|
|
|
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,
|
|
|