From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 23:27, December 6, 2012 by Qzekrom (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

...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 sysops or something

Score: 2
"Zombiebaron goes first with 6 bullets." Afraid? --Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 20:38, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
No. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 18:55, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
Then why vote against? --Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 19:25, December 4, 2012 (UTC)
Well QVFD is all red, everyone on Ban Patrol is blocked, and VFD looks like a well-oiled machine, so I would guess he's voting against either because of that thing you said about the gun, or just to spite you. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:13, Dec 4
Nobody's voted on VFD in a week. GO VOTE, YOU MORONS. ~ BB ~ (T) Icons-flag-usTue, Dec 4 '12 22:47 (UTC)
Yeah, VFD "looks like a well-oiled machine" that Granny cranks over once a week to drive to the supermarket to buy a few tins of food for Tiddles. Spıke Ѧ 23:10 4-Dec-12
Hey, maybe he was using sarcasm. They do that here, right? I can't tell. ~ BB ~ (T) Icons-flag-usTue, Dec 4 '12 23:23 (UTC)
Actually, I think he was saying the administration is well-oiled. Perhaps we should conduct a VFV. Spıke Ѧ 00:36 5-Dec-12
VFV? Vote For Vitriol?? Everyone being so nice to each other here...--LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:04, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
No; Vote for Voters, natch. Spıke Ѧ 11:44 5-Dec-12
Vote for voters is a great idea. Each user will pick one user as a special voter, the winner will get 5 votes for each article, everyone else will get half a vote and Shabidoo will have 10 votes per article. Someone go start a VFV forum!!!!!!!!! --ShabiDOO 15:04, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
No, VfV as in, I vote for Sycamore to come back from the People's Republic and resume voting in VFD. Spice things up. Spıke Ѧ 15:53 5-Dec-12
  • That said, against. Because of the russian roulette, and also to spite meganew. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:13, Dec 4
  • Against --mAttlobster. (hello) 21:12, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • Mover has not made the case either that we need new Admins (and a few of the Old Ones seem to have returned home for the holidays) or that the existing Admins are unwilling to install Bizzeebeever's expert hacks when needed. Does BB even want adminship? Shabidoo's point is important, but Romartus's flurry of new History articles is a counterexample. Spıke Ѧ  20:16 4-Dec-12
  • Against. Don't see the case for new admins had been made out as yet. This would change if some of the more active admins scaled back their work here. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 20:59, December 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote For. My opinion is that the best admin will avert the fiscal "cliff"—that is, get us more writers. —qzekrom.net16.net clicky! 23:25, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools