Forum:VFS: Bring it back, if only temporarily?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > VFS: Bring it back, if only temporarily? (talk)
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3942 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

After doing a little bit of research, I think that we should bring back VFS, if for only a month. I recently was glancing at the Admin page, and I think that the number of Sysops on the site should be increased. I am not here to criticize at all, I think nearly all of the admins here do a terrific job, I just think we should add a few more to take care of the workload. For example, I try my very best to maintain the site, and I have noticed that often when I post material at QVFD, or report someone at Ban Patrol, it takes some time for it to be dealt with. I feel that increasing the number of admins would take care of this, as well as many other site issues. Granted, I was not active when VFS was cancelled, so I may not know the exact reasons as to why, but I strongly feel that adding roughly five more admins would be helpful. Here's what I found in my research.

The main question is: Do we need more admins?

There are currently 42 administrators, the following list is of admins who are rarely, or not at all, active:

Inactive 4 months +

Inactive 3 months +


Very Limited Edits

Limited Edits

That adds up to 20, nearly half of the admins, leaving just 22 admins to run and maintain the site regularly. I feel this is not enough, and there are several users that are qualified to be admins. I propose that we bring back the VFS system, or something similar, to get a few more admins on Uncyc. The current admins could even just discuss who they think should be promoted. In conclusion, please vote your stance on this, and give reasons as to why.

Comment: Stillwaters is User:Eunania, not Chron but nonetheless anonymous/pseudonymous and 100% absent by now. CRUSHERBOT, Root and Sophia are all rôle accounts or sockpuppets, not unique users. The rest pretty much all are or were legit, unique users. --Carlb 05:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that, thats not what I meant. I mean same as Chron as in the "overly busy" kinda way. I also know about Sophia and CRUSHERBOT, but Root actually isnt listed as an admin anymore. -- Sir C Icons-flag-us Holla | CUN 06:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If my level of activity recently doesn't put me in the limited edits category, we're in pretty poor administrative shape. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No kidding, I think I've had 25 edits in the past 3 months or so... Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Since when was this forum still alive...? I started this MONTHS ago. -- Sir C Icons-flag-us Holla | CUN 06:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)e

Sweet, now I'm being recognized for the slacker that I am. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Score: 0 or -1
  • For all the reasons I provided above. -- Sir C Icons-flag-us Holla | CUN 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What the hell. What could go wrong anyway? --- Jaques Pirat IS NOT FRENCH! TP, F@H 01:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For.--Jtaylor1Small Egg 08:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been suggesting this for a while. We don't have near enough admins to handle the sheer volume of vandals and crapstubs, so our existing admins have to put in waaaaaaaay too much work. If we had more admins, the workload would be more evenly distrubuted, and I'm sure we'd see the admins being a lot kinder and less PMSy from an abscence of stress. --User:Nintendorulez 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be an idiot, but you didn't say the magic voting word, Nin. I'm assuming you wanted to vote yes, but I think you technically have to make it official. If that's a vote it's a dimpled chad and probably doesn't count if Katherine Harris is doing the job. --Hrodulf 20:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • For As much as I hated Iraq, this is funny..
  • For. It should be restricted. Block major vandals, huff QVFDs & expired articles. I guess the only thing you can do is trust the would-be admin to do only those things. Good luck on that. I don't trust many people. With power comes great excuses to raise hell. SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 03:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Against I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here - scrapping VFS doesn't mean we won't op any more people. Rather, we decided to have individual elections via the Forum when we saw a real need for new blood (which I don't see at the moment). For a long time I've held the stance that having fewer admins is better than having lots. Remember, admins really only have a scant few useful privileges regular uses don't "enjoy." A lot of the maintenance here can be done without a ban or delete button. —rc (t) 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Going to have to agree with RC here because, indeed, there's a different system in use. As for not requiring new sysops... Hmmm... I'm still out on that bit... But yeah, being a sysop is not all it's made out to be... Unless you like slacking off when you please (which a lot of us do). ~ ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|CM|+S 03:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I havent seen the new system used, but I'll believe you. The main question here is: do we need more admins? No matter what system is used, what are the opinions in general? I know what you're saying, Rc, but the deletion button is a very important tool. And as I said, frequently when I post on QVFD it takes a little long if no admin is online. -- Sir C Icons-flag-us Holla | CUN 03:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer the forum system. Although, may be we do need a couple of new sysops to oil the deletion machine (better than a FFM or other options).---Asteroid B612B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 09:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether or not we need more admins, we really shouldn't bring back VFS. For an example of why voting for leadership is a bad idea, take a look at the American government or any high school student council. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. ~ T. (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Against Wow, I'm even a bit suprised at myself for this vote, due to comments I've made in the past. But I've slowly come around to rc's way of thinking, even if it is fucking annoying when I have to QVFD lots and lots of pages in rapid succsession, and then they aren't deleted for almost a whole day. Plus, the newer Forum way of sysoping works much better then the old VFS did. --Sir Zombiebaron 01:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Heh I'm trying to do more for the site, I'm afraid I've been falling behind, but I still am here! Hopefully I will be able to do more this school year during my free lunch periods where I'm bored out of my mind ;) Summer is actually very crowded this year, but I AM still here and STILL admining :) --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not criticizing, I know we all have lives to lead and what not. I've been editing less lately because football has been consuming 70% of my waking hours. And school starts in a week (starts crying). I just think that because of that, we should have some more admins. -- Sir C Icons-flag-us Holla | CUN 03:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cornbread and Jocke Pirat, but I also agree with Rcmurphy. You might (and I mean YOU, <insert name here>) say that I should vote "for", but with VFS I can't vote, in the forum vote regular, non-admin users like I can vote. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 08:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Wah! Why do people always say things like that when I have no idea what they mean! It's like some kind of conspiracy to confuse me to death! Spang talk 14:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Damn, he's found us out... erm... Oh come on, Spang, you're becoming paronoid! There's no conspiracy! Yes, that should do it... ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 14:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've seen it a few times now and that {{USERNAME}}) thing still freaks me out. OT, I'm okay with whatever the admins decide is the best route. Also, I'm pretty sure that I'm secretly an admin sockpuppet.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I hate it. I'd rather it wasn't there. Or that splaka has at least gathered some more opinions on whether it should be included or not before implementing it. Spang talk 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've got it on my talkpage, since there it adds that 1 on 1 touch, but when it appears elsewhere it's just creepy.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
That's the idea. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Creepy or 1 on 1?--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well add #insertusername {display: none} or #insertusername {border-bottom: 1px solid red} to your personal css to hide or give a red underline respectively to the {{USERNAME}} template wherever it occurs. Spang talk 17:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
For Modusoperandi - Both. Especially 1-on-1. For Spang - I have nothing to reply to you, but I thought I'd reply anyway. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, so it's both like when I peep in neighbours' windows (1 on 1) and when I hold up my "nice tits" sign (creepy). Now all is clear.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly like that! Except maybe not as creepy... ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Analogies are, sadly, not my forté. My talent is in creating pictures of characters from Star Wars attacking ones from OZ.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My summer of lesiure is fast disappearing, so I'll be doing a bit less banning and deleting. I'm sure some of the other admins can pick up the slack, but if we either A) have other people in this scenario, or B) full-out lose another admin, it might be worth recruiting one more. I think most of the important stuff is getting done around here, but I have never logged on to find nothing to do. In fact, I've been busy enough this summer that I haven't even had to delete NRV articles to keep myself entertained. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Observe: [1]. And a few IRC conversations where he gives the impression he's not going to come back any time soon. Wouldn't even come here to tell moneysign to stop editing highly used templates. And when I asked him how long this'd go on for, and if we should just get a new admin, he ignored me. So, I think it's new admin time anyway. But doesn't require VFS coming back from the dead. Perhaps an admin-only vote on that? Spang talk 14:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree about the admin-only vote. Not only the adminatii should get along with the new admin, but especially the users. So, when you put a new admin to vote for, he will probably be a veteran user - known to other regular ones, which might have an opinion on that person and should get the opportunity to show it. Also, I think the users should have the same weight for this process as the admins. -- Brigadier Sir Mordillo Icons-flag-il GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI3 AnotM VFH +S 21:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The new mechanism that we tested out for the last round of voting (as a replacement for VFS) tried to cover both options, Admin votes count as 1, whilst other users votes counted as 1/2. This gives at least some input from everyone else (VFS was restricted to Admins Only Votes.) -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Yep, I remember that, but like I said I think that users should have an equal voice with perhaps a joint admin veto, in case they feel that they can't really work with the admin-designate? -- Brigadier Sir Mordillo Icons-flag-il GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI3 AnotM VFH +S 22:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, so what are the duties of a admin? Is it just a proof reader with a whacked sense of humor?

Oh dear. Welcome to Bannville, Anon. Freemorpheme.gif 21:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I've tried to do what I can to make things work better, such as starting and improving HowTo:Get Started on Editing Uncyclopedia with the help of a bunch of other people, and I didn't have to be an admin to do that. I think instead of worrying if we need more admins, we should be thinking about trying to find creative ways to solve problems like crufty n00b edits without causing n00b alienation (which was a big part of the point of the howto article), and maybe redirecting more links to that article so it's easier to find. I tried to get it put into the welcome message template awhile back, but that went pear shaped. I think I'm going to float that idea again and see what happens. --Hrodulf 09:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


For pet population control. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. "Remember, kids, to mutilate your pets so we won't have to murder their children later."--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 03:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


A suggestion

Is it possible to grant people partial powers? My idea is to get some division of labour going on. For example, say there are 5 users, oh I don't know, Kwame, Ghe, Linka, Ma-Ti and... oh shit... um... Wheeler! Give Kwame the power of block so he can block people that are cunts. Then give Ghe the power of huff so she can huff QVFDs. Give Linka the power of revert to revert blanks and shit edits. Wheeler can have the power of... um... welcoming... And now I'm really out of ideas so give Ma-Ti some shit power like heart. Aaadddaaammm 09:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the captain planet analogy detracted from the idea itself. What about the idea of giving people little bits of adminity? Aaadddaaammm 09:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As of now, it's impossible, someone could probably figure out a way to do this, but I doubt they'd want to take the time. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools