|
|
Line 76: |
Line 76: |
| {{R&D|time=16:53, July 22, 2010 (UTC)|yes=I agree with everything KK proposed and with Bluer ideas of more rights for mods.}} | | {{R&D|time=16:53, July 22, 2010 (UTC)|yes=I agree with everything KK proposed and with Bluer ideas of more rights for mods.}} |
| {{DTN|time=17:30, July 22, 2010 (UTC)|text=I oppose the suggestion of granting these rights to moderators. KrytenKoro states my main point in saying that these are the main tools of an administrator. If we give these abilities to moderators, there will hardly be any difference between admins and moderators, just mainly banning and deleting. If we make the abilities of our entire staff more homogeneous, the position of the administrator is weakened, and the users who are already complaining that the staff "rules the wiki" shall have one more thing to complain about, since since we are giving what used to be just "glorified editors" many extra administrative functions. On the contrary, I fully support the addition of several new admins.}} | | {{DTN|time=17:30, July 22, 2010 (UTC)|text=I oppose the suggestion of granting these rights to moderators. KrytenKoro states my main point in saying that these are the main tools of an administrator. If we give these abilities to moderators, there will hardly be any difference between admins and moderators, just mainly banning and deleting. If we make the abilities of our entire staff more homogeneous, the position of the administrator is weakened, and the users who are already complaining that the staff "rules the wiki" shall have one more thing to complain about, since since we are giving what used to be just "glorified editors" many extra administrative functions. On the contrary, I fully support the addition of several new admins.}} |
| | {{Bluer|18:42, July 22, 2010 (UTC)| |
| | Let me point out some corrections, kupo, so that you might want to reflect on them. |
| | |
| | A sysop isn't above any other regular user, kupo. Sure they have these neat tools, but that's not a sign of position. In fact, it's a sign of trust, kupo. The tools to move, protect and delete pages are there to aid users - for example, in an event of a mistaken upload or mistaken naming. They are used solely to help users collaborate in writing good articles, kupo. And a sysop should all in all assist other users and editors when they write these articles, kupo. If they see a mistake done by a user, they must act in good faith, help fix the mistake and teach them the working methods of wikiediting, kupo; not a warning, a block or a ban. If the latter happens, it's no wonder that the only edits are done by sysops. In short, the perception that those with sysop tools are of a higher position than normal users shouldn't have occurred, kupo. Terms such as "ruling the wiki" and "glorified editor" shouldn't have been raised if a sysop acted in good faith in the first place, kupo. Electing more admins, thus far, isn't a viable solution, kupo. What should be done is to revise the roster of the current administration. I've discussed with the more experienced and long-serving editors on this, and we will hopefully reach a consensus in the matter,}} |