--- Throbbing Monster Cock thromoco@yahoo.com wrote:

I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.

I'm against it. You obviously try to create conflict in Wikipedia, so I don't see why we should make it easier for you. I don't care what the policy says or said at one point, since I ignore all rules.

Axel

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

Hello Throbbing Monster Cock,

Throbbing Monster Cock thromoco@yahoo.com writes:

I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.

Why?

greetings, elian

Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:

I am requesting sysop status on Wikipedia.

Quoting [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]

...

Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and active member of the community.

I have been active on Wikipedia since October 15th.

I am a known and active member of the community.

I think "known" is intended to mean "trusted" or "capable" in the approximate sense of "thought to have the judgement, skills, and intent necessary and sufficient to responsibly exercise the powers of a sysop in the best judgement of the evaluator most of the time and willing to work with others to correct any errors which occur and minimize the resulting damage to the extent possible".

This is just my interpretation and I admit that it could easily be interpreted as intended to allow active trolls and alleged trolls sysop status.

Indeed, I am an alleged troll and an alleged liar and I do not think I ever requested sysop status, yet I am a sysop. Clearly some lattitude is possible in application of the stated policy.

<snip contribution list>

I believe that you are an active contributor and I suspect that much of your contribution is very solid and valuable.

I think your choice of an account name (and refusal to change it per other users request) demonstrates a lack of understanding of the intent of the Wikipedia project and of the processes necessary and sufficient to grow a large, stable, pleasant community that can attract the large effort and diverse expertise and perspectives required to complete such a massive undertaking.

Therefore, I will state that I do not think you are a good candidate for a sysop at this time.

I hope this does not discourage you from future participation. In fact, be of good cheer. Since I do not weld much influence around here for historical reasons, until some type of voting mechanism is deployed, my opinion or judgement can quite safely be ignored in policy matters. If voting becomes a norm, then once again I might have some influence in controversial issues.

Thank you for bringing further attention to the loopholes in our policies and policy making processes. In view of this valuable service to the community I am willing to reevaluate your contributions in detail with a view towards supporting your bid for sysophood at any time; after you request deletion or transmutation of your account name as Ed Poor has with his "Fucking Asshole" non de plume.

Please do not consider this blackmail as I have not reviewed your article contributions and you have no guarantee that I will think you ready for sysop status after doing so. A lot of people have found the NPOV writeup and concept confusing in the past and IMO you may need to hang around a while to absorb the community's current interpretation of it adequately to wield sys op status effectively.

Thanks again for your contributions to date, both in the subject articles and to the policy debates underway regarding community governance and policy creation. I hope you stick around and help us improve our community, processes, and encyclopedia regardless of the near term outcome of your request.

Sincerely, Michael R. Irwin