From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 23:59, April 3, 2014 by Spike (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.

April 2014

Do we want new admins?

Score: -2
  1. Symbol against vote Against. Two Admins have returned in the last month. We are well set and in fact showing signs of more Chiefs than Injuns. Spıke Ѧ 20:03 3-Apr-14

Do we want to have users as trial admins for a month?

As per this - historically this

Score: -2
  1. Symbol for vote For. Anton (talk) 06:58, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yes. --ShabiDOO 18:55, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
    This is a vote outside the regs we decided...we have to decide first if admins get a double vote on this before fixing the score. --ShabiDOO 21:57, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
    Your query concerns existing Admins having 2 votes in this phase, and it is exactly what we discussed last year, the result appearing at the top of this page. If this is an "advisory" question not subject to this rule, we should not hide it in VFS, or else you should not regard it as a binding decision if you should win the vote. Otherwise: We decide the rules of the game before the cards are dealt. Spıke Ѧ 23:59 3-Apr-14
  3. Against. Not enough for the existing admins to do as it is. :( -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
  4. Symbol against vote Against. A good idea (subject to the likely reluctance of Admins to publicly declare the intern's performance unsatisfactory). Not needed now; see previous question. Spıke Ѧ 20:03 3-Apr-14

Questions or comments longer than two sentences here

Personal tools