Uncyclopedia:VFS

...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 (all dates and times are calculated in UTC, unless someone gets lazy and is a few hours late/early) The first 10 days of a month (1st - 10th), all users have a vote to see if we need more ops (op votes count double in this vote).† The next 2 days (48 hours) of a month (11th and the 12th), any users can nominate users for oppage (not yourself you egotistical jerk!), but not vote. Hold your horses there. The next 8 days (13th - 20th) support up to three people for oppage (op votes count double in this vote).∆ The following 10 days of a month (21st - 30th), current ops take the users with at least 50% of the leader and vote on who to op. Each op 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 user votes than the other gets oppage. The last day of the months with 31 days, current ops play Russian Roulette to see who gets de-opped. (Zombiebaron goes first with 6 bullets) †: a minimum score of +7 must be attained in order to progress to the next level. ∆: if only one candidate from this round would progress to the next level, that level is canceled and the candidate is opped. NB: The ops can change these rules at any time for any reason to help the fight against wiki-terrorism

Shall there be a VFS vote for April

Score: +17

• For, given the following:
  • Pros
  1. A repeated vandal attacking the site throughout most of March while there were no admins available
  2. Features not being added to feature queue (during times where there were articles with sufficient votes)
  3. Absence or minimal edits by until recently active admins
  4. QVFD items pertaining to vanity/cyberbullying remaining for over 24 hours
  5. The fact that it's a shitty chore that's easiest dealt with by spreading the load
  6. Numerous editors suitable for nomination
  7. Encouraging longer term members to hang around by recognising their dedication to the site by making them an admin
  8. And probably other reasons that have been mentioned over the last few weeks I don't recall
  • Cons
  1. There has been a trend to keep the number of admins to an absolute minimum, no matter how well the site is running
  2. We may have to de-opp someone if they don't work out as admin

  Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 01:43 31 Mar

• Strong for I know how much everyone believes we have too many admins, I agree this is true to an extent but we don't have enough in the right places. We need sysops in the Australia Oceania area to keep things running nicely in the time everyone else is asleep. PRETTY PLEASE can we op 1 or 2 users from this region to get this hole in our administration filled. We also need more on the grounds of Lyrithya, ChiefjusticeDS, Roman Dog Bird, Mhaille and Rcmurphy being someone less than active of late. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE 1 or 2 Aus ops! ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 23:03, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
• For I agree that we need some new admins to fill the holes left by those admins who have recently become inactive. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:11, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. We have too many admins right now...this can only seriously complicate things. --ShabiDOO 01:03, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Can you like, can the sarcasm (I know you are being sarcastic since you have been voting for having one for months) Seriously it's gonna get you banned or some such. If you are being serious, please do clarify o_O ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 01:23, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Snowmen should not play with fire ;) --ShabiDOO 02:45, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Alright...you've twisted my arm Frosty. I very very reluctantly support having another admin...but only if the candidates I like are chosen...and only if the vote is held on the third sunday after the first moon on the 13th month of the year. --ShabiDOO 02:50, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

• For. See other three votes. -- 01:21, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
• For. 1 maybe 2 more. MrN  Fork you! 01:27, Apr 1
• For. It's true that we always have to run after admins on IRC to report vandal outbreaks and that they are less active, as a whole. Mattsnow 02:14, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Strongest for. It's seems that many admins have become somewhat inactive. It's a shame, really. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:31, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
• For.. Admins are smaller than they used to be. Same number of calories, though. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:38, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Against. APRIL FOOLS i mean For. --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 18:11, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
• For. As promised, and seeing as to the recent inactivity of some admins, including slowed activity from myself. I also would like to see this time zone thing resolved. -RAHB 04:27, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Against. Being slightly less efficient is a small price to pay. Fostering new writers and upping article creation should be the priority of every contributer - not more 'administration'.--Sycamore (Talk) 10:11, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right. Of course, while I'm wasting time cleaning up vandalism and it's effects rather than just banning a vandal, or trying to get the things that should have been done actually done, it does make it difficult to write an article or welcoming and fostering new users. If there was an admin around during these times who was able to fix these issues maybe I could focus more on doing the things I'm here to actually do. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 09:32 03 Apr
    • Nobody is making you pay attention to the vandals. By engaging them so, you are not only not doing what you would prefer to do, but encouraging them to continue as well. 1234 ~ 21:53, 4 April 2012
      • Yoda like words of wisdom from Lyrithya. It took me a while to learn that sometimes on Uncyc you feel that you should do something which you don't really want to do, but think that you should. Like that time during my sysop initiation ritual involving a bicycle, Mhaille, and a cucumber. But that was a long time ago now, and since then I have learnt that whatever happens don't do anything you don't want to do with cucumbers. MrN  Fork you! 22:17, Apr 4
        • So we should allow vandals to continue creating crap pages and blanking existing content? Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 11:16 04 Apr
          • That's probably not the idea no. We revert the blanking, and crap pages always get huffed. Wait. What are we arguing about again? Seriously. I'm as lost as a really bad TV show. Don't answer that. I will start making up fish puns. You have been warned. MrN  Fork you! 23:25, Apr 4
            • Oh Cod, not that! Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 12:00 05 Apr
              • And then, suddenly, a Zombiebaron; just for the halibut. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 05:21, April 5, 2012 (UTC)
• OP ME!--fcukmanLOOS3R! 10:17, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
• For. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 16:06 Apr 2 2012
• Sure Sir Georgie • Harangue • Mediocracy 21:12, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
• For. Sorry I've been so inactive lately, guys. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:17, 2 April 2012
• Sure Aleister 21:15, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
• Against. Hey maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about but I'm completely with Sycamore here. --Black Flamingo 19:19, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
• For I agree with Sycamore's sentiment, but if the cat's not barking it needs some crack. Maybe deop some of the less active Admins to make it sexier. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:52, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, specifically the admins who have made less than 10 edits in the past 12 months? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 21:54, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Deopping would probably have to deal with more than just how many edits an admin made. An admin could have made 100 edits, though if all of them are simply leaving their opinions on forums and zero use of their tools (banning, maintenence, settling disputes and the many other things that they do that we dont know about) then their tools would be put to better use in the hands someone who has the "ganas" to use them. --ShabiDOO 17:51, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

• Against. I'm with Sycamore all the way. --Chiefjustice3DS 22:03, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

  There was a very reasonable alternative offered recently - give a few people the power to ban someone for 24 hours or until an admin could check on their decision, and if too many mistakes were made that power would be removed. This would have saved many manhours of chasing vandals when no admin is online. The only other alternative is opping those members who would have done the job with less than administrator status. Aussies! They breed like cockroaches with pouches. Aleister 23:14 5-4-'12

  I think the noob of the moment is the best campaign I've seen on uncyclopedia recently that will foster new writers. We are also working on updating the intro guide. Its also clear that at least one user who dedicates 95% of their time to admining will be voted as an admin...and will likely be a very good one. And so not only are new writers being fostered, but we will hopefuly end up with a couple admins who are mostly admins right now anyways. So I'm not sure we would have to "be less efficient" at all...nor have to sacrifice anything in order to foster writers. --ShabiDOO 17:51, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Subvote: One new admin Score: 2 For. Actually I could go either way, but this table looks much prettier if it's got content in both columns. -RAHB 07:07, April 2, 2012 (UTC) Comment I agree completely, so I'm going to make an utterly pointless comment here just so that it looks as though there is more support for this than there actually is. I also think that A template added here would look good too, even if it is meaningless. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 09:40 02 Apr Good thinking! And, to create the illusion of heated debate between the two sides, I'll leave an equally useless striked-out comment that is sure to incite lots of hypothetical discussion filling both boxes excessively, thereby further prettying them. -RAHB 23:11, April 2, 2012 (UTC) Another pointless comment. I fully support what the guys above me said. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:17, 2 April 2012

Subvote: Two new admins Score: 12 For. Sir CPT Dr PuppyOnTheRadio GUN UmP WotM NotM FP VFP VFH CM POTM UGM 05:37 02 Apr For. Mattsnow 05:51, April 2, 2012 (UTC) For. But one is also cool :) ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 06:54, April 2, 2012 (UTC) For -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 14:38, April 2, 2012 (UTC) For. -- 15:52, April 2, 2012 (UTC) For. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 16:06 Apr 2 2012 Yes please. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 20:17, April 2, 2012 (UTC) For. Sir Georgie • Harangue • Mediocracy 21:12, April 2, 2012 (UTC) Sure, why not? But only if we find two suitable candidates that are also willing to take the job, however. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:17, 2 April 2012 For. Aleister 21:15, April 2, 2012 (UTC) Op Me--fcukmanLOOS3R! 09:42, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Subvote 3: Five new admins

Score: +2

• A positive absolutely non passive agressive without any other connotations FOR! --ShabiDOO 03:33, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Op everybody. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, Apr 9 '12 19:25 (UTC)

  Everyone except me. That way you can all take turns banning me :) --ShabiDOO 19:36, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

  I call dibs. Your ass is grass, bitch. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, Apr 9 '12 19:45 (UTC)