Forum:Three new sysops

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Three new sysops
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3077 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

No longer wanted
Three Two new sysops: Tompkins (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups) and Bradaphraser (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups)

Candidates

Sikon

Comment: Sikon's not already an admin? I didn't know that. He should be. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional for. If we are sysoping 3 users. My first two votes go for Tomps and Brad.--Rataube 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me) 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Lugiatm

Tompkins

  • For enjoy --Olipro Icons-flag-gb (Harass) 12:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For. Deep and comprehensive knowldege of uncy, I'm sure he will make a good admin.--Rataube 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For If I had the power to make Tomp an admin right now, I would be very tempted to abuse my power to do so. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I definitely support Tompkins' nomination. If he isn't sysoped, I will start stabbing people. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Quatre ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong For: I have been saying for a while now that I think Tompkins should be first in line for op. He already does various admin-like duties (more so than a significant number of our actual sysops do) and based on my experience checking NRVs, he seems to excercise good, cautious judgement. Tompkins is also friendly and attentive and seems to really care about people's Uncyclopedia experience. I think all that makes him the ideal candidate. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Go on the For--Maj Sir Elvis KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and Bar UGM F@H (Petition) 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me) 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bradaphraser

  • For I'm entitled to vote right? --Olipro Icons-flag-gb (Harass) 12:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For. Same as Tomps, deep and comprehensive knowldege of uncy, I'm sure he will make a good admin. Plus he VFDs a lot (or used to) and I guess he could give Gwax a hand--Rataube 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For A good dude! -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Quatre ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For> Brad has been busy and so doesn't do a lot of adminly work, but he does have a pretty extensive knowledge of the site by now. He also seems like he is willing to proceed with changes with caution and care and that's a big plus in my book. Also, I want to vote for the anti-white candidate. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For, he's got the right stuff. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|CUNT|+S 21:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Provisional Against, due to messing with the votes. --Algorithm (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Retracted after IRC discussion. --Algorithm (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I edited a previous revision without realizing it. Sorry everyone.  ::Totally red-faced::--> Brad Frasier National Co-Anchor CUN [talk]   20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
/me cries. I knew I shouldn't have voted for Bush.--> Brad Frasier National Co-Anchor CUN [talk]   21:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hinoa

Rataube

  • Nominate. (presuming he isn't already busy with his bureaucratic duties over at our Spanish sister) Also, if we ever let non-admins vote here I think he should be the first to get a vote. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Slackerboy

  • Nominate. Odd he's not admin yet, he's been nominated and received support before. Must be slacking off again... --carlb 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For it's criminal he is not yet--Maj Sir Elvis KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and Bar UGM F@H (Petition) 21:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For. I'll +sysop him if people keep slacking off. Dawg_sig_2.gif Sir Dawg  cun | tlk | vdp  20:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am against ceremonial opping, which this clearly is. I know someone will say that this makes me a supporter of "leet admins" but I don't think it is appropriate to give someone powers and prestige unless they need them to carry out the responsibilities they have taken on and become trusted with. I can recall times when slack has acted unilaterally against both user and admin consensus and I worry that putting op behind that behavior will only increase the perception (and reality) of admins being entirely above normal users. There are plenty of people on this list who devote a lot of time and effort to this site and could be made more effective by being opped; people who I would trust to act unsupervised and still have the site maintain high standards of fairness. Slack hasn't spent the time either to demonstrate that he would be around to perform the job or that his judgement should be trusted. Don't get me wrong, slack seems like a nice guy, and he is a great writer, but he is not who we should have as an admin. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) (woops, messed up and didn't sign)
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isra1337 (talk • contribs) --Algorithm (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

King in Yellow

Need to IRC. --KATIE!! 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • For and opposed to needing to IRC. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For, but I think he should come in to IRC for training. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For. This site needs more mechanical automatons. --Algorithm (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wild Weasel

Need to IRC. --KATIE!! 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • For and opposed to needing to IRC. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For He is everywhere it seems, and is very helpful :) I'm also opposed to the requirement of IRC.--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 23:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Zombiebaron

Nominate I'll nominate him at least or he will cry.--Maj Sir Elvis KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and Bar UGM F@H (Petition) 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This user has been deserving this for a long time. The choice is natural, like bananas and peanut butter, Diddy Kong and Donkey Kong, brains and more brains. Plus, he apparently has a "large ego" (quote from Village_Idiot), and thus make for a refreshing breath of air form all of those humble and subserviant admins. Finnaly in closing, Zombiebaron has strong views on the fact that admins don't delete all the crap he dumps into IRC (copy and pasting worthless pages is one of his hobbies), or worse there aren't always admins in IRC to delete the pages. Oh yah, and Zombiebaron doesn'y like Ike. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me) 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments/Requests

In this new sysop hunt, I would like us to try to find someone willing and able to help out with VFD a bit; I find it to be more than a one-admin task. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

IRC

I see disagreements to candidates on the grounds that they don't use IRC and I'm wondering if using IRC is really such a critical thing. I don't usually see it as that useful. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 20:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont find IRC useful at all lately. I occasionally go in to talk about ideas for articles, or with a questions about the site, but noone responds seriously and seem content with talking about other things. Which is fine, I dont mind that its used as a general chat, however, it isnt really as helpful as people make it out to be. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OH MY GOD. NOBODY RESPONDS SERIOUSLY ON A HUMOR SITE. WHAT NEXT??? --KATIE!! 15:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Your right, its not out of the ordinary. But as such, it isnt really a good requirement to have to be an admin. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be taken into consideration, but I definitely don't think it's critical, and we have several high-profile admins who don't use IRC or use it only sparingly. --Rc (Talk) 21:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think using IRC is something an admin should do at least on occassion. ALSO, the folks who use IRC are the ones we can get a better feel for. The current system we have would really break down hardcore if we had active admins we didn't know if we could trust with various tasks. That makes getting a feel for someone and knowing whether you trust their judgement key things. That's why IRC use is important to some of us. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to have at least a few admins on IRC. We need "on-call" admins that can respond to serial vandalism, help banned IPs, etc. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If the IRC room wasn't filled to capacity with dumb-ass, irritating, bitchy 14 year olds every time I went in, I'd head in more often. I gave up IRC about 5 years ago because it was getting too hard to find the last few sparks of intelligence left admist the crapstorm of morons blathering on uselessly. If an admin is sucker enough to wade through that, more power to them. But requiring them to do so is a load of crap. Last I heard, wikis were meant to be long-term repositories, not instant-gratification sites. Other than a massive outbreak of vandalism, which isn't all that hard to fix anyway, there's nothing that needs the immediate attention of admins. We'll get there at some point. IRC sucks. ~Sir Famine, Vandaler 02:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is built on unwritten rules. IRC is where you learn them. I don't think admins need to be there always... just need a crash course. --KATIE!! 09:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A small group of people (whomever happens to be on IRC, often the same people as regulars there) controlling all of Uncyclopedia based on some "unwritten rules"? Nah, can't be... there is no cabal. Besides, we should be trying to get input from everyone, not just a few that happen to be on IRC more often than others. --Carlb 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Before the stupids invaded, IRC was a great and intellectual place where serious business took place. It's been going downhill since about December or so when Splarka quit hanging out in #uncyclopedia. Our intelligent:stupid ratio has gone through the floor and it makes going on IRC a chore. It is still useful, sometimes, but certainly not as useful as it once was. Dawg_sig_2.gif Sir Dawg  cun | tlk | vdp  20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your mother went downhill last night. --Spin 04:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for proving his point. (glares) But in all seriousness, there's only a few users in #uncyclopedia that are useless. I try not to take the chat channel too seriously. The only time you'll see me posting "your mom" jokes is when I'm cranky...er, more so than usual. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and on the subject of IRC as a prerequisite for admining--why? Granted, it helps when there's a vandal war going on, but admins that watch Recent Changes like a hawk can notice it. Instead of just being on IRC, admins should instead be a part of the Uncyclopedia community as a whole--not only will that help them know what's going on with the wiki as a whole, but it makes them be involved. IRC's a part of this, not the whole thing. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've been inactive lately! I promise I'll go back to being a RC watchdog & QVFD commando after the 21st (that's when I defend my novel/thesis - after that, I'll have scads more time on my "hands.") As far as IRC goes, it's been years (7+) since I've even tried anything remotely like it. Aside from my technical ineptitude (what the frig do you expect? You try typing with a plunger!) the real reason I've never shown up on #uncyclopedia is I'm somewhat gun-shy about risking going back to waiting 2 hours in a chatroom for someone, anyone, to say something intelligent enough to justify the time I've wasted there. (That, and other bad memories.) Based on the turn this discussion has taken, I think my misgivings might be justified. Honestly, I'm happier just using talk pages to communicate directly with folks like you, who clearly have more than two neurons to rub together. Plus, that affords me more time for other things. Like preparing for my defense. And playing games. And editing my manuscripts. And bitching at my agent. And drinking scotch. Mmm, scotch. --2nd Lt.Yellow Dalek EX- TER- MI- NATE! (O-BEY!) 20:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I resent the implication that I need a nanny. --—rc (t) 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Votes

So... who exactly is allowed to vote? And who decided on having 3? I thought we decided one at a time unless there was a meteor... did I miss the meteor? Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Typically, we hadn't decided on who should vote. But okay, let's make this an experiment. Let everyone vote and let's see what happens.
However, I think we should reduce it to two at the most, and make it an unofficial policy not to op more than two users at one vote. I simply do not and have not seen the need for more than that many new ones at any point (except maybe waaaaay back in the first half of last year or something). --Rc (Talk) 21:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

3?

Uh, why three? Would anyone object to changing it to two? ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Don't wanna go overboard here... Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed As I said above. --Rc (Talk) 21:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Two's company. --Splaka 03:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Sysops <3 --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|CUNT|+S 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Opposed: Sure we don't want to go overboard but I'd love the option to be a little lazier. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You get one new sysop assigned as your bitch for VFD. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|CUNT|+S 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You know, we could make this into an official position. Starter admins could be called interns, and be forced to report to gwax for VFD duty. Just as a pretend-friendly sort of dealie. --ShroomsShroom!Gay2Sir Flammable KUN Prince%21.gif (Na Naaaaa...)Gay2Shroom!Shroomirror 21:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Ooo, interns... I like that idea.... I like it a lot... --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|CUNT|+S 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I like the idea; I'm just afraid worried that I'm going to be the guniea pig for this entire process. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, not voting due to conflict of interest (I believe I'm currently third in overall rankings). —Hinoa KUN (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects