Forum talk:New Administrator Nominations

Please leave comments, questions, or concerns on this page, as the voting page will be locked until community voting begins.

BENSON WANTS TO BE ADMIN! SOMEONE NOMINATE BENSON OR THERE WILL BE MONEY TO PAY! AND MAYBE SOME HELL... Benson 02:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

STM SAID THAT HE WOULD... --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Benson for User. Sure, it's no Administrator, but perhaps he'll STFU.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Benson's already an administrator, and frankly, if he could STFU he wouldn't be Benson. --User:Guffawing Crow/sig 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin is not enough he needs to be Bensoncrat instead.--Scott 01:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Limits?

I'm noot sure I like the limits on votes/nominations that the intro says we have. Surely this "round" is purely about finding out who is suitable, and the next round is about who's most suitable? So only two or three votes for the actual voting would be fine, but limiting it here for nominating is mostly pointless. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:29, 12 Jan 2007

Well IIRC only Admins can nominate users for being an Admin. I guess that means as a user we cannot nominate ourselves, and we cannot nominate other users as well, only an Admin can do that. If you don't know the cabal admin secret handshake, you might not be able to have an admin nominate you. I heard that becoming an admin on Uncyclopedia is even harder than trying to join the Freemasons, or the New World Order, or trying to run Windows XP for a year or so without a Blue Screen of Death happening at least once, much less a system lockup or forced reboot. I mean if even Benson is not nominated, what chance does someone like I have, who is not as good as Benson apparently is, and I admit freely that Benson is better than me. Though I refuse to join the League of Benson, because I am not worthy enough to join it. I mean the Black Jesus template has a better chance of not being deleted on the VFD section than someone like me has of being nominated for Admin. ;) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.... who decided on these limits? And what possible purpose do they serve? And shouldn't it be the other way around, with users nomming and voting the first round and the admins making a final decision afterwards? And why only three votes? Not that I have more I really need to cast, but that seems sort of arbitrary? In conclusion, how about we either do it the old way or discuss this in a public place?---Rev. Isra (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tompkins asked me how we should do it, and I told him what I thought was appropriate. I had discussed the matter in IRC many times over the last several days with several users, including Mhaille and others (sorry, Mhaille is the only one that comes to mind), but ultimately I was the one that made the call. I'd talked with enough people in the chatroom to try to accomodate everyone's wishes (such as ensuring diversity [and not just pushing through one admin's noms], taking into account mostly admin input but also some user input, and trying, above all, to ensure that the absolute best nominees get to the op-vote. Your suggestion about reversing the process is actually really good; I think that's how we should do it next time. I don't think that this method will cause a bad nominee to get through, however. Whoever is opped this time around may not be the BEST suited for it, but we won't op someone who's unqualified this way. What's most important, in my mind, is that we're going to get more help for the administrators, which this will do. I see this as something we should do on a regular basis; as the site is always growing, we're going to need more administrators. If we think of ways we could do it better, as Isra did, we can tweak the system as we go.--<<>> 13:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As Brad has kindly namedropped me I might as well put my two penneth in. I've no idea where th idea for restricting the nominations came from, when I saw this go up last night I thought instantly of three people I wanted to nominate, but then realised the rules said I couldn't. They may have come from our last Vote for Admins in August, but I genuinely can't remember and I'm too lazy to check.

For what its worth I can actually see some sense in it, if we had say 10 Admins nomming say 3 or 4 different people it would be a complete mess, same goes to if we reversed it and opened it up to users. The very fact that we are limited means we are forced to look for the best suited, which is what we want. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I can see some of the merits of limited nominating now, but I still think that with a two-part selection process it is unnecessary.

Having said that, I think we would all agree that after this round of sysopping, an agreed-upon method for selecting new admins should be... agreed upon. It's been done enough now to know what works well and what doesn't, so it shouldn't be too hard to get it straightened out, especially while there isn't any sysopping going on. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 15:12, 12 Jan 2007

What determines best suited? How can you really know which user is best suited when none of them even have administrator experience? I mean it seems to be rigged in that people who spend more time on the IRC chat with admins than actually writing articles here and reverting blankings and vandalizing get nominated. I mean that is favoritism if you ask me. I spent a lot of time fixing up articles that were not funny, starting out new articles that nobody thought of before, reverting blankings and vandalizing, and trying to be diplomatic to resolve conflicts between the users and noobs, and trying to clam down people like Anonymous Slashy by offering alternatives and giving them a fair hearing. Yet most of the people nominated have schmoozed with admins more than half of the stuff people like me have done for Uncyclopedia. The way the current nominations are going are hardly fair, and I have serious doubts as to if the best suited candidates have been nominated and I feel that a lot of good candidates have been denied a chance to be nominated just because they aren't schmoozing on IRC with the admins. I had enough with this sort of thing in the corporate world, those that schmooze to get ahead and promoted are usually the ones least suited for the promotions or even working for the company. Because they lack the skills, talent, and potential, they have to rely on social skills, networking, and schmoozing, while those of us with the skills, talents, and potential are left behind or fired because we spend more time doing our actual jobs and working harder and smarter and not spending a lot of time spreading rumors around the water cooler and all of the other schmoozing stuff the people who are promoted are doing. Just my two cents on the matter. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Orion. Most of us do what you do. The noms, for the most part, do more. Much more. Look how often Braydie or Tom help people on forums or talkpages. See how many times their names appear in the history of QVFD. Notice how often Zb's name appears in Ban Patrols history. Lots do some, but only some do lots.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Its NOTHING to do with IRC, its to do with actions on the site. Have a look at a persons edits, the quality and quantity of what they do, how helpful are they to others, how much cleaning up do they do, their level of commitment, and so on and so forth. I don't want to single anyone out, but one of the nominees is a very rare visitor to IRC, and spends little time posting on the Forum, but what they do do is get out there and put the work in, in areas where it matters. You are completely right that we have many people with the skillset needed working away on the site, and its something that we all appreciate, but, as MO points out the nominees have done it to the nth degree. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

It still has more to do with communication, there are plenty of people who do those sorts of things on the forums, and clean up articles, etc, how come they are not nominated? About the only thing they get from time to time is some award. I am one of those people who keep getting awards, and have been at Uncyclopedia for a long time, but like the rest I am never even considered for a nomination for even dog catcher. There are a lot of people like me, who do a lot of work for Uncyclopedia and they don't even get awards. I still think it is favoritism if you are choosing to nominate people you happen to like, because you communicated with them, over people you don't like because they haven't communicated with you because they'd been too busy working hard to clean up the Wiki. You will note that some of the nominees have submitted QVFD and VFD entries for articles that have been vandalized instead of cleaning them up to th funnier version. I want to point that out, because now we are losing articles that once were funny, got vandalized, and now are being deleted. If you want people like that for admins, you got a funny idea of what an admin should do. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we shall set up a forum. Each administrator can nominate one idea as to how he/she thinks the voting process should work, from there the administrator may vote on two other options. Administrators choosing not to nominate an idea may vote on three seperate ideas. From there, ideas receiving a nomination and at least 2 votes will be moved to a seperate voting page where the entire community will be eligible to vote :)   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Orion: It's not entirely that. Selection of admins is a bit of a fuzzy science - it's a mixture of numerous criterion, and you can't chalk it up to a single thing (like IRC, though that does help). Some of our admins almost never visit IRC, some never did before they became admins. What you have mentioned doing doesn't take a +S, and wouldn't be helped by a +S, aside from possibly the (theoretical) respect (ha!) that you get from it. We must select people that are interested in shit wading, while also trustworthy to make decisions we will confidently back. This usually means we like them and get along with them before they are made an admin, plus they fill the above criteria. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So just the people you generally like because they schmoozed with you on a talk page or the forum? Others who are also qualified, but don't schmooze in the forums and talk pages with you because they are too busy cleaning up the crap, don't get nominated. So there are people well qualified for the job, but because they don't schmooze with the admins enough, they won't get nominated. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was told normal users could vote. Admin's get +1 to the score and users +1/2. (Ips couldn't vote) is this right? (Well not at the moment...) -Kjhf!- (feeling chatty?) 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That is how we did things last time, yes. And it looks like the same rules apply for this one. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

This is nominations- then we can all vote in the main discussion? I vote Braydie! -Kjhf!- (feeling chatty?) 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Once the nominations page closes down in a day or so all the nominees will be moved to a second page where you can vote to your heart's content. Also, I think I should be made into an UberAdmin, whilst we are at it. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Braydie

Let me just throw in an interest group nomination here: Braydie virtually works as an administrator anyway, and would be a fine addition to the ranks.--Procopius 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, Tom mayfair is good too. ZB also.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

*waves her Useless Cow flag happily* -- 15:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, I got to get me one of those. —Braydie at 15:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can have mine. It's lost that "new cow" smell.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I got an against :( 22:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So did I. I still think a Wolf's great guy, though. Vote Braydie! -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 08:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to remember that he's a by-the-book cop who just lost his partner, and he thinks that you two rookies are loose cannons who are going to get someone killed. I read ahead in the screenplay, and you're buddies after the bar brawl in chapter four. Then you all go after Hugo Vasquez.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Woo! Go Braydie! -Kjhf!- (feeling chatty?) 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL @ Modusoperandi. I vote that the best response of this entire page. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 18:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this protected?

Because I want to give my thoughts. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done, full marks. =p --Algorithm 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Go back and read the first paragraph again. You'll get your say once the nominations are finalised. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 20:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My renomination

I laughed when I read this. Thanks, Rc. I can only accept on the understanding that I may or may not be able to do anything here. Depends what's going on IRL. At this point I'm doing well in my Masters program and my wife still loves me, and I need to keep it that way... I'm starting my thesis soon, and that will create both a lot of extra work, and a desperate need to put the work down and relish in destroying others' work. But I don't see myself able to do nearly the amount of work that I did last year... at least for the first half of `07. Life's still full for the next few months. --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I'll +S you now, if you don't mind. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 18:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sannse already did. —rc (t) 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bummer, I wanted to! Well, I'm glad to see it. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually think BENSON would make a decent candidate for admin

I mean, as much as some people hate him, I find it doubtful he would mess up anything. Sure, there was the sock incident, but he apologized and said it was only a joke to see if admins would notice. In all seriousness, I doubt it would hurt to give BENSON the position he longs for. --User:Nintendorulez 23:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? There are many more deserving candidates who put a lot of time and effort into editing and maintaining this site, and consistently contribute positively both on here and the IRC channel. Adminning Benson would be like slapping everyone who actually deserves it in the face. Just because you and and your hapless cronies lack sufficient meaning in your life that you feel the need to collectively massage the ego of some deluded anonymous teenager, it does not justify putting him in a position of responsibility that he has shown absolutely no evidence of being worthy of. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 00:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And Put-Down of the Month goes to... —rc (t) 05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing. If Benson wants to be adminned, he had better start helping out. I mean things like quality control, correct usage of ICU, VFD, Vanity2, etc, and maybe writing a few articles. In other words, he's going to have to work for it. Having a bunch of groupies fanclub alone won't do it. —The Right Honourable Major Sir Hinoa KUN UmP UotM Bur MDA NS CM (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it's late but...

For the next round, I thought you should know there is this guy (who I won't name couse that would totally disqualifie him) that was nommed a couple of times before and rejected it, caliming he was sysoping another wiki... well, he is available now.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)