be grand.

• Should IPs be allowed voting rights?

Not on admin voting unless the IP is an active user. --ShabiDOO 21:53, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Discuss away. Pup 09:22 24 Jan '12

Discussing, discussing, discussing... --ShabiDOO 21:53, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion/Shenanigans from March 2012

If there is a VFS this month, can we have admin-only nominations, and then a final community-wide vote

Score: +6

• Based on early polling it seems kinda likely that we'll be doing the full VFS this month so I wanna get this proposal in early. I'd like to go back to an older system where admins did all the nominating. During the admin nominating process, admins are encouraged to vote either for or against and provide reasons and feedback with their vote. Then after that the entire community gets to vote on the top scorers from the nomination round, and the winner of that final vote is opped. -- The Zombiebaron 08:39, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Also for this, just to shake things up. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 15:01, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
• For.--Sycamore (Talk) 19:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
• I'd be willing to try that. --Black Flamingo 20:08, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
• For Makes sense. And sense is ace! mAttlobster. (hello) 09:50, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
• This should be in the rules to cut down on the bullshit noms that are obviously joke noms, because admins can take it srsly, Right? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 10:06, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

  So really, what we need is something to discourage dumb nominations in general... how? 1234 ~ 17:53, 2 March 2012

  Offer free bans to those who don't comply. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 08:20, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

If there is a VFS this month, can we have community wide nominations, and then a final community-wide vote with equal votes?

Score: 1

• The community is capable of nominating perfecly good candidates, we don't need admins telling us who will make good admin, we aren't stupid. The community is also perfectly capable of chosing the admin they want without admins having a head start, we arent stupid. Community wide desicions for a community wide wiki. --ShabiDOO 11:01, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • You may not be stupid, and a number of regular users may not be stupid, but there are a lot more stupid people on the internet than not-stupid ones. And for the world in general. -RAHB 08:43, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

If there is a VFS this month, can we have community wide nominations, and then a final admin-only vote?

Like it says in the blue box at the top of the page? Because to be honest, the community knows who they would like to have as admin, but the admins know who they work well with. Likewise the admins know who they can work with, but the community has a right to have a voice. Any of these proposals will be likely to have a similar outcome, but given that the 'crats can de-opp - and would do with the support of majority of admins - they need to have a louder voice in this one arena, otherwise the entire system becomes a bit of a debacle. Maybe not so much this time (assuming there is a vote) but there has been vote tampering in the past in other areas. Let's not set up a system that will encourage that now. Pup 11:31 01 Mar '12

Puppy...you dont know how you are going to work with an admin until they become an admin. In any case, its your responsibilities to make things work, its not up to the community to deliver admins that other admins want or like or wish to work with (this wiki is not an adminotocracy), but its the responsiblity of the admins to get over their differences or petty problems with others, work together and keep the site working. --ShabiDOO 12:29, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, Shabidoo is entirely right about that one thing - someone might seem like they'd make a good admin and then turn out to be a complete failure who goes around reverting everyone, but there's nothing anyone can do about it besides yell at them until they go away (which actually does work surprisingly well, but that's not the point) because people refuse to deop admins even after they do the most ridiculous things. Anyone who does make a good admin would be able to do that latter thing, but there's really no guarantee of that. Fortunately nothing too horrible has come of it yet that I know of, but even so a little accountability might go a long way.

That said, have you noticed something about how the community tends to nominate folks? Sure, they nominate deserving ones... they also nominate everyone else, too. It gets downright confusing, but there really isn't any incentive not to treat the entire process as a joke and nominate all your friends and non-friends and random fools. 1234 ~ 14:54, 1 March 2012

Yeah, go Puppy. System works well as is per basically everything he 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 14:08, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I sort of get this whole Idea that admins think the process of getting new admins is not just a joke, but some kind of assault on their very being. Even though you are the product of this very process, apparantly, its very stupid and not worth anyones time. I would never insinuate that the nomination of one user by another user is simply a case of favouratism or budy budy-ing or fixing votes. The whims and will of any user should be respected no matter how much you dont like it, nor whatever you assume about their motives. If anything, I think admins nominating their own friends and choosing their own buddies is the biggest form of favouratism and budy budy-ing I can think of. Its the ultimate vote fixing. A small percentage of the community gets their way under the guise of the website self destructing if a user they don't like gets chosen. --ShabiDOO 20:02, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Keep going, Shabi! You're on a roll, baby! -- 01:43, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

If there isn't a VFS this month, can we all have some cake and eat it too?

Score: 1

•  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:04, 1 March 2012
• Seems entirely reasonable to me. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 19:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Strong against. I'm on a diet. --Black Flamingo 20:09, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
• I already ate it. 1234 ~ 00:51, 3 March 2012

A mysterious stranger has awarded you a slice of cake!

The icing is extra-frosty!

---

So

We should totally op Oliphaunte. I doubt he'd do anything useful, but our last new admin hasn't even logged in that I know of since being opped, so it doesn't get much worse than that. Does it? 1234 ~ 03:24, 2 March 2012

That one has still lasted longer as an admin than the one before. Pup 10:17 02 Mar '12

That would make them the best admins ever? Leading by doing nothing, administrating by not micromanaging things and allowing he website to organically control itself. Administrator of the year!!!!!!!!!! --ShabiDOO 19:49, March 2, 2012 (UTC)