Board Thread:Wiki Discussions/@comment-25075055-20140524161539/@comment-1207741-20140524190940

I've looked at Speysider's contributions for the last month and have found the following diffs:


 * Treats good faith contributions as "vandalism":, , , , , , ,
 * Speaks to established editors like naughty children: ,
 * Believes restrictions should be preemptive: ,

These are not qualities I would want in a sysop.

Of course, I have also seen a number of good edits. Speysider has taken it upon himself to issue warnings (admittedly he relies on generic templates too often rather than explain the actual infraction) and edit other users' forum comments (perhaps too rigidly; I found this curious) with great regularity. And sometimes he even finds the time to make content contributions.

But I can find good edits in a number of users, users who do not also demonstrate the above missteps as often, users who are less concerned with trivialities like user rights.

Speysider wants to be a sysop because of the forums, but he has not indicated why he needs to be a sysop in order to contribute to the forums. The right to edit and remove comments is currently unrestricted; thread highlighting is the only right limited to sysops, and that doesn't need to be used often. What, then, does he want to a be a sysop for? So he can speak with authority? So he can block people? The diffs I provided leave me concerned that he would not use either appropriately.

I have no doubt that Speysider wants to help the wiki. But I believe he spends more time wanting to help it than he does actually helping it.