RationalWiki talk:Sysops

Mustard Jar

I feel like the sysop pledge should change from saying "mustard jar" to saying "janitor". -Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 22:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Respect for Euclid

I'll have you know, I have a lot of respect for Euclid. --Kels 12:51, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, but you don't have sysopship, so you haven't had to desperately struggle against Lovecraftian horrors from the dark places of the internets. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Back Kels! If you post another Cthulu motivational poster, I shall respond by posting more than you could possibly imagine!--ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Mustn't touch! --Kels 16:01, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I was actually referring to '1d6 investigators each round' one, but yeah, that too. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Well, I didn't know you were a gamer, eh? --Kels 17:20, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Nah, but you don't last long on the internets without running across them. Them and lolcats. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Edits

I'm new here, and while I was trying to figure out who the administrators are, I thought it might help someone else if I added some informative links to RationalWiki:Sysops. So I did. I hope that didn't bother anybody. If it did, I might be able to sacrifice a goat. --Teratornis 19:09, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

How do you get out of being a sysop?

I didn't even know that I can't remove stuff from my own talk page. That deserves a downgrade to normal editor. Teresita 19:30, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

If you don't want to be a sysops that is easily remedied, though that doesn't anything really beyond the tools you have available. No one is allowed to remove talk page content, sysops, user, or site owner. tmtoulouse 19:36, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Well I know that now, but at the time I felt several people were just messing with me for kicks, which I have to tell you really took all the air out of my enthusiasm for this place. My lack of knowledge about that basic rule disqualifies me for sysop status. Please issue the downgrade. Teresita 19:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Stick around, we're here as much for the lulz as anything else - almost everyone's a sysop! Even one or two I'd rather weren't.   ^Contribs_Talk 19:42, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Once stuck with being a sysop, you are stuck with it. Get over it, there is no need to ever "do" anything, and you're not "responsible" for the site. Yes, it's grown and changed a bit (I guess) since you were last here, but one thing it hasn't become is straight-laced. You're a sysop, quit complaining, or one of us will make you a bureaucrat! ħuman 01:31, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

We're through. Teresita 02:07, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

We're a bit slow in Devon...

...so i've only just noticed the "lock" tab is now called "capture" - at first i thought it was for the image capture bot thing. I think this could be confusing for new sysops (as indeed is has been for one old one). Totnesmartin 05:37, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Rename or delete?

Sysops aren't known as Administrators here. Should we move this, or just make it a redirect to the sysop guide? Ditto RationalWiki:Bureaucrat could also be redirected to the bureaucrat guide. As separate entries, they don't really add much. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:52, 2 March 2009 (EST)

The guides are that, guides, these two are articles aimed at non-sysops/crats. The images here should go into the guide though, and this should be renamed to RationalWiki:Sysops. --  Nx/talk  16:01, 2 March 2009 (EST)

When will you make me a sysop?

I want to help you to keep this bathroom clean. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well never, now that you've asked. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Never say never. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have broken no rules. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RationalWiki:Sysops page." ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And you are commenting here something else than improving the article! Take away his sysopship! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As members of the fascist establishment, rules do not apply to sysops. EddyP (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And isn't it funny that only one section out of six can be said to be "discussing improvements to the RationalWiki:Sysops page"? So now the obvious solution is that you will make me a sysop and we can all pretend that this is a normal wiki just like any other. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Asking to be made a sysop breaks a rule on how to become a sysop. Rule 1: do not ask. And, Kupochama, we don't use that particular wikipedia convention here. ħuman 00:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I know. It just says that at the top of this page, and he said he didn't break any rules. It kinda sorta counts. Don't liberally censor me! ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't see that parodic template! Deleting now... ħuman 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This page is out of date

Sid: The point remains this page is now out of date. It is no longer true in current circumstances. If you don't like my attempt to make it more current, why not propose another way to do so rather than just reverting it back to the outdated version? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, we're currently working on a way out of this GOD DAMN FUCKING WEEK LONG DICKSWINGING FEST WHERE TROLLS PUSHED OUR BUTTONS WITHOUT RESTRAINT, so let's wait with day-by-day changes until things have reached a new stable point. If you're that concerned about people looking at this and getting a wrong impression despite the fact that we got 70+ sysops right now (or as you put it: "some") which were demoted without much fuss or drama, we can stick this at the top of the page:

In Flux
The user rights structure is undergoing reform right now; see Forum:Plan of action for user rights and moderation.
Information on this page is subject to change.

Would that work out for you? --Sid (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine, done. I don't see the need to make such a big deal out of it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

If a wiki is dead that not even the Sysops edit there, how can a new editor become a sysop?--Seonookim (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge/redirect options

There's nothing here that justifies it being a separate page. Either this could be merged/redirected to the sysop guide, or maybe we should have a one-page guide to the various user rights groups at RW with a short section outlining the basic rights & roles of each group, then redirect all the links from Special:UserGroupRights/Special:UserRights to the relevant section. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved the text to the guide, but we could do both. Peter ^mqzp 05:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Becoming a Sysop

Hi, I'm Leoesb1032 and I have a few questions. I read that soon after you join this Wiki you will be created a sysop if not an obvious vandal. Here are my questions. 1)- How does the community descriminate between vandals and non-vandals? 2)- If there are over 17,000 members of RationalWiki, why are there only 500 sysops? I can't imagine 16,500 vandals? Leoesb1032 (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The total number of registered users does not translate into active and/or regular users. Many of these are one-use spammer accounts (big problem on wikis) and sockpuppets registered on a whim. People who register but don't make regular contributions or cease after making a few edits can't build a reputation and are not sysopped. And this wiki has existed for a few years, so cruft tends to accumulate.

As for the difference between a vandal and a non-vandal... if you've been long enough on a wiki to know what vandalism is, it's kind of obvious...--ZooGuard (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Move to Administrators?

It was recently proposed that this page be moved to RationalWiki:Administrators, because that is what they're called on most other wikis. I reverted this, but I'm open to it... but I'm not sure why we should change our long practice in order to mimic other wikis.--^talk 14:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I WTF'ed so long that you moved it back before I had a chance to reach for my mouse. (No, not the one in my pocket.) Around here, I believe the word is "sysop." I see no valid reason for that to change. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Er, I thought the term was "janitors". Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

We have sysops, not admins, because unlike other wikis, EVERYONE IS A SYSOP! MY TWO SOCKPUPPETS ARE SYSOPS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! —Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 09:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sysop Granting

• Turn the "make everyone a sysop" policy into a "make everyone autopatrolled" policy
• Change everyone's user rights accordingly, removing the sysop (not sysoprevoking) of everyone who is a sysop solely because of this policy, and making them autopatrolled
• Revoke the right for sysops to grant sysop

-Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 23:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nvm, that is stupid. -Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 04:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)