RationalWiki:Requests Not to be a Sysop

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Horace is happy to remain just Horace. --Horace 23:22, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

NO - Horace is not fit to remain an ordinary editor. He should be promoted demoted to sysop. (As soon as we reach 9700 articles. Mad Min 04:40, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
Or, perhaps more importantly, when we reach 9700 non British-food-related articles.--Bob_M (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
OK, make that when we reach 13000 articles. Mad Min 08:33, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
I oppose this nomination. ----Linus(plot evil tech) 08:45, 26 May 2007 (CDT)


Bob is also happy to remain as he is, and is surprised by the big deal it seems to be.--Bob_M (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

YES - Bob_M makes a prety good case for his non-sysopship. I back him 110%. Mad Min 04:40, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
Thank you very much for your support in respect of my con-candidature. I welcome any expressions of support in respect of my clear unsuitability.--Bob_M (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
I support this nomination. ----Linus(plot evil tech) 08:45, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
Thank you for your support ... or perhaps I mean for your lack of it.--Bob_M (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2007 (CDT)


I, too, would like to request not to be promoted demoted, since that would probably severely damage any credibility I would have regarding the CP Column. Plus, I fear responsibility. Thanks. --AKjeldsen 06:09, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

NO - We cannot allow postings on external sites to influence what goes on here. Mad Min 06:40, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
I support this nomination. ----Linus(plot evil tech) 08:45, 26 May 2007 (CDT)


I suggest that any requests for non-Sysopship should be viewed in the same light as Yossarian's requests not to fly missions in Catch 22. The only way you can get out of it is if you are insane, but in requesting not to fly, you demonstrate your sanity. It can be argued that reasons for requesting SysOpship might include megalomania, an inability to make rational judgements, xenophobia and a tendency towards fascism (or is that just on Conservapedia - I'm confused). Therefore I would turn down any request for SySopship on principle, as the only people who are actually qualified to be SysOps are those who state that they do not want the job. On these grounds I think Horace should be promoted demoted immediately.

I'll take some of that action! --Kels 05:41, 26 May 2007 (CDT)


I demand not to be made a sysop. Strongly desiring to be a sysop is evidence of fascist behavior, and I hate fascists, especially Illinois Nazis. --PalMD-Talk 09:58, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I do not support Palm's desire to not be made a sysop. The man clearly deserves to punished with this role because ... errr welll... he err obviously deserves punishment for something. Anyway he'd probably enjoy punishment. --Bob_M (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
It is true that I enjoy punishment, which is even more reason not to make me a sysop.--PalMD-yada yada 12:37, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
I am not unsympathetic to this; however, I think that the mob should not give in to outright demands like this. I agree that your request has some merit, but hating fascists and enjoying punishment may not prima facie be enough to not make you sysop. This is a decision that should not be taken lightly. For instance, we need to know whether you enjoy receiving or giving punishment, or both. --AKjeldsen 07:24, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
He enjoys receiving and I feel masochists should not be given the pleasure of being a sysop.DocSock 07:58, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
I would have blocked the Nazi asshole really fast...I cannot be trusted with the power.--PalMD-yada yada 19:11, 6 June 2007 (CDT)


I request not to be made a Sysop because I'd have to be responsible and trustworthy. And where's the fun in that? --Kels 11:27, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I support your request, but since when did "responsible and trustworthy" come with the territory? humanbe in 12:11, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
I second this user's request. Her creation of the "Dyke" article indicates the death of her irresponsibility.--Bob_M (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
I am in two minds about this request. My immediate reaction is to support it, but I too have to question the underlying assumption, that sysopship requires responsibility and trustworthiness. Does that really correspond with the visions we have for this project? I think it is important that we only not grant sysopship after careful consideration, and make sure it's for the right reasons. --AKjeldsen 07:18, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Okay, then I request not to be a Sysop on grounds that I am responsible and trustworthy (except for wandalizing GL's talk page (but that never happened (and I deny it totally (you just imagined it (oh, and abusing nested parentheses))))). --Kels 19:48, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
I must say that your willingness to carry out wanton abuse of innocent parentheses in particular has convinced me of your outstanding suitability for non-sysopship. Congratulations. --AKjeldsen 08:49, 7 June 2007 (CDT)


Hows about everyone gets to be a SysOp. Now that would really be mobocracy.--CatWatcher 11:21, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

In the land of buckets and mops the non-SysOp is queen. Teresita 02:53, 29 September 2008 (EDT)


I nominate for myself for regular user status. No one knows who I am and I will probably lose interest sooner or later. olliegrind 07:38, 6 June 2007 (CDT)


Having a vandal as a Sysop danages damages this wiki's credibility. Exspecialy if he has crappy speeling. -ĬŴΣĐĝё 19:14, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

You're already a sysop, Rice. And, what credibility? humanbe in 19:53, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
I demand instant DySysop-ige. -ĬŴΣĐĝё 20:33, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, no can do. You'll have to find someone with even less credibility (an Admin? Bureaucrat? I was accused of not being one of them any more once...) and convince them that your promotion to "Editor" is deserved. humanbe in 21:08, 6 June 2007 (CDT)