Board Thread:Wiki Management/@comment-1764483-20141110202310/@comment-4009269-20141111012817

I know, I know. I'm chain-breaking dictator. But here's my reasoning:

Not everyone has experience with taking care of a community. Remember just recently when I said we needed someone to lay down the law? If everyone had an equal say in things, people could just randomly show up and vote one way or the other just for the heck of it since they don't have any idea what's going on. Being a staff member is more than just keeping the articles in good shape, but also to keep the community from destroying itself, which it would if we didn't have staff members with the ability to stop these problems. And yes, I know we do have them still, but take this for example: If a suspected sockpuppet of, say Nathania or Nazi Peashooter, were to show up, but we didn't have any proof, people who don't know what's going on would probably vote without any experience on the matter. Since we don't have indefinite staff members, the general public could easily outweigh the people who actually know what's going on, whether they're staff members or just users who have been around for a while. If staff members have vote weights, we can keep that under control, since we have a higher authority and therefore are trusted with making the right decision.