Editing Forum:A few more Mods?

{{Forumheader|The Realm of Sleep|The World that Never was}}

<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ -->

{{BebopKate|time=02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)|text=Hey guys.  A lot of folks seem rather concerned as a number of mods and admins will not be available for most or part of the summer due to vacations, patriotic duties, and so on.  Things are probably going to be low key, since ''[[Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days]]'' has been pushed back to September, but it still probably couldn't hurt to have an extra hand or two around.  In fact, we'll probably need more after ''358/2 Days'' comes out anyway.

Let me make this clear: '''''this topic is not to nominate Mods'''''.  Based on our last voting and the [[Special:Top/community|Community List]], I think we have a few eligible individuals already.  This topic is more to discuss if the wiki as a whole feels more are needed, and if so, how many.  And all in one convenient location, rather than spread among the talk pages.  How handy!

So...discuss!}}
{{Azul|time=03:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)|text=Just so that we are clear on who is leaving, I copy/pasta this from BebopKate's user talk page: 
* DTN - Church Camp + New York Trip + Vacation
* TNE - National Service
* Ultima - Short vacation
* GS - long vacation/break
* BebopKate - Short vacation 

I would say yes, we probably are going to need some more help, but, Mods really don't have any special helping abilities. We already have dedicated contributors but if everyone else feels like that we need more mods, then I guess we need more mods. BebopKate, sorry again. I think I'll just send you an e-mail. But you should still visit sometimes, I'm there practically every day.}}
{{yer mom|time=15:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)|text=Well as you said, mods don't really have any special abilities, rollback magic isn't that magical unless a vandal really messed with a page and that still can be reverted by a normal user. I guess it would be nice for users to have a list of people they can go to if they're cute newbies in the wiki and don't know how to create a nice talk bubble or something like that (but we already have one of those in the Help:User page thingie...) Perhaps add a couple of mods and upgrade one or two of the current mods to adminship?

But well... as Angela once said, the more the merrier XD}}
{{ILHI|15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)|We don't need more moderators. Moderators are just rollbackers, which can do everything a normal user can, but a few seconds faster. Employing a few rollbackers won't do anything BUT get those users online more because they have the ''responsibility'' and they feel they should be on here more. Not because of the ability, but because of the responsibility. It's a funny thing.<br><br>But if you must do something, I suggest temporarily promoting our most active and reliable rollbacker to SysOp for the Summer/a period over the Summer. This will be giving more responsibility to the user and might make them be ''even more'' active.}}
{{yer mom|time=15:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)|text=The problem is, we only have three rollbackers and the three of them are or will be away, TNE will be back until september, I think Ultima returns in a few days (he could be an option but I'm not too sure >.>) and GS will be away as well, hence the idea of promoting new mods}}
{{ILHI|15:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)|Har! Then I stand by everything else I said. We don't need more mods, we need more RC watchers. Rollback is just an award anyway, something that sets users apart from the rest. It's a rank, more than an actual power.}}
{{yer mom|time=16:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)|text=Har... it's been a while since I read that XD!! Thanks for fixing that space in my template btw. I still think we could always promote someone to adminness and add a mod or two, they may be unnecessary and it may just a title but well, IMO some deserve it.}}
{{Azul|time=23:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)|text=I got to thinking.....I mean really, when was our last actual vandal that got out of hand? I can't recall. What are we going to need help with that me or BebopKate can't already do? I don't see anything. We seem fine now. I'm sure I'll be able to manage with BebopKate away for a short while. And if the current active editors help out, when everyone gets back, we "might" consider more Mods. But I don't think we need more Admins/staff right ''now''. We already have enough inactive.}}
{{BebopKate|time=00:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)|text=ILHI and Azul make good points about our relative activity, and looking over the rough dates that people have posted, none of us really overlap enough that we'll ''all'' be gone at some point; otherwise I'd be more concerned.  I'm fine with leaving things at the status quo for the moment, then.}}
{{KrytenKoro|I second the need for more RC watchers. I'm trying it now, but I have two other wiki's I have to monitor all the time, so I've been ignoring character and world pages. I could really use someone else's help monitoring RC and uploads.

If we're not going to have actual admin's for a while, we do need to make some, though. This wiki has a ''huge'' problem with monitoring trash pages and uploads, and the deletion backlog is simply unacceptable - it's pretty much the one thing that only admin's can do, and it's not getting done.}}
{{Amy Cotton|text=I agree with you. A rollback would revert vandalisom and keep an eye out on pages. I mean, a few of us are mods on other wikis like I am a rollback on the Sims wiki and Andrewrox on another. I wonder who would make a good mod on this wiki? I have anger autisom and won't be active for a week in October (so I may not do it), but there is Xiggie and a few others.}}
{{KrytenKoro|Honestly, rollback is ''not a good thing''. It doesn't allow you to actually check the content of the edits and how you're modifying the page, and it only reverts one editors's changes - you have to manually go back if there is more than one editor who added mess to the page. Honestly, no vandal is ever so fast that rollback would be necessary, so it does more harm than good; we honestly shouldn't waste any time trying to decide whether we need more editors with rollback. More full admins could be helpful, but more rollback won't be.}}
{{yer mom|time=15:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)|text=Personally I've found rollback useful only in one case in which I asked Guardian Soul to rollback some... rather crazy edits that included Mr. Burrows and the words ''rent boy'' in Mr. Smee's page, but other than that, you're right, I guess we don't need more mods after all. }}
{{Guardian Soul|text=Of course you could always promote the mods to admins and hire a few more admins while we're gone.  Then we can actually be more useful.}}
{{ILHI|19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)|Errm? People who say Rollback isn't a good thing/isn't a verby good thing: You're not using it right. Rollback is used for vandalism only. And it just hurries up the reversion process. If you watch RC, view an edit, see it's vandalism, you just have to click rollback and then be on with your day. It also means you can beat other RC watchers at the time to make you look like you do more vandalism revert work.}}
{{yer mom|time=19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)|text=Exactly! and seeing we get like... one vandal a month, it's not really useful, at least on this wiki ''*shrug*''}}
{{MM841|14:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)|OK, firstly, its great to be back. Secondlly, I think we need to promote one of the active admins to a Bureaucrat, simply so we dont need to contact an unactive member of staff whenever there is a change in staff}}
{{DTN|text=Well, isn't this quite the topic! Anyway, to those who are saying the rollback ability is apparently so "not useful," than why did you award it to TNE, GS, and Ultima? The idea seemed great back then, and now it's being attacked heavily. We do get vandals far more than once a month; it doesn't have to be one of those horrible "delete everything and replace with something perverted" edits to be made easier to fix with the rollback. Occasionaly, a User will add bad infomation, which could have much more easily resolved with the rollback strength. And with ''358/2 Days'''s NA release, vandalism and bad information is going to be '''way''' up. Surely adding the rollback to some Users would aid the Wiki in dealing with vandals, the upcoming information flood, and just regular bad or unnecessary edits.

Also, what is the worst that could have happen if we give the rollback ability to some Users? Apparently, they will "feel a need to get on the Wiki more." Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Since when is spending more time working on the Wiki to make it better a '''bad''' thing? And if adding new mods isn't enough, than we could always make TNE, GS, or Ultima an admin! Or make Azul or BebopKate a buerocrat!}}
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 Also, what is the worst that could have happen if we give the rollback ability to some Users? Apparently, they will "feel a need to get on the Wiki more." Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Since when is spending more time working on the Wiki to make it better a '''bad''' thing? And if adding new mods isn't enough, than we could always make TNE, GS, or Ultima an admin! Or make Azul or BebopKate a buerocrat!}}
-{{KrytenKoro|DTN, I'm the only one really attacking rollback, and I've ''always'' said it was a waste of time to give it to anyone.
-Seriously, rollback does not speed anything up, and it keeps you from checking what you're doing - in fact, in the rare cases when someone ''does'' try to vandalize repeatedly and quickly, or corrects the bad information they had added, or if another editor undoes vandalism while you're messing with rollback, you will undo an edit other than the one you were trying to. Rollback is an artifact of when wiki's could only undo one change at a time - it is ''completely'' unnecessary and obsolete now, and the main wikia and wikipedia guidelines on it even admit that.
-As for "feeling a need to get on the wiki more" - it's a waste of time to be arguing over which users would be given rollback, as it's not going to ''solve the problem this discussion was started to address''. It's perfectly lovely to encourage more editors to spend more time cleaning up the wiki, ''but that's not the problem we're trying to deal with''.}}