Forum:Vote for new admins
VOTING IS CLOSED, DO NOT VOTE ANYMORE
Witty banter and congrats are allowed, however.
PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT ADDITIONAL NOMINATIONS HERE. If you want to suggest someone for Adminship, please do so on the talk page. Potential candidates will be added here by Admins should they meet the necessary criteria. Once here, any Authorised User can vote. A vote by an Admin will count as one (1) vote, whilst votes by non-Admins will count as a half vote.
Final Vote Tally
Bold - Highest two in category. Bold Italic - Third in category. Italic - Lowest in category.
| Name | Total | Admin | User | |
| Zim ulator (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups) | 23.5 | 12 | 11.5 | |
| Hindleyite (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups) | 23 | 10 | 13 | |
| sannse (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups) | 17 | 11 | 6 | |
| Zombiebaron (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups) | 13 | 6 | 7 | |
| King In Yellow (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups) | 12 | 6 | 6 |
Current Nominated Candidates
Sannse (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups)
Opped. The "voting" isn't over, and it's up to admin discretion, but two additional lowlifes may be made admins once it is. --KATIE!! 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Symbolic Opping Upheld
16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Please continue to vote on this nomination. Don't stop because she was opped; we want complete final scores. 18:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I nearly de-opped myself because the vote isn't over, but I've been convinced otherwise by the cab... *ahem* by an unrelated group of respected users. Thanks guys, and I look forward to welcoming in the two who really win the vote. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to why sannse was opped before both hindleyite and zim, who both have higher scores overall... before the vote is even over. I'm not complaining or anything, I did support everyone here and I you'll be as good a sysop as anyone else san, it just seems a bit odd. I get curious about such things. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 18:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the consensus is that Sannse opping is just a matter of making official what she can do already as staff. The two brand spanking new Admins that we are hoping to add to our ranks will be a seperate issue, so it makes sense, given the support, to op her and get her out of here. -- Sir Mhaille
(talk to me)
- I believe the consensus is that Sannse opping is just a matter of making official what she can do already as staff. The two brand spanking new Admins that we are hoping to add to our ranks will be a seperate issue, so it makes sense, given the support, to op her and get her out of here. -- Sir Mhaille
- I don't suppose it's that important either, but regardless, this does give the appearance of favoritism. I've got nothing against Sannse personally, and to some extent my saying this is also a show of favoritism because I like him, but KiY looks like the better candidate - he doesn't have a Wikipedia adminship to keep him too busy (and potentially even cause a conflict of interest), he'd be more diligent (unless he has a thesis defense coming up), he has a better understanding of how things work here (except as regards user-page aesthetics), and he's clearly good at seeking out crap articles for deletion (i.e., none of mine, yet). True, he forgot his password that one time, but I think he's got an e-mail address stored here now in case that happens again. c • > • cunwapquc? 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- How is it favouritism? Read what is says above. We are going to have two more Admins from this round, KIY may well be one of them. Sannse already has the "power" to do whatever she wants on the site, we're merely making what she does official. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- How is it favouritism? Read what is says above. We are going to have two more Admins from this round, KIY may well be one of them. Sannse already has the "power" to do whatever she wants on the site, we're merely making what she does official. -- Sir Mhaille
- Actually, it has been stated every time this comes up that sysopping will make a difference to what she does as opposed to staff. I don't want to seem like I'm dragging this out, but the "just making it official" line just doesn't work - what she does is already offical, because all she does is staff duties, not sysop duties. She's said it both times the sysop nomination has come up. And who decided this on the early sysopping anyway? How many admins/users were asked about it? It does indeed look just like a group of friends inviting another friend into "the club" regardless of any kind of "process" if you ask me. Bah, I always end up wrong in these things, but i feel it needs to be said. If we want to set up processes like this, at least follow them once set up! I've said before - I'm not opposed to sysopping sannse as such, I just like to see it done properly, by everyone in the community. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- That may be so, but you can view this as "fixing" an earlier mistake when we ignored our own internal process (as it was at that time) and counted non-Admin votes during the previous time she (and incidently you) were up for Opping. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- That may be so, but you can view this as "fixing" an earlier mistake when we ignored our own internal process (as it was at that time) and counted non-Admin votes during the previous time she (and incidently you) were up for Opping. -- Sir Mhaille
- Interesting situation. For the record, I did say appearance of favoritism, not favoritism (or even favouuuuritism) per se. For all I know, you could be doing this to punish poor Sannse, in a final, terrifying, grand-guignol effort to finally push her over the edge... I just think we should make it clear to anyone who isn't clear that Sannse is a major, longtime Wikipedia admin, who (like Dave Gerard) has considerable influence there, in addition to working for Wikia in some capacity. That appears to be where her support is coming from, and why. There's nothing wrong with that - indeed, y'all can do whatever you want (and to be fair, everyone seems to like Sannse quite a bit, AFAIK). But the question is, what are the chances you'd do that on behalf of someone who was known to be an outspoken critic of Wikipedia? Zero, right? Hence the appearance of favoritism, even though you may honestly feel that such a stance is perfectly justified, both practically and morally. Which reminds me, we should probably move this discussion to another page or even IRC, so as not to prejudice the rest of the proceedings. c • > • cunwapquc? 01:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I hope no resentment or any type of negativity flows from these expressions of concern, but I too am somewhat worried about the transperency (or lack thereof) of various important decissions being made. ~ ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|MDA|+S 09:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was rather bothered by it, too. Everyone should have had their permissions changed at once - it's only fair. However, I cannot help noting that sannse has the third-highest vote count and people quit voting after the opp'ing, which bothers me more because the final count isn't going to be a real count. 03:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was rather bothered by it, too. Everyone should have had their permissions changed at once - it's only fair. However, I cannot help noting that sannse has the third-highest vote count and people quit voting after the opp'ing, which bothers me more because the final count isn't going to be a real count.
- I hope no resentment or any type of negativity flows from these expressions of concern, but I too am somewhat worried about the transperency (or lack thereof) of various important decissions being made. ~ ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|MDA|+S 09:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please continue to vote on this nomination. Don't stop because she was opped; we want complete final scores. 18:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
She's great and well-proven, but she doesn't help with admin duties because she doesn't want to interfere with our community. I think she would make a great addition to the team and that she shouldn't need to be in a top-whatever, but just get sufficient admin support, since she could help out anyway. We could ceremonially make her an admin on uncyc...
| Admins |
|
| Users |
|
| Comments |
Guess I'd better comment here. I don't use my staff abilities unless asked to do so as part of my job... which generally means that I'm asked by an admin to do something they can't do themselves (checkuser, de-admin, blow the place up, blah blah) or there is an emergency and staff help is needed. Unless I am made an admin by the community it's not right for me, as a member of this community, to interfere with the running of this site (OK, OK, a little deletion once or twice, and that block was just a slip of the mouse, nobody's perfect). So yes, being an admin would change what I do around here, at least in my play-time visits. Clean up isn't something I would push my nose into as staff, but is something I'd do as an admin -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
|
Hindleyite (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups)
- Opped With 23 Votes and no against. 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Aside from his regular appearances on the Featured Article and Featured Images list, Hindleyite is a prolific contributor to Uncyclopedia, as a quick glance at his Edit History will reveal. Heavily involved with sections of Uncyclopedia such as Reefer Desk, UnBooks and the Potatochopper of the Month Award. Always on hand to offer advice and assistance on talk pages throughout the site or on IRC.
| Admins |
|
| Users |
|
| Comments |
Zim_ulator (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups)
- Opped With 23.5 Votes and no against. 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Another prolific contributor, the Reverend Zim has made his home as a writer and chief correspondant for our popular UnNews section and our Podcast service. His dulcet tones can be heard on the vast majority of news articles. A quick search on talk pages throughout the site will reveal his ramblings friendly banter and sparkling wit, as well as his ability to offer help to those in need.
| Admins |
|
| Users |
00:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
I am so hugely flattered being nommed and supported by all these fine folks. All those nommed here are great people, and all deserve this recognition at least as much, and probably more than, me. The only reservation about me is that I may disappear for a few days at a time when my back gets particularly nasty. These phenomena are unpredictable, so if that might be a problem, it should be considered. Thanks to all who voted and all who are in the running.
|
King_In_Yellow (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups)
Ignoring his AWFUL User Page, King in Yellow is a more than frequent visitor to our Vote for Deletion and Ban Patrol pages, natters away on the Forum pages like an old woman, and generally seems to appear just about everywhere.
| Admins |
|
| Users |
|
| Comments |
Are we allowing Against votes? Just curious... KiY doesn't have much of an article-writing record here, but I don't see that as much of a drawback. - Some User 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
|
Zombiebaron (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups)
I promised. Also he's bored and does the NRV stuff and isn't nearly as immature as he was some six months ago (or more, I forget... what with this... old... age... yes...). --KATIE!! 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
| Admins |
|
| Users |
|
| Comments |
|
Against All
I'm too lazy to go through each one. I think everybody should be de-opped except for me, and then I'll ban everybody and delete every page that's not mine. -- 
05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- For. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ehh, why not. c • > • cunwapquc? 07:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC) after all, there's already a preview...
- For, because I'm not nominated! --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 08:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ! (simultaneously titled, "Comments")
so you've selected 3 admins out of 5? excuse me but what are you trying to prove? would heaven have fallen if you hadn't opped all 5 of them? i say this cause all 5 were deserving (the ones excluded were more deserving perhaps). I agree that there are many more deserving candidates (perhaps even more deserving than this bunch) waiting in the wings. without prejudice to that fact, what's the point in holding this nail-biting bull-fight (literally bull) of a travesty when all you intended to do, in the first place, was simply kick two out of an equal-in-all-respects bunch of 5 by specious, arbitrary voting? all this hoopla might have been justified were you attempting something like 1 out of 5 candidates (not counting ma'am sannse)! what i mean is that non-admins (public) should vote on the discussion page of this forum for candidates that make it to here and a voted candidate should then believe that he/she now has an about 99% chance (ok make it 97% if it makes you happy) of being opped and this forum should be restricted to voting by admins for negative votes only, ergo. admins should explain why not they want him/her opped! involving non-admins here makes it seem democratic but it isn't for it hasn't been applied the right way. you guys have got it all backwards. pretty stupid! -- mowgli 18:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Mowgli! Cut down on the java...take a deep breath, and recite the mantra, "Un..Cy..Clo..Pe..De..Ahhhhh...". I'm pretty sure that this is the first time that it's been done like this...if you expect perfection the first time out, you're guaranteed disappointment. Next time they'll tweak the formula...soon it will be perfect. Then, eventually, you'll get nommed for admin and will be soundly thrashed for using too much bold text back in 2006.
.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)“I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work”
- i understand and i understand o so well! so how long till i get nommed for admin? i'm joking!! joke! joke! god help me! i really don't want to be admin! shoo! go away freak!
- but yeah, someone (among the admins) tried to be democratic. *clap clap* the intention counts and it's laudable!!!! let it be an invaluable example or "show-how" for new admins (and the incumbents). -- mowgli 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Whoa, chill bro. Seriously. We created a new rule due to this vote. We probably won't have another vote for...oh...about the same amount of time as last time, somewhere around 3+ months. We very seldom add admins to this site, so every time it has been different (except the first couple times, where it was the same, but that was because the community was about 15 people, about 8 of whom were regulars, and almost all over which were admins anyway). Also, if just getting on this page meant auto-admin, then the only people with a say would be 3 out of 40+ admins, which is even worse. 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Whoa, chill bro. Seriously. We created a new rule due to this vote. We probably won't have another vote for...oh...about the same amount of time as last time, somewhere around 3+ months. We very seldom add admins to this site, so every time it has been different (except the first couple times, where it was the same, but that was because the community was about 15 people, about 8 of whom were regulars, and almost all over which were admins anyway). Also, if just getting on this page meant auto-admin, then the only people with a say would be 3 out of 40+ admins, which is even worse.
- Also, mowgli, didn't your mother teach you "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"? Not that we're always nice, but a negative vote would be an absolute disaster of hate and hurt feelings. It must be a positive vote - a feel good that someone noticed you and likes you type thing. I take it you weren't in on the discussion about this, either. We are not a democracy, we are an oligarchy. We are not a court, we are a group with a common goal. We are not a company, we are a group of friends. There is no hard-fast rule we can't bend nor any we can't break, but admins are people that agree on the rules and have demonstrated to the admins that they understand the nature, purpose, and rules of uncyclopedia, as well as having a compatible personality. Just roll with it and accept it. 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also, mowgli, didn't your mother teach you "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"? Not that we're always nice, but a negative vote would be an absolute disaster of hate and hurt feelings. It must be a positive vote - a feel good that someone noticed you and likes you type thing. I take it you weren't in on the discussion about this, either. We are not a democracy, we are an oligarchy. We are not a court, we are a group with a common goal. We are not a company, we are a group of friends. There is no hard-fast rule we can't bend nor any we can't break, but admins are people that agree on the rules and have demonstrated to the admins that they understand the nature, purpose, and rules of uncyclopedia, as well as having a compatible personality. Just roll with it and accept it.
- yeah i agree. neg. votes would spread hate -- my mom
diddid teach me that. i wasn't really clued into the discussion on the discusion page, you're right. and yeah, uncyc. is nether a democracy nor an oligarchy. we are what wikipedia isn't and can never be: a college fraternity, lamda lambda pie! that might morph into a sorority any moment, without notice, and all brothers will be called sisters, lol! cheers! lets spread more sisterly love -- mowgli 03:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- yeah i agree. neg. votes would spread hate -- my mom
Mowgli ftl!--General Salt 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
General Salt (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups)
For.Against. Dammit, he just sporked Wikipedia's article on Roman Emperor Septimius Severus for his own user page, with barely a single substantive alteration. And I had such high hopes for him... c • > • cunwapquc? 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)- For 'cos he's got win and stuff -- i think -- i'm not sure -- just a guess -- anyway it's for for whatever we are voting for -- mowgli 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)