...and so shall it be that every Admin is presented with Shit-Wading Galoshes, a Steel-Plated Banhammer, and an Industrial Strength HuffMaster 2000 upon inception to the order.

“Better to reign in Uncyclopedia than serve in Wikipedia.”
~ John Milton on stating the obvious

Are you looking to join a team of enthusiastic and extremely sarcastic individuals? Do you like to feel like you are a valuable part of a "team?" Do you want an employer who considers you his slave?

If you said "I prefer not to answer" to any or all of these questions, you may be qualified to be a sysop at Uncyclopedia!

The process:

  • The first 10 days of a month (1st - 10th), registered users have a vote to see if we need more ops (active op votes count double in this vote). A minimum score of +5 must be attained in order to progress to the next level.
  • The next 2 days (48 hours) of a month (11th and the 12th), any users can nominate users for oppage (not yourself), but not vote. Any nominees who do not wish to become a sysop can opt out at this stage.
  • The next 8 days (13th - 20th) registered users may vote for up to three people for oppage (active op votes count double in this vote). If only one candidate from this round would progress to the next level, that level is cancelled and the candidate is opped.
  • The following 10 days of a month (21st - 30th), the users with at least 70% of the leader are moved into a third round of voting. In this round each user gets two votes apiece (unless there are only two candidates). Stacking these votes is not allowed. In the event of a tie in this round, the candidate with more votes in the previous round than the other gets oppage.
  • The Admins, acting in consensus, shall strike any nomination and any vote that they determine is not from an active contributor in good standing on this website.

All dates/times are based upon UTC. See the talk page for discussion pertaining to these rules.

New admins?

Score: -2
  • Symbol for vote For. Invalid nomination It's been more than two years since someone has been opped through VFS (and several months since Puppy has been opped for technical reasons, but he isn't very active now). There are five people on the active admins list, but three of them are only very relatively active. Considering that admins like Chief or Xam who stirred up activity in 2014 rarely pass by now, I think this is the right time to elect several new admins, to pump the site with some fresh blood. I personally really wish to nominate a few people, who're very experienced and capable users, but I am not sure if we are allowed to do it without having to ask this really redundant "Do we need new admins?" question, which I am not sure should even be asked now. Anton (talk) 16:19, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol against vote Technical against for the reason that the question needs to be asked in the first 10 days of the month. (See rules above, which you're supposed to change over when doing this.) Having said all that, minor Symbol for vote For, purely for the principle that nothing changes if nothing is changed, so if we want a change then we need to change, and be the change we want to change in the change. Ch-ch-ch-changes. As voting goes by calendar month though, this doesn't leave enough time for two rounds of voting. So an overall against for now, but maybe for in a few weeks. The previous edit was signed by PuppyOnTheRadio, but he is too lazy to create a signature yet. 04:39 pm 11 Aug 2015
    • As a PS, I was opped to be able to do some technical clean-up work, and the only person who suggested de-opping me again was me. Given it seemed nobody cared enough, it was left alone. If anyone is against me remaining as admin let me know. The previous edit was signed by PuppyOnTheRadio, but he is too lazy to create a signature yet. 04:43 pm 11 Aug 2015
      • Oh..I missed that self-nom downgrade Pup or perhaps I forgot the forum. Regards VFS, I was waiting to see if we got more active users (not vandals or persistent Feature Article hackers) before considering an increase in the staffing. Actually, if you leave a comment or question on the other Admins pages, they tend to answer. Even Frosty will respond...eventually. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:10, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
        • Pup, well first of all, you can remove your rights yourself, but there is no need for that because I honestly think you make a very good admin. You aren't going to ragequit because of some PuppyOnTheRadio who wants to deop you for no reason, are you? We really aren't listening to him! And yeah, I'll probably restart this thing in September. Anton (talk) 21:16, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol against vote Against. OP has completely retreated from the life of this website, but now has Admin rank on a separate website that specializes in User Talk Pages rather than encyclopedia parodies and where the usual price of admission is a rant about what an ogre I am for not letting people write whatever they want and instead enforcing the original vision of Uncyclopedia as a satire encyclopedia. Change for change's sake is unlikely to be positive change and it is unlikely that that is what OP wants. (I would de-opp Puppy on the principle of Least Privilege, but would let the record show that he did the requested work efficiently and with no pranks, then or thereafter, which argues for re-opping him whenever necessary.) Also, as above, the ballot is out-of-order. Spıke Radiomicrophone17:47 11-Aug-15
    • OP? Am I being extra dense here. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:59, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
      • I am. Opping...--LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 18:00, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
        • "OP," Operator, initiator of the discussion. Spıke Radiomicrophone18:18 11-Aug-15
          • To answer some of your points. (1) I don't know how you found out that I was opped out there, but this information is no longer valid, as I was deopped two days after receiving the rank. (2) I don't know about the admission criteria and I know you aren't implying that I did such a low move, but I never complained about you out there. You remember how I found some of your bans too harsh and discussed them on your talkpage here, but I have better things to do than to bring my discontent somewhere else. (3) I have not retreated from this site, but I recently I've been less active than usual, mostly because I wasn't receiving emails from Wikia (but this seems to have been fixed now). (4) What Puppy talked about js precisely what I want, change - that is. Well, and finally, all this was written with no harsh feelings against anyone, I understand that you have your point of view and didn't wish to hurt anyone, and I hope the same is clear in my case. Anton (talk) 21:09, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
            • Hi Anton. How will having more admins make the site more active? Neither Spike or myself needed that encouragement to do all the stuff we did before the original split (I had been an admin for a year and hardly knew anything about the site actually worked technically). Admin work essentially means that we have to log in every day just to check to see if someone has broken windows, left excrement in the corridor and all other such non-writing tasks. Since I do monitor the Fork (obviously, it has part of my archive there), I see you have ideas about how to improve the overall quality of that site. I know that since I have been here in 2008, the actual quality of articles on here has changed a lot for the better (in my view). We still have a proportion of crap here but at least no one has been adding to that pile for sometime! --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:28, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • (Deindent) Which is part of the reason why nobody should want to be an admin. I was re watching the Shining, where it is written "All work and no play makes Jack a dull bot". It's about being a custodial worker of the community. The previous edit was signed by PuppyOnTheRadio, but he is too lazy to create a signature yet. 09:03 am 12 Aug 2015
    • Romartus, sorry for forgetting to answer your first message. I don't know if making someone an admin will make the site more active but it'll definitely bring new ideas and perspectives. But I don't even feel this justification is needed. I personally consider admin tools less of a way to make the site more active, than a way to make helping uncy easier for users willing to do it. Uncy sometimes has a strange way of dealing with users: asking them to do actual admin work, without making them administrators. I feel like currently there are many people willing to do the work but not having the rights to (and even though I did ask for the rights at the fork, I am not referring to myself here, I actually have several potential candidates in mind). Anton (talk) 18:11, August 13, 2015 (UTC)


It's heartening that this very serious subject is being discussed without the usual disposition of humour. mAttlobster. (hello) 21:32, August 13, 2015 (UTC)