Forum:Sysopship

< Index | Site-related discussion

This conversation raises some important questions about the nature of sysopship that I feel should be discussed in greater detail. Specifically, is sysopship something that should be given out on principle to anyone we feel is mostly harmless at the moment, or can it be withheld as a punishment for past crimes? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 02:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) This is an interesting question. However, I think the question you are raising is very different than Human's point: Human (if I am interpreting his argument correctly) seems to think that sysopship should be an earned privilege. Your view, however, is that it should be given to anyone trustworthy. In your above post, you basically begin with this assumption - all you are asking is "should someone with a criminal record be forgiven?" I think the better subject for discussion is Human's argument about sysopship being a privilege vs. yours about it being a question of trust. That said, I will now answer your question: I think we should be wary about giving sysopship out to people with criminal records, especially people who did serious damage to the wiki using sysop powers. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's sort of a meaningless debate. Since there's no policy against socks, and no checkuser, anybody who the community felt should not be a sysop could create an account, make a few playful talk page edits or cite additional references, and be sysopped within an hour. So what does it matter? 03:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't. But RW is pretty good at figuring out whose socks are whose, such as in MC's case. Side note: I think your point could be used as a supporting argument to prove Human's point. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)