Forum:Time for some new adminses?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Time for some new adminses? (talk)
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4654 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hello, and welcome to the "New Administrator Nominations" voting page. Here, Registered Users will be able to nominate current users for an administrative position. On April 26 all users receiving a nomination accompanied by at least two supporting votes will be transferred to a separate voting page where administrators will be eligible to vote on who we will op at this time.

Please keep in mind that any votes placed on this page will NOT be transferred to the final voting page, and therefore you should vote even if you don't necessarily want the user to be adminned. You may vote for up to three people max (if you nominate a user, that will count as a for and you will only be allowed 2 more for votes). There should be only one nomination for each user, and for God's sake, don't nominate yourself, you narcissistic prick. Sysops votes will count twice as much as registered users (as they will better know, from experience, which users have the qualities required to be a successful sysop). In the score counter, this will show up as 2 points per admin vote, and 1 point for user votes. If an op wishes to vote for moer than three users, they may split votes in half using weak for for two users each. Only administrators will vote on the final page for opping. A lot of thought has gone into the voting process this time around (even more than last time!).--<<>> 21:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting closed. it's April 26 in England, and Starnestommy told me it was ok to go ahead and close it now (seriously, though, I think we've gotten a good list of candidates at this point, so it should be good).--<<>> 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Use Forum:Admin vote now, for those paying less attention. Spang talk 12:07, 26 Apr 2007



Score: +15

*For. Household name. GOSHZILLaDISGUSTING UNFUNNY NONSENSE 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not needed, changing vote. GOSHZILLaDISGUSTING UNFUNNY NONSENSE 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For Probably the most critically acclaimed user of all time. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 03:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Thank you. But that's easily Hardwick. Maybe STM. Or Procopius. Or Squiggle...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It's actually me. Sorry. Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My belly is sensitive. Let us never speak of this again. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Score: +16
  • Nomination: been here for quite some time and puts a lot of effort into cleaning up Uncyclopedia through the VFD and such. Probably has three testicles. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Three testicles is confirmed. —Braydie 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What? /me counts testicles. Oh, right. Carry on then. Icons-flag-au.png Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Score: +6

One-eyed Jack

Score: +9

Tom mayfair

Score: +12
Never mind; I reread the rules. GOSHZILLaDISGUSTING UNFUNNY NONSENSE 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, Tom's status is currently wikibreak with "Their expected return date is not clear." —Braydie 18:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I'll suspend my vote untill he returns.--User:Zerotrousers» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! CREEPY!!!» 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
RETURNS ^_^ Premier Tom Mayfair 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange but untrue

Score: +7


Score: +10


Score: +13
Yeah... so if this pans out, does this mean I become your bitch? :P --Olipro Icons-flag-gb.png Anchor KUN (Harass) 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"become" ? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 18:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... I was totally expecting you to say that --Olipro Icons-flag-gb.png Anchor KUN (Harass) 19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Score: +6
  • Nomination I really think it's time for him to be an admin.--User:Zerotrousers» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! CREEPY!!!» 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • F☭R, I'd do him. Premier Tom Mayfair 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • FOR, This man has been with me since the dawn of creation. We were the same amoeba, I split from him, and naturally we hit it off. Ever since then we've been together. I bared his children, he stayed with me during the helsinky episode of 1915, and lord remembers that. He taught me everything, and more. "I taught him everything he knows, and more" He told me that special day, and for that, he needs to be the president. Or what ever he got nominated for! -Paniking Undead 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For e|m|c is one of the better writers here. He knows what's crap and what's not. --Starnestommy (TalkContribsFFSWP) 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For. What Starnes said. —– Sir Hv » | Talk | Contribs | KUN | UotM | RotM | VFH | Kidney | 25/04 20:05
  • For. What Heerenveen said Starnes said. --Littleboyonly.jpg TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly.jpg 20:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

High Gen. Grue

Score: +3
If he does not think he is ready yet, well, it is his decision. Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!


Score: +5
  • Nom and For. Lots of edits, lots of reverts and lots and lots of voting; general all round good guy who would benefit from the absolute POWARRRR extra admin functions. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 15:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For. i like him, so i thought i'd vote for him.--Math Poet 16:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me) 12:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Score: +3


Score: +5
  • --KATIE!! 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For SQUIGGLE!!!111!!!11!!!!!1!!!1! --Starnestommy (TalkContribsFFSWP) 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not how ya "!!!!!!1111!!!!", it's like: SQUIGGLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!oneoneoneoneoneoneoneoneoneoneoneone. —Braydie 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Miscasted votes/comments and other general insanity


  • Nomination. I haven't made my mind yet (Modus is also a strong candidate), so I'm just nominating for now.. For. Nov I've saw I have the right to two votes.
As I said in the edit summary, your nom counts as a for. You have three fors total.--<<>> 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One-eyed Jack

*Nomination. Same as Mordillo, see above. -- herr doktor needsAgear Rocket.gif [scream!] 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

invalid nom: "only one nomination per user". This is really just a formality to make sure no one else does this. I'm pretty sure that someone else will nom OEJ soon.--<<>> 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


*Nom+for. Possibly the best thing that has happened on the site so far. He not only writes Fantastic articles, he also makes the site a generally better place to be. I honestly don't understand why is not a sysop, or even beauracrat already.--User:Zerotrousers» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! CREEPY!!!» 06:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

*Braydie crosses another off the list*Braydie 07:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Invalid. "Don't nominate yourself".--<<>> 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Score: -3.14159
  • Nomination I nominate myself, in defiance of the nominating rules but in accordance with the Ignorable Policies policy. This is all based on the fact that I am more qualified than G.W. Bush or Dick Cheney, and look where they've gotten themselves! --Ekashp 03:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Against Narcissic prick. Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me! 03:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Invalid. No self-noms. Can you read? -- herr doktor needsAgear Rocket.gif [scream!] 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That was quick! It was a joke nom to begin with, stemming from the IRC discussion that everybody on the list will advance to the next round of voting, as it sits currently. --Ekashp 04:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nomination suggestions from those who already nominated/voted

-- herr doktor needsAgear Rocket.gif [scream!] 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

--General Insineratehymn 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominated by Tompkins. Icons-flag-au.png Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Nominated!!!!111one11 -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

--User:Zerotrousers» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! CREEPY!!!» 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • (Raising finger with a Hellboy's blush) Me. Well, if Insineratehymn could do this and managed to receive votes... Actually, maybe not. We have stronger candidates - and too many of them. But, just in case I have a secret admirator... From Russia with love, HerrDok. -- herr doktor needsAgear Rocket.gif [scream!] 17:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we get more votes?

NEIN! -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
*pout* --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You realise up there at the top it says "...all users receiving a nomination accompanied by at least two supporting votes will be transferred to a separate voting page where the entire community will be eligible to vote." So everyone nominated so far is going to be put to that second page for voting anyway. How many more votes can you need?
However, I also feel the need to point out that the rules also state: "Only administrators will vote on the final page for opping." So I wouldn't trust these rules too much. As much thought as Brad claims to have put into this voting system, it could have maybe done with a quick read-over before saving, eh? ;)
So some clarification there would be nice, though it makes sense that the next step in admin-only, so we can cherry pick those who were going to be opped all along. Also if everyone's going to be allowed to vote again, having a second round makes no sense in the first place, as it would be exactly the same as the first. Anyway, didn't we agree last time to agree on a voting system before the next sysopping vote? Perhaps we should do that after this one, this time. Spang talk 03:34, 25 Apr 2007
Hey, don't rain on my sunny day with your <airquotes>rules</airquotes> and <airquotes>logic</airquotes>. I just needed more votes to spread more love. Are you against love, Spang? --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Against. Spang talk 04:07, 25 Apr 2007
I get the feeling that this page was really just supposed to be a nominations page, and nobody was really supposed to get any more than three votes. Giving people additional votes now seems pointless. Leave that for the next round. Icons-flag-au.png Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 04:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
And nobody is giving against votes, which sucks and is completely insincere, but quite comprehensible. -- herr doktor needsAgear Rocket.gif [scream!] 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
To elaborate; being a sysop is never about love. Spang talk 04:57, 25 Apr 2007

Um, yeah... About everyone being able to vote next round... I kinda copied this from the previous page where only ops could nom so um... yeah, I suck. I'm going to fix that now. Only ops will vote on the final vote.--<<>> 12:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And regarding the "we'll op the people we were going to op anyway" thing, the reason we have this nom page first where all the users nom and give reasons is so that the users can bring up good ideas (like the one about Cs1987 being an Aussie, and us having a shortage of ops from that timezone). So it's not QUITE so conspiratorial as it probably should have been.--<<>> 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


From the rules above: "On April 26 all users receiving a nomination accompanied by at least two supporting votes will be transferred to a separate voting page where administrators will be eligible to vote on who we will op at this time." Two seems awfully low, considering that everyone's voting on admins right now. Is this another example of a bad copy-paste job or are we really going to transfer everyone over to the admin voting? —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for troublemake it double? 16:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going for people will support... if you think that's too little, or needs to be modified (like at least 25% of the leader) works, if you like that better. I'm cool with changing it. It WAS kinda what I was going with right now...--<<>> 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
How about the top four? And subtract one from everyone, because I'm too lazy to vote against everything, every time. 04/25 21:25