Forum:How about a VFS, eh?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > How about a VFS, eh?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4237 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

“ I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for a while sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

”

Jimmy Wales, February 2003

3-5 new admins. I think Uncyclopedia has a lot of trusted users who have contributed a lot of time and effort into the site and could use some opping to get things done around here and shit. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 23:56 Jul 29 2010

Vote

Score: +8

1. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 23:56 Jul 29 2010
2. Why not --++ 00:06, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
3. For. no witty remarks, just for. ^{Pirate Lord}__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 00:07, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
4. I'm fully in. These last 48 hours have shown us that basically everything about this site is completely wrong in every single way possible, and a slew of fresh faces will do us much good. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:11, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
5. *sigh* I guess I'm for this. Not for opping anyone willy-nilly mind you. But some fresh blood might be good to go along with the old. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 00:14, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
6. For four new admins. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:26, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

   WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE --nachlader 01:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, seriously, I thought he was leaving.  

   Nach, I'm still here because there is serious business going on. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:43, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

   oh yeah, that "appointment". i'll meet you behind the bike sheds. <3 --nachlader 01:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

7. oh and for --nachlader 01:39, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
8. Yes so you all can make me a crat, I de-op everyone else on the site, and I make this site my personal kingdom. Er, that was me. ~ Readmesoon 03:05, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Against

Score: +9

1. Against. Because really, guys, we don't need anymore admins. Love,  
2. Against. My gut feeling is that this should happen in September at the earliest. And probably not 3-5 all at once; that would be chaos. pillow talk 03:07, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
3. Against. 3-5 is way too fucking much.--HM (T)
4. Against., there may be a case for adding one new admin, 3 - 5 would be totally unnecessary. Further to that I think we should as a community sit down to work out what it is we want from our admins and how the system should work in future. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
5. Against.. There will be more admins than active users which doesn't look right. May be one more admin. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:22, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
6. Against. Although I don't know how much this vote counts since apparently I'm on the side of the argument with some sort of evil agenda. -RAHB 11:19, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
7. Not because there's a clear need or lack of need for admins, but because for goodness' sake we're having drama over how many new admins to pick (see below). 0-2 admins if we absolutely need an August VFS to happen amid this drama—I don't care if VFS is directly related to the drama happening lately; any drama riles up emotions beyond rational thinking—but I'd prefer it to happen not even in September. Maybe October. Sir MacMania GUN—[14:57 30 Jul 2010]
8. I'm with Mhaille. We need to have a sit down over voice chat with a bunch of people and hash out grievances and the needs of the userbase vs. actions of the admins in something remotely resembling civilized discussion. I'd actually like to have a discussion involving admins and key community members to try and shore of some of the deeper problems that prompted the perceived need for this VFS. There's bigger problems at hand that cna;t be solved with a flood of new admins and promises for a kinder gentler future.--Flammable 16:37, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
9. Against. What RAHB said, opping people now will only complicate matters. --Chiefjustice32X 17:04, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

This vote is completely pointless

Score: 0

1. Pretty much. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:27, 30 July 2010

   I retract this vote. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:21, 1 August 2010

This vote has succeeded in eliminating any possibility of new sysops in August

Score: +1

1. Pretty much. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:21, 1 August 2010

I may be new, but...

Isn't the vote for new admins supposed to be taken care of on the VFS page at the start of each month? • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 01:12, Jul 30 2010

Admins deciding when/if we get new admins? Something has always sounded wrong about that to me. Dunno about you guys, but I think if there's strong enough community support, it'd be hard for anyone to say otherwise. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 01:23 Jul 30 2010

No. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:24, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

This may help shed some light on the VFS process. --Andorin Kato 01:25, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

There's established precedent for a VFS procedure being requisitioned in the forum if there's a large enough community consensus. It doesn't need to be limited to the start-of-the-month admin vote, which I am personally going to spearhead anyway if this does not pass. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:26, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Er...it's two or three days until the official start of VFS voting anyways. What's the point in a forum vote at precisely this moment? Can't it wait until the end of the month? -RAHB 01:34, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well, given the catastrafuck of today, it's pretty timely in that regard. Otherwise, I dunno. If for some reason the VFS attempt fails, then I say we should still weigh the legitimacy of this vote if it's an up-and-away community success. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Highlighting here a minimum of 3 a maximum of 5 new ops. Aiming for four but we can round up. Do you mean the admin vote on VFS starts Monday? Because if so this is intended to circumvent that. :Admins and the rest of the community are welcome to vote here. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 01:38 Jul 30 2010

I still don't get it. We have the forum in cases of extremity. But the forum vote isn't going to be taken into account until the actual VFS process has happened, and if in that process the admins have voted for no new admins. Also, I'll be god-damned if any more than two admins are opped between now and September. -RAHB 01:41, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Why only two, and what's with advocating the VFS procedure which doesn't let the rest of the community ultimately decide if it wants new admins? In other words, do you think the popular vote makes more sense, or the electoral college? --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 01:45 Jul 30 2010

I think that a lot of the community have completely misunderstood the purpose of voting for sysops and its effect on the site. For that reason, the admins decide whether we need new admins, which is something that can be decided by mere observation. You guys still get to pick who you want, and in the past that seems to have been the trend. Would you like us to get rid of that round of voting and just have it all in control of the admins? -RAHB 01:48, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

You're starting to scare me. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 01:51 Jul 30 2010

I am the Gestapo. -RAHB 01:52, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

--++ 02:13, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Usually a community vote tends to reveal more than an admin-only vote, since in some months an admin vote can be more or less equivalent to a bunch of inactive IRC users voting on a VFH article, to paraphrase HELPME. I'd like to give this a chance if the admin vote goes under. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:11, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

If the admin vote goes under, it will be given a chance as is VFS policy. The key term is "if the admin vote goes under." It hasn't even happened yet, and everybody's already shitting themselves. It's like explaining why you didn't do your homework, the day before it's due. It makes absolutely no sense. -RAHB 02:13, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

So you basically think those in charge are the only ones who should decide when elections are held, huh? Oh hai Robert Mugabe. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:51, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Get some reading glasses, boy. Also, this is a website, which you have voluntarily invested your time in, and not a governed country. As your welcome template says, "the door's right over there." -RAHB 03:01, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Seems like enough noise has been made to hold an ops election in August, just hours away, so this forum, jumping the gun, seems to have as its purpose the stirring of the drama pot. Why? I'm going to go listen to and watch Lady Ga Ga again, to take my mind from the drama. Ah, Rama rama, Ga Ga Ga Ga. Aleister 2:56 30 7

Hold on a minute. One bad thing happens (What was that thing?) and everyone is shitting themselves and screaming "ADMINS NOW OR WE'LL ALL DIE!!!!!" Also, a bunch of people that voted for are inactive IRC users. Just saying.--HM (T)

Drama pot? Maybe you're missing the point or just think it's trivial Aleister, but don't assume bad faith on me. I'm really getting sick of that shit around here. Please read the forum again. Also, this is not in direct relation to the shit storm (which has nearly well blown over). This is more-so relating to diversifying and spreading the oligrachy of power and letting the rest of the community have more of a say in doing so. Think of it as spreading the butter on the toast to cover the entirety instead of letting it sit like a big glob. Also, what's with 3-5 being too many? Anyone offer me an explanation for this? It seems every time we get 2 new admins, a handful of months later 2 or 3 more disappear. When Dexter called for a VFS in May, about ten ops suddenly appeared to more or less discuss and reject it and then went and fucked off. Look at our list of admins and consider how many are actually active and if we could make those cyclical complaints about admins not being around fewer and farther in between by simply opping more people at a time. I definitely think there are enough users deserving and capable of being admins at this time, so I don't think what I'm asking for is ridiculous. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 04:07 Jul 30 2010

First of all, give me a good reason why we do need ops right now. The "not enough admins around at <insert time>" problem both A) is not a large problem (see previous comments I've made) and B) is not fixable due to the nature of not only what you yourself have just described, but the nature of the fact that it will be impossible to have somebody staring down recent changes at every moment of every day with their ban stick at the ready. As far as people who are "deserving", being opped is not an award. "Deserving" people should be nommed for UOTM. Yes, there are a few candidates who would do a good job, but because we have the means does not mean we have the need. And so far throughout this whole shitfuck, I've seen absolutely no evidence that we have an immediate and overwhelming need for more administrators. All of the maintenance is taken care of on time, the people who need to be banned are banned, issues are dealt with like they always have been. Talk to me when there's a real crisis. -RAHB 04:14, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because we ought to only have a long vote for ops when there's a crisis. Wonderful. I'll agree to disagree with you as to whether or not there's a need for new ops, but my primary reason for supporting a public VFS right now is not to split any heavy workload or because there's some sort of problem. I think that's a mentality that's a bit dangerous because a VFS has always been done when there's a desperate need for maintenance work and banning, so the new ops are dumped into all of the responsibility with a lot of people expecting them to fix the shortage and be consistent with their admin work. Sorry, but I don't feel that's sustainable and I imagine it disenfranchises a lot of people who become new ops. "Yes, be our solution. We'll get more ops when you disappear too." Just guessing. And even if it was on the basis of necessity, it wouldn't matter anyways would it RAHB because the admins should just decide when we need to have new ops, right? --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 04:37 Jul 30 2010

Your pseudo-rebellious uprising is all well and good, and yet I still have yet to see a reason that we need new ops right now. -RAHB 04:40, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Uprising? Are you really threatened by this that much RAHB? Thank god it's only pseudo-rebellious. And I think I've made my reasoning pretty clear. We need new ops because we need new ops. It's Ethine's argument, only with a positive twist. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 04:49 Jul 30 2010

Tsk, Tsk, RAHB --++ 04:55, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. --Andorin Kato 04:50, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

The second rule of tautology club is either the second rule of tautology club or not the second rule of tautology club. Sir MacMania GUN—[04:53 30 Jul 2010]

Threatened? That's right, I forgot you were the one with the ban button. -RAHB 04:56, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

You of course always have a reasonable justification for pushing it though. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 04:59 Jul 30 2010

You'll notice that you're still around to edit this. -RAHB 05:02, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Frankly RAHB, speaking from admin to admin, I see no excuse for you to be a douche. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:21, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

It's part of the Progressive Argumentalists Method. EMC and I make vague references to each other's perceived lack of integrity until one of us gives up and orders some take out. -RAHB 06:36, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

RAHB is right. Passive aggressiveness cannot get between two men and their Chinese food. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 14:43 Jul 30 2010

GUYS, WE NEED LIKE TEN MORE U.S. PRESIDENTS. Not because one guy isn't doing his job proficiently, but just in case. Just in case. We should give them all the exact same amount of power, just for the sake of redundancy. Think of the children. Love,  

I think we need ten more WHITE Presidents because there is a black one --++ 05:03, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

The US does do just that. 71.91.99.219

Your logic is sound and just Ethine. You could be the next Governor of Alaska. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 05:08 Jul 30 2010

A good analogy is like a midnight train to Georgia taking a stop at Howard Johnson's to buy some malts and cones. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:22, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RAHB, and not just because he is one sexy mofo.... well actually that's entirely why. --Chiefjustice32X 06:21, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

EMC, the fundamental problem with your points is this- if 2 admins leave when 2 admins are opped, what makes you think 5 won't when five are opped? I have a snaking suspicion that more admins than that may leave if you opped five. Why? Because I think admins leave when more are opped because they feel that they aren't needed anymore. Notice how we have certain admins that never leave except for short periods, and it's always explained? (UU, Mordillo, etc) That won't change. Neither will the fact that some admins will leave without any explanation at all. Admins leave and return just like the tides, and unless you pull the moon out of orbit, you won't stop those, so how could you stop them?--HM (T)

OK, but how is that worse than not opping 2 admins and the existing 2 leaving, we are to assume that the departure/disappearance of the 2 existing admins is not related to the assignment of two new ones. I'm not advocating either side, just pointing out a logical flaw -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:14, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

In response to the quote at the top of the page, because posting right below it would obscure EMC's original post

I agree whole-heartedly with Jimbo (well, maybe not "everyone"). Why, then, if being a sysop is not such a special thing, have several users been whoring themselves out like college girls with low self esteem in the past few weeks, because they're so ridiculously obsessed with obtaining this power that "isn't really special". Obviously you guys seem to think it's something big, or we wouldn't be having this ridiculous discussion. -RAHB 06:50, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

If you really do believe that, then why are you so adamantly against it? "Remember that administrator status is not a trophy." Several admins act as though it is, RAHB. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 06:58, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

...such as RAHB. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:03, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Several do and they should stop doing so. My argument however is not that "being an admin makes you cool, and none of you are cool enough." My argument is that "everything is fine. Nothing is broken." (FU Edit conflict) -RAHB 07:05, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

It's not a trophy, but it still needs to be earned. It's like getting a bad promotion. You'll have to work harder, longer hours for no extra pay, but you still have to get picked out as deserving.--HM (T)

Well RAHB, if everything was really okay then there wouldn't be a large number of users wanting there to be new ops, would there? Nor would there have been a cyber-bully going unnoticed while you were busy responding to emc earlier. Just saying. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 07:09, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

I count a consistent five or six users who are openly and aggressively in favor of these vast changes. See my previous comments about the possibility of being able to view recent changes at all minutes of the day, in response to your second comment. -RAHB 07:12, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, a cyberbully went unnoticed for four seconds. Get in the shelter.--HM (T)

OH GOD IT'S A MASSIVE TINY PENIS--++ 07:11, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they're just parodying the people who think it is "this power that isn't really special". The question really is whether they have an agenda or not. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:18, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

A group of admins do exactly what they're expected to do and clamp down on an internal group that has been raising hell for a while now, including the removal of channel ops and all of a sudden we need more admins? And this is not related to last night's dramafest? Nah. Obviously not. If we didn't have enough admins then nothing would have been done and the latest events would continue. So hey, I think we have just enough admins for now. The VFS process works fine as it is and it's probably the only way to stop vote rigging and people who are not active on the site voting for their favorite pal because they think it's swell that he is an admin, regardless of him being active or not or give a damn about the community. But yes, putting more admins into a site which is already overloaded with admins, that's how we solve problems! So let's op 5 more people, obviously not relating to the current state of affairs, and have 2 active admins over every active writer. In fact, let's appoint 10 more poopsmiths and create a bureaucracy that will shame wikipedia!

Here's an idea, how about we do a new vote - VOTE FOR WRITERS! VFW! We vote for people who will be forced by the community to WRITE! Maybe some of you has forgotten that by the end of the day, this is Uncyclopedia, the content free Encyclopedia, and not Uncyclopedia, the admin loaded dramapedia. ~ 07:12, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's act brashly and not try to talk this out with all involved parties. Instead, just side with one user. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 07:20, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

If that's a description of either side of this argument, it's a description of the other side as well. From what I've seen, this has become a yelling match from both sides. Double standard lolz? -RAHB 07:21, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

A wiser man than I had an interesting approach to dealing with such issues.....ban all the unhappy people. Long term though I can't see this working in practise, leaving me more in favour of Mordillo's approach. If people wish to be a part of Uncyclopedia then there are basic levels of behaviour that are acceptable. I think we've given some established users a lot of leeway over the last month or so that we would not afford to less established users. Past actions carry a lot of currency, but serial asshattery will greatly diminish that currency. As I said yesterday if this was one single event it would have been one thing, Big Brother is always watching and for some people a trip to Room 101 is long overdue. As always I would prefer to deal with "conflict" through dialogue, but sometimes you end up having to have a bigger stick to get people's attention. There is zero reason for us to lose any contributors over this matter, unless their egos are so frail that it won't allow them to see reason. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Or... you could mediate grievances when they're between a few people and only start dragging it before the public forum when it's strictly necessary. or would that be too boring? Indiscretion is the better part of Vitriol. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:20, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, I take a night to go see Inception (finally - getting time to see a movie is not easy these days) and wow, look what I miss. Far as I can see, shit gets deleted, idiots and vandals get banned, and the wiki continues to function. What's the problem? Oh, shit doesn't always get done immediately? Newsflash folks: however many admins you have, that will never happen. I don't see a pressing need for many more ops, if any. As Mhaille says elsewhere, maybe one, but I can't see any reason for 5. Why don't we stop pointing fingers at each other, and making ner ner ner sounds, and try being civil, and go write an article or two? --UU - natter 08:34, Jul 30

I really liked Inception, I really like the zero gravity Jiu Jitsu and the whole subconscious things about Leo needing to spend more on therapy. On topic, I don't think there's a single person on here that could even come close to the standard of ops we have. We'll just get some burnt out ex-writer from 2007 or a "categorizer/VFD retard/useless leech" mucking things up.--Sycamore (Talk) 14:25, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Inception is a good movie. Anywho, I'm not trying to emphasize that there is a lack of admins or that current problems are not being dealt with. That was never a major argument that I've made. Sorry if the VFS forum comes at the timing that it does given the drama that happened, but I really don't have any ulterior motive to this. What I'm saying is exactly what the quote from Jimbo Wales says. There's a sentiment at Uncyclopedia which I'd like to see changed regarding adminship. I don't think having more admins creates a clusterfuck of bureaucracy. If we take Jimbo's quote into account, it's clear that the only thing which ultimately creates a bureaucratic clusterfuck is the attitude and sentiment and the admins and community, and as long as we appoint reasonable people then there's no issue. I'm not going to delve into a conversation about last night's drama which is irrelevant to this forum discussion Mordillo. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 14:35 Jul 30 2010

I think once the current shitstorm has subsided we should have a long, detailed discussion about the administration of the site, and yes it is unfortunate that it has occurred at this time because a lot of very important issues are getting overlooked. Now, however, might not be the best time to discuss those. With regards to the issue of whether we need more sysops or not I genuinely can't see a need for the levels of fresh blood that you are talking about. One new admin at this time might be beneficial, but is hardly necessary. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

That's as may be, but what are your views on Inception? --UU - natter 14:50, Jul 30

As yet I have not seen it, except in my dreams... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

How about this...

Alright, after thinking long and hard about this, I have come to some sort of decision that no one else needs to care about. It is very, very obvious that there is a somewhat mediocrely large group of users who dislike some things that are happening around here. Perhaps they think some people are just dickbags. To be honest, I really don't know. Up to this point, these people have been, to put it lightly, total cunts in their quest to try and fix what they see as ailing the community. Then there is another group of users that dislike that the cunts have been cunting it up, and have decided to fight fire by flinging bags of douche into everyone's morning cereal bowls.

Now, in no way do I think that either side thinks they are being kind of dickish. I truly believe that everyone here is doing what they think is best for the community, and this website. I can't blame anyone. But everyone, and I mean EVERYONE is acting like pre-pubescent crying assfaces. I don't care who you are, which side you stand for on this issue, you have been an assface. Even me, for writing this, probably a vast amount of assfacing going on. But, we all need to get over that little part.

Things like this forum are not going to work. Demanding something seemingly arbitrary to half of the community is going to blow up tremendously. So how about we all stop acting like we are fucking 5 years old, and actually come together, and talk about some of each others grievances. You know, like actual civil human beings. No calling each other pricks because you don't see the other side's point of view. No disagreements that turn into trolling. No abuses of power. No yelling about so-called abuses of power where they don't exist. No acting like a whiny piece of shit. I know, I know. That's how things are seemingly done nowadays. But how about changing that? Actually acting like a normal human, and understanding that the guy typing to you across the internet is also a human. Not some sorry sack of turd who just likes to stir things up with you. Assume Good Faith

Drop your egos and settle your differences. Because if you don't we will all be a lot worse for ware. If any one user leaves this site because of the bull shit that has been going on, it is a failure by this community, that we couldn't work out our problems civilly before we lost a contributor. I doubt this will happen. But I hope.

You guys are all pretty awesome. Seriously. Everyone here is normally pretty cool. We all have our moments, but most people around are cool, funny people. Remember that.

In Summary, Suck it, douche bags. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 08:35, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

^Guy's a tard. Fuck him. Hilarious User #583

Nah --++ 11:08, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Precisely my sentiments woody. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 14:42, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Also

This is a great time to have this forum, because it's International Page Blanking Day. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 14:47 Jul 30 2010

My opinion, for what it's worth

Guys, everyone, the issue is not whether we need new admins, its that there are a number of competent users (of which I am not one) who are capable of doing the job of admin and are willing to do it for the good of the site. Given the tendency of admins to randomly disappear, it makes no sense to wait till that happens before opping these users leaving them with no time to settle in to the job before they take the reigns.

If your issue is not with the idea of opping new users, but rather with the specific users who are likely to be opped, then please have the balls to come straight out with it, rather than hiding behind arguments that don't make sense and gross misrepresentations of what e|m|c, TKF and others are saying.

Also, this whole crisis reeks of faggotry. Stop being faggots. -- jocular Ape (w00t) (Riot Porn) 14:58, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can see its not about that at all, as someone who was massively active for a number of years I took my "adminning" very seriously, falling into the old trap of "if I didn't deal with this who would?".....not that is very important, because the individuals who put in hour after hour of dealing with other people's crap NEED to feel that in order for them to continue. If you diminish those levels and have too many people not really doing that much you lose the commitment. Ironically more people result in less getting done. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Since TV Tropes is today's feature, may I invoke the Law of Conservation of Ninjitsu to support the above. Less admins getting more done (obviously not for the same reasons as fictional characters) seems like a counter-intuitive but reasonable assertion to make. Sir MacMania GUN—[15:13 30 Jul 2010]

This will be controversial but we should probably touch on it

Why is "admin" a lifetime appointment? If we need to VFS two users because two admins have stopped doing their jobs - why are those two still admins? If we need to bump the two most active counter-vandals up, why not bump the two least active admins down? The policy of "add and add and add, but never subtract" doesn't seem like a sound one.

If you take that policy to its logical conclusion, by 2020 we could have dozens and dozens of admins, of whom only about seven are actively working on the wiki - but the other "semi-retired" admins are fully capable of exerting admin powers in ways that, let's face it, can cause twenty times the drama of any non-admin action.

There's no successful system in the world, that I can think of, with an "add and never subtract" policy. There's no company where, when its employees become unproductive, it just hires new ones until there's ten people on every shift sitting around doing nothing but distracting the new guy.

Seems to me that this is obviously an issue that we need to deal with at some point in time. Maybe now's not the time, but maybe it is. pillow talk 15:59, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

We'll send our top blade runner Rick Deckard out to "retire" these replicant admins. --nachlader 16:43, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually suggesting that we murder the inactive admins. pillow talk 17:11, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

I think when we do sit down to discuss matters de-opping of inactive admins should definately be on the cards. If people wish to return there's nothing stopping them from getting re-opped just as easily (I appreciate that people do sometimes need to take time away for a variety of reasons).... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

An issue I feel I need to address

After discussing some of the perceptions people may be getting from this with Flammable, I think I need to make something quite clear to anyone who is questioning my motives for this VFS forum (which again, I will admit has come at a rather bad timing and welcome discussion at a later date to work on changing the VFS system): I do not want to be an admin and will refuse to be nominated, nor will I be voting for or nominating Ape On Thursdays or Dexter. I will throw my support behind PotR, Socky, and Sycamore. I want to quash any suspicions that this is some sort of power grab by myself stemming from yesterday's drama, and I'm not trying to insinuate that any of the current admins are incompetent or that I have any current issues with any of the admins which are a motivating factor for this. I'm taking the IRC ban, and welcome any decisions by the admins regarding yesterday's drama which I'd like us to put behind us. If everyone wants to have this VFS discussion once the smoke is cleared from yesterday's clusterfuck and once it's out of everyone's minds, then I'd welcome that as well. Again, all apologies for the bad timing but I'm not one to hold resentments or grudges and let them spill over into advocating change within the community. I've had Uncyclopedia's interests in mind with this, not a personal vendetta. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 16:40 Jul 30 2010

There's no power to grab, as Mister Wales stated at the top of the page, people who view sysophood as a position of power are way off the mark, you are essentially a janitor who people dump on continuously. :) It is important that we keen the two issues completely seperate, yesterdays shitfest has no bearing on any perceived need or not for new admins, not does it influence who, if any, would or should be put forward for the role. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)