I've been a sysop for a long time and time quite a few other things. I would like to help out whenever and wherever I can, and this seems like a good opportunity. I generally support sysophood for people, since I believe that having more sysops demystifies the idea of having sysops at all.
Support
Originally I boycotted voting on this new status because I was opposed to an additional level of hierarchy within Wikipedia, but since it is now established I might as give my support to the people I respect. --
Viajero 08:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"I generally support sysophood for people, since I believe that having more sysops demystifies the idea of having sysops at all." I very strongly agree with this statement. --
"DICK"CHENEY 20:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Danny, I know you're a very long-time and active member of the community, and I agree with your general sentiment on more sysops are better than fewer. As a bureaucrat, would you tend to use guidelines more or less the way I outlined below, or what would be your policy? Thanks! --
Cecropia |
Talk 14:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia, I would use the guidelines to a great degree as you outlined below. If someone had 80 percent of the vote, I would not hesitate to make that person a sysop. If, however, we were in a grey area (say 70-80 percent), I would discuss it with other bureaucrats first and hope that we could make a joint decision. In fact, that is one of the reasons that I would want to see more bureaucrats--to expand the discussion. At the same time, I am convinced that the role of the bureaucrat (and sysop) is nothing more than that of a servant of the community, committed to acting solely on its behalf.
Danny 23:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've been a sysop for a long time and time quite a few other things. I would like to help out whenever and wherever I can, and this seems like a good opportunity. I generally support sysophood for people, since I believe that having more sysops demystifies the idea of having sysops at all.
Support
Originally I boycotted voting on this new status because I was opposed to an additional level of hierarchy within Wikipedia, but since it is now established I might as give my support to the people I respect. --
Viajero 08:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"I generally support sysophood for people, since I believe that having more sysops demystifies the idea of having sysops at all." I very strongly agree with this statement. --
"DICK"CHENEY 20:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Danny, I know you're a very long-time and active member of the community, and I agree with your general sentiment on more sysops are better than fewer. As a bureaucrat, would you tend to use guidelines more or less the way I outlined below, or what would be your policy? Thanks! --
Cecropia |
Talk 14:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia, I would use the guidelines to a great degree as you outlined below. If someone had 80 percent of the vote, I would not hesitate to make that person a sysop. If, however, we were in a grey area (say 70-80 percent), I would discuss it with other bureaucrats first and hope that we could make a joint decision. In fact, that is one of the reasons that I would want to see more bureaucrats--to expand the discussion. At the same time, I am convinced that the role of the bureaucrat (and sysop) is nothing more than that of a servant of the community, committed to acting solely on its behalf.
Danny 23:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)