RationalWiki talk:HeartOfGold Sysop vote

crap. Bohdan 01:07, 13 December 2007 (EST)


 * If I vote yes, I offend Heart. If I vote no, I offend Bohdan.  I am making an "Abstain" section! --TK/MyTalk|undefined 01:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Vote whichever way you want. I don't think either one of us cares.  Heart actually voted against himself.  This is more than just a vote.  Its a study of RW. Bohdan 01:16, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * One question, why did this page get stuck in the mainspace? - Icewedge 01:18, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Because thats where I wanted it. But I'll let you move it :) Bohdan 01:19, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Study of RW
It is like Animal Farm of Lord of the Flies. 01:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * There were pigs, right?, in Lord of the Flies but no animal farm that I remember. I'm also convinced that they had no books on the isle, certainly not any Orwell. Book Editor at CP 03:04, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Can I be a goat in the RW version of Animal Farm? --Edgerunner  76 07:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Conditional Oppose
I voted Oppose, but I'll remove it as soon as the candidate keeps a convincing speech, evidencing his values, motivations, intentions, and highlighting his 5-year plan. In addition, I'd invite a guest voter from our sister site, Conservapedia, who has years of experience in the field of creating trustworthy Sysops: the esteemed Andrew Schlafly. Editor at CP 03:26, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * I too would vote "yes" if he actually did anything other than complain, but that's all we've seen so far. Besides, didn't he quit against last night?  Should we be handing out sysop powers based on hissy fits?- 12:44, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Info needed
For those of us who have no real experience with this editor, can we get some background information on this nomination? From what I can gather, a guy with extreme YEC views wants to be sysop. Fair enough, but why the vote? It seems he was promised this position? Is that true? Didn't I see some vandalism recently from him? Whats the usual procedure for sysophood? Should some of us with more active recent contributions to the site get preferecne? DickTurpis 12:25, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * The original procedure for sysophood was by vote, as the creation of sysops became less controversial this method was gradually dropped. Due to the conrtovertial nature of HG's request we have returned to the original system.--Bobbing up 13:50, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * The mob decides. That is the point of the vote.  He was promised the position by ames, but for some reason nothing came of it.  He has not vandalised, he got de-sysoped for blocking someone for a minute while he was arguing with the person.  The indident was minor and overblown.  As far as preferences, no this is a pure mobocracy, isn't it? Bohdan 12:30, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * I'd call this vandalism, though I guess it could be a light-hearted joke. In any case, this user has no contributions between August 14 and December 11. Seems odd to take such a long vacation and ask for sysopship immediately upon return. DickTurpis 12:34, 13 December 2007 (EST)

He was promised it in that I was stupid, and didn't know the facts when I told him I'd look into giving him back his powers.- 12:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Personally, for the record, I voted 'no' because I think we have enough sysops, and I dislike the current trend that sysopship is apparently becoming a desirable position. It used to be that sysops were mere janitors, condemned to clean up the mess left by the mob and assorted vandals, and otherwise scorned and despiséd by all, but that seems to be changing. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 12:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Wouldn't a dearth of sysops make the position less desirable though? Lurker 12:50, 13 December 2007 (EST)


 * I too don't understand the appeal. I suspect that HG wants it just to be a conservative sysop - the symbolic appeal - and that other people are supporting it just because they generally think accepting different people is a good idea.
 * Let's keep in mind that it's nice to show how tolerant we are, but it's not a good idea to do it "just because." I agree that it's a good idea to have different voices in management, but that principle doesn't command the outcome that HG gets sysop powers.  Let's look at this as-applied.  He was a sysop, was de-sysopped for (at WORST) dubious reasons, left for 4 months, comes back, and acts like he's entitled to it.  I think we should give it to him if (1) he proves he's a good contributor and (2) we need more sysops, but I think there are a lot of other people who deserve to be promoted first.  I'd put people like Researcher WAY, WAY far ahead of HG in line for sysop promotion.
 * And no, I don't think it matters that I "promised" him his powers "back." Our site shouldn't be estopped by virtue of my mistake from thinking about this.- 12:51, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Abstain
I remember this guy doing some nasty stuff when I first got here, but I can't be bothered right now to go back into the archives and remind myself how nasty it was. Since I'm not well-informed, I'll sit out. PFoster 12:57, 13 December 2007 (EST)

The guy's a total whackhead - remember his interminable essays? talk about putting the inmates in charge of the asylum! You've only got to look who's voted yes: Bohdan, TK, an IP & people who've joined since he "sabbaticalled" (no offence intended folks, but you never knew him!). Susan purrrrr ...  13:21, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Relevance?
As far as I can tell he's gone away anyway.--Bobbing up 13:23, 13 December 2007 (EST)