Forum talk:Admin vote

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit I HATE HATE HAT this

This is terrible. When I voted, I thought my vote would count. I didn't necessarily vote for the candidates I thought were most qualified, I voted for the ones who were qualified and didn't have enough votes yet. Please do NOT change the way this operates in the middle of it. Perhaps our system needs reform. This is the kind of stuff (backdoor decisions made in secret) that made me get sick of this and go to Wikipedia. Freaking Wikipedia. When they're more fun than you, you know you're alienating somebody. goshzillacorrespondence 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly how I vote too. When this vote's over, I plan on bringing up a discussion on fixing up a system everyone agrees on well in advance, not 5 minutes beforehand. Spang talk 09:39, 27 Apr 2007

This should be a permanent thing, not a run of the mill thing.--Small_Pineapple2.png» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! ILLOGIC, BEHOLD!!!!~» 09:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, whatever system we use here will upset someone. Back in the day we had a page called VFS, where people could nominate and vote, but the way that worked left us open to "abuse" of the system. Since then we've tried three seperate but similiar approaches, each trying to find the balance between giving everyone a say, whilst at the same time having a backup approach.
I wouldn't say that anything in this is a "backdoor decision" (when I tried to reform the system last year I looked to get as much consensus as I could) and although I don't know who, other than the people named, made the decision to take this route, I think we should at least give it a try to see how it works out. Please remember that originally the voting was restricted to Admins only, so under the old system you would have had no say at all.
For the record, I personally would like to see something similar to VFS brought back, working in a similar way to the "first round" of this Admin vote system. But thats just my opinion. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

While my admin view will obviously be quite biased, I think this is the best process yet. While we had to tweak it a little, (hard to tell what sort of voting we'll get, as our userbase changes a lot every few months) I think we got the best of both worlds: The users got to push the candidates they wanted, and the admins get to screen out those we aren't sure would make good admins. In the past, we had a lot of potential for abuse, and I think that there is far less this way. The users are assured that one or two of their top candidates will become an admin, and the current admins know that they'll have the ability to screen out people who might not make good admins.

This also lets us balance our chi. If we're running low on hardass bastard admins, we can pick the most evil of the populace vote, and if we need more nice, kind admins, we can pick one of those. It's unlikely that the general users of this website will vote based on current admin makeup, and consider how we get along. It's not something that's really clear to the average user, I'd guess. By giving us our vote as the final one, we can pick a new admin who will complement our ranks, and who won't be overly divisive due to a sizable number of us not liking that person. As you may know, the admins as a whole aren't healthy, happy people, so babying us a little on occasion isn't ever bad. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 04/27 21:20

Aside from the above concerns, which I largely agree with, this final vote was also a bit, er, abrupt. After I asked about votes for each admin I was busy for a day and then I come back and it's over before I can even cast my choice. —rc (t) 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I was a bit lucky to catch it. I had expected the first round to have lasted longer, was sure that someone had mentioned the beginning of May. Considering that we keep award voting open for a whole month, this does seem very rushed, especially given that there isn't an actually NEED for a new Admin, IMHO. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

edit Adminy Votey Thingy

Can someone fix Tom's name? It's "mayfair", no caps. According to his contribs he's never done anything. Which is crazy, as he does stuff. All the time. I saw him doing stuff just the other day. But I'm rambling. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 09:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

edit The Nominations did nothing

Sometimes, i ask myself: Why the hell did i vote for Tom mayfair and cs1987 when they had already got in? Why didn't i vote for users with less votes? This system IS A BUNCH OF POOPY!!!--Small_Pineapple2.png» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! ILLOGIC, BEHOLD!!!!~» 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you wanted them to be admins more than the other users? If not, it's not the system that is a bunch of poopy... Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 04/28 15:40

edit With this new system

Will you be inaugurating a new admin or two once a month, or is this an event that occurs only once every few months? --General Insineratehymn 17:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess it's be more like one admin every one or two months. One of the beauties of a wiki is that outside protecting pages, deleting and banning, there's not much that regular users can't do. And we've got a pretty good crowd of non-admins who do a lot of reverting and fixing, which requires less admins then if we didn't have those people. And to them, I'm eternally grateful, because they make life a lot easier for us. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 04/28 17:23
I have been rather lazy lately. SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects