Forum:Moderators Group/Discussion

Please use this section for discussing the proposal Moderators Group.

Discussion
I support the idea, but I have two questions. The first one, after this group will be created. Who will be responsible for adding moderators who are supposed to have a high-level of trustworthiness and know his rules very well? The sysop? The second one, what are those rules that could distinguish between the moderators and rollback rights? — Shakhmoot  (Talk) 19:59, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * For your first point, most likely sysop's would make the promotion after discussion between themselves in private areas (if such areas exist :P)
 * For the second point, that would have to be discussed between the sysop's as well since they'd be the ones enforcing those rules. --Speysider Talk Page 20:01, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect, but as known. We are here in an encyclopedia not a forum. So those rules must have been put properly by sysops, we need them here to share their ideas about this point in exact. — Shakhmoot Nadeshiko Village Symbol.svg (Talk) 20:08, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

I would point out if this was implemented, I think the amount of time this group should be able to protect a page would have to be a short period in the measurement of a few days. — S im A nt 20:26, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it should be good that only sysops have the power to protect the articles permanently unlike the moderators. — Shakhmoot Nadeshiko Village Symbol.svg (Talk) 20:32, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Simant, but I'm not sure the MediaWiki software would allow that. Wikia would probably need to custom code the system so that it would work the way we would want it, I think. --Speysider Talk Page 20:35, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about this. I'm all for avoiding edit wars, but giving certain users the power to lock down pages to stop editing sounds kinda heavy handed. I'm more an advocate of using talk pages to settle these sorts of issues, and using a method like this, it would leave things unresolved for one party until an admin addressed the situation, if it was even brought to their attention. I don't know about the rest of you, but I lose threads in the recent activity page all the time. It just seems to me this would be handing set people the right to basically tell others to F-off with no guarantee of resolving the problem, just leaving someone going away bitter and someone else, regardless of being right or not going away thinking they've won the day. --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 21:27, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Moderators would not be able to lock down pages forever. They would just lock down the page temporarily until an admin came online to deal with it fully. If you look through the recent changes today, there was an hour of edit warring that couldn't be dealt with because no user was online who could do something about it. In that particular instance, the user was told many times to stop putting it in and ignored everyone because he felt his opinion superceded everyone else's and in that case, the various users who were reverting the ignorant user's edits were right. In most cases, the protection is a warning to stop revert warring and to use the talkpage (even more so with the introduction of the three revert rule) since there are many people who are blissfully ignorant to the use of talkpages to deal with situations. As in today's case, the problem did get resolved by the blocking of the ignorant user but after least two hours after it happened. That could've been solved 2 hours earlier if there were moderators on the site that could've just protected the page(s) in question or dropped a temporary 24 hour block until an admin came along to deal a harsher judgement if necessary. --Speysider Talk Page 21:32, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I see the advantages of the idea, but I just think the problems outweigh them. I mean the most obvious is that there will be a moderator available. If the whole idea is to have the mods there in the absence of the admins, what's to stop this sort of thing happening if a member of neither group is on hand? That means finding people trustworthy enough not to abuse this position who can be online at times when the admins aren't and aren't involved in the situation to begin with so that they remain objective. I'm aware this isn't something that is required to be absolute, the mod idea is basically a fail safe against revert wars, but if we're going to go through the trouble, making sure it's done properly is the big concern, isn't it? --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 21:55, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's very unlikely that there will be no members from either group, because the chances are that the mods that get chosen will cover for the dead period in the morning (from about 8am to 1pm BST) and it's obvious that if the mod idea goes through, it'll be done properly. This thread is basically to get everyone's opinions and collate ideas, so that when we approach Wikia to make the custom group, we can just link them straight to this thread to see our collated opinions and outcomes :)
 * Just to throw this out there, I can think of about 2-3 people already who would be deserving of a position of Moderator ;) --Speysider Talk Page 22:00, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * The above list is the list of moderators? Dan.Faulkner (talk) 23:13, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm all in favour, agreeing with the limitations and other foundations discussed, and have been hoping something like this would occur; though I am surprised it hadn't happened sooner. That being said, I, personally, would only make one or two people a mod in the beginning, until the need arises where we need more. With the right selection of people as moderators, I do not foresee any abuse of power or any other potential negative aspects. It really comes down to the selection and making sure those people can competently perform their job in an unbiased manner. Though I do not believe anyone is lacking that information already. And as for "dead periods", that's easily fixed by picking people of different time zones. It's definitely a necessary step in refining the wiki, having moderators.--Taynio (talk) 01:05, July 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't something like this be decided by administrators though? I'm not talking bureaucrats here I'm talking top brass administrators with this being a whole new rank and all.--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol.svg (talk) 01:47, July 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought that was the intention already?--Taynio (talk) 01:55, July 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * @TU3: This thread is really to get the opinions from the community at large. If the majority of people in this thread are supporting this proposal, then it would likely be up to the admins to decide the users who'll be mods and the rules they have to follow and the powers mods should get. Also it's required for a community consensus before we can go to Wikia asking for a new user group, per the page Snapper2 linked to on the previous topic (here's a direct link to said page: Click me!). --Speysider Talk Page 08:53, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

What happens if a "moderator" accidentally protects the wrong version?--Karunyan (talk) 03:26, July 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Always revert to the version before the edit war started and then protect. ~ Ultimate  Supreme  05:43, July 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't questioning policy, just wondering what would happen if someone managed to sneak in an edit just before the protect button was hit...--Karunyan (talk) 13:32, July 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * In a case like that, the person who put the protection on would just revert the change made (this would probably need a new protection level of Moderators and Sysops Only, thinking about it) --Speysider Talk Page 13:34, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for it, however, like I said I don't think it needs to be a widespread group. Coupled with the fact that we have no IP users any more (should we be recruiting users O.o) which means even less spam and stuff like that, I think it's one of two things, give a separate flag to a few people (I've moved from 5 to 3 possibly just 2 on this one) and give them the ability to protect pages, unprotect would also be useful in the case where someone actually spams/vandalises the page before it's protected and a poor edition gets protected. Or as someone mentioned in the other forum, give someone else the sysop flag. Essentially, the protection would come into play after the reverts are done and the situation is getting out of hand. Then sysops fly in, click magic button, and issue is resolved.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 14:32, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree that there doesn't need to be tons of people in the group, it only needs to be small to cover the times in which there are no sysops, but I don't think a new sysop is really necessary as there are quite a lot of those and it's dangerous to have too many sysops imo. Mods could get blocking powers, assuming that they would only get to block up to a very short time but again that'd have to be discussed fully so there's no back-and-forth of emails with Wikia support getting the right perms set. --Speysider Talk Page 14:37, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, that this is a pretty good idea. What I don't understand is why an extra sysop would be a bad thing? Other than the ability to block problem users, which, to my knowledge, hasn't been abused on this site in my time, nor when I just observed as an impartial reader prior to becoming an editor here, there is no difference between what you are suggesting and a sysop. Any power given has the potential to be abused. But we're all adults here (I think), or at the very least, mature teenagers (nobody laugh at the "mature" part >.>), so I think we can trust someone else with a sysop flag if it is deemed necessary. There are a couple that come to mind that are deserving of such a flag and could help with the subject of this topic. My point is, why create an entire new group, when a sysop flag could just as easily fix the problem? Thoughts? ~ Ten Tailed Fox Yamagakure Symbol.svg 19:01, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * There are quite a lot of sysops as it is right now and I think that just having a few users with some powers, but not full control of the wiki (aka the Admin Dashboard) is a better trade off. That way, you can give out more powers to users who think they are deserving of them such as protection/unprotection etc, while not compromising the wiki by giving full on access to the Dashboard, because the Dashboard has no options for controlling what each sysop has access to, so someone could be given sysop permissions and have unnecessary control over the wiki. Hence, having a group in which you can safely give other users certain sysop based powers like protection/unprotection, blocking/unblocking etc without risking the wiki seems better. Plus, it just looks weird when you've got tons of sysops who are getting the flag just to have the ability to protect articles and nothing else :P --Speysider Talk Page 19:14, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * A valid point. ~ Ten Tailed Fox Yamagakure Symbol.svg 21:21, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Protecting and blocking. Remind me how this is different from a sysop? The only difference I see is that sysops can delete, "mods" cannot. Considering the stated purpose of this proposal, deletion might as well be extended too. And don't say "Admin Dashboard", because there's nothing about that that grants "full control" of the wiki. ~SnapperTo 00:23, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well there are sections in that admin panel that gives a user some control to change the wikia and I don't think it's wise to just give out a sysop flag to every person who would be trusted with protection/blocking powers. Don't think mods should be allowed to delete pages though, that's a bit much. --Speysider Talk Page 08:10, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the dashboard can be used to change the color scheme. Imagine the havoc that would ensue if the wiki were pink!
 * Handing out a sysop flag isn't wise, but handing out protection and blocking privileges is?
 * See, I didn't think the "mod"-status was being given to people that want it. I thought it was for people that were trustworthy, competent, and lived in a timezone that sysops don't.
 * If someone, in their vandalizing spree, makes an article called Naruto sucks, there could be a whole two hours where no sysops are around to deal with it. The wiki will come apart at the seams if there's a delayed response, which mods are supposed to prevent or something.
 * ~SnapperTo 08:29, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sarcastic much ?
 * As I mentioned above to TTF, it will look really weird if there are tons of sysops with the flag when all they need it for is protection and blocking powers, hence putting them in a mods group to provide those powers would be sensible.
 * Used the wrong wording there, corrected.
 * It's very unlikely that such an article would be created (not saying it wouldn't be created though as it could be), but this discussion is also good to decide on exactly what powers the Mods Group should have.
 * The whole reason for the mods group idea was to stave off edit / revert warring (which is going to increase since anon's can't edit and they have to make an account), not really have control to the point of being allowed to delete articles. Deletion should be left to sysops and crats imo. --Speysider Talk Page 08:34, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would it be weird to have "tons" of sysops? Are readers in the habit of looking at a list of local sysops for every wiki they visit? Do they doubt the integrity of the wiki's content if there's more than one sysop for every thousand articles? Would you feel better if I relinquished my sysop privileges so that the undefined balance can be restored?
 * As I have tried to make clear, there is almost no difference in what a sysop can do and what this proposed "mod" can do. I cannot fathom how or why you are trying to make a distinction between the two.
 * Maybe someone uploads pornography. Again, two dreadful hours where the wee bairns are scarred for life because there were no active sysops at the time and the "mods" were powerless to do anything.
 * How does the absence of IPs lead to more edit warring? Number of edits is down by half; only three users have been blocked so far this month (Omnibender used to block at least that many IPs per day); there's been more unprotection of articles in recent history than protection. This suggests that problems will be less common, not more.
 * ~SnapperTo 08:58, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Because having a load of sysops with many just having the flag to be able to protect articles is a silly idea and just makes the flag pointless after a while.
 * There is a difference: sysops get access to the admin dashboard to manage the wiki at a somewhat-technical level, the "mods" would not get that access. As I have pointed out multiple times, with the mods group it gives you more freedom to allow trusted users to have certain "sysop based" rights without making them a full sysop.
 * Porn is something I'm not really worried about because it's almost never uploaded here.
 * The whole point of this proposal is so that there's some users around who've got some limited powers to solve any issues that happen when there's no sysops around. As you no doubt saw a couple days ago, Itachi san continually edit warred on two articles and it couldn't be dealt with because no sysop's were around to protect the article, if there were some users around who could just click the Protect button and lock the page down until an admin came online to deal with it properly, then I'd warm to the idea. From what you are saying, you are very against this idea and just want to give out a sysop flag to anyone, just to give them the powers to protect/block/delete which is completely ridiculous. --Speysider Talk Page 09:15, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Having 11 sysops for the purposes of protection is silly, but having 8 sysops + 3 "mods" for the purposes of protection is not silly?
 * Sysop is not a status symbol. My opinion does not hold extra weight because I am a sysop. Therefore, the flag is already pointless.
 * Those handful of sysop-only privileges are irrelevant by comparison. A sysop can use Special:MultipleUpload, "mods" can't. Big deal.
 * If a person is trusted enough to be given protection and blocking rights, and moreover is apparently trusted enough to not perform a protection or a block for longer than a few hours (which would be an honor system), why are they not trusted with a few extra bells and whistles? It's like saying you're willing to give someone $0.99, which is what a "mod" is, but you won't round it up to $1.00, which is what a sysop is.
 * I could say the same thing about edit warring. Because you're blowing the original problem out of proportion: Itachi san made the same, admittedly unpopular, edit over and over again; Then he stopped of his own volition after half an hour; One and half hours after that, he was blocked. You are taking the actions of one user and extrapolating a recurring problem for the weeks, months, and years to come.
 * I'm just calling "mods" what they are: sysops. They may, in your mind, have only three-fifths the power of a sysop, but the Thirteenth Amendment established that three-fifths of something is still the something. Do I think that anyone should be a sysop? No, hence my belittling of the problem of two hours. But if others feel that two hours is too long, then the simplest solution is a sysop, not some sysop-in-all-but-name. ~SnapperTo 09:49, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * What is this Thirteenth Amendment? Don't tell me if it's a spoiler from the manga. (I'm only upto date with the anime and UNS3)--Karunyan (talk) 10:27, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

(Reset Indent) I'm pretty sure there are many people here who would probably like to have protection/blocking rights but not the full shebang of being a sysop. And I don't remember Itachi san stopping of his own voalition (I remember him stopping for a while, then continuing that same day). If you disagree with this proposal, then just simply leave your signature under the Oppose heading and leave it at that. 11 other people (not including myself) think this idea is great, heck even a fellow sysop. Try to look at the bigger picture of how a mods group would be beneficial to the wiki. --Speysider Talk Page 09:54, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole thing started with a suggestion to give Rollbackers protection rights to be able to protect a few days. Then it became a new group. Then I inserted a comment for fun about accidentally protecting a bad version and unprotection was added to the mix. And now blocking and unblocking as well. Somehow delete is still "too much". This whole idea now sounds stupid. I say find an active editor who logs in often like Cerez365 and make him sysop (if he's willing to accept my nomination).--Karunyan (talk) 10:27, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't set in stone yet, I'm just chucking out suggestions for powers the mods could have if the idea was implemented. I don't see how the idea is now stupid because of that. And I can assure you Cerez would not want the promotion and I doubt it would happen anyway. Anyway, the point of this topic is not to discuss potential sysops as that isn't relevant to this thread, but the merits of this particular proposal. EDIT: There aren't any active editors who would either want or need sysop status, jfyi. --Speysider Talk Page 10:30, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * There it is again: "would like to have". At no point did I ask to be a sysop. Simant, Omnibender, and UltimateSupreme did not ask. I do not know for certain if Ultimate3, Jacce, or ShounenSuki asked, although I doubt they did. Ten Tailed Fox asked, and you gave him grief for that.
 * Itachi san stopped for a few days while he was blocked, if that's what you're thinking of. This most recent time he returned after an hour to reply on his talk page, but he did not resume the edit warring. In fact, the blanking of his user page suggests he has given up. Time will tell, obviously.
 * Two people, one of them a sysop, have suggested another sysop. The others have not explicitly said they don't think another sysop would be a good idea.
 * I think maybe you should consider what would be a beneficial to the wiki. Imagine an individual who the community agrees is a good contributor, is reasonable and level-headed, who knows the guidelines of the wiki but understands that they are not set in stone. Imagine that the community wants this person to wear special pants (protection) and special shirts (blocking). Think of how grand that would be ("mod")! Now, imagine this person was also given special shoes (deletion) and special jewelry (misc). This saint of a person might not have much use for shoes or jewelry, but if there is some chance, however remote, that they could do good with both or either, what is the harm (sysop)? Oh, naysayers may look upon him, dismiss his deeds on the grounds that there are already many like him, but he is a saint; he cares not. He does greater good than ever before; the masses love him all the more.
 * You would deny people their saint.
 * Shame.
 * Edit conflict addition - for the record, only I have suggested deletion privileges. Speysider and everyone else have only gone so far as protection and blocking. ~SnapperTo 10:33, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I never once said you did or anyone else for that matter. And let's not go bringing up something that isn't relevant to this thread.
 * I saw TTF's suggestion about a new sysop, but made a case in which I don't think it's necessary for another sysop. Needless sysop'ing of people just to give them some powers is silly when they only need X, Y, Z powers.
 * I already know what is beneficial to this wiki and I believe that a moderators group is beneficial more than another sysop that isn't necessary at this point. Plus, there are many other benefits for the Moderators group, such as being a stepping stone between editor and sysop (it allows for some users to be evaluated for their suitability as a sysop).
 * And again, these are suggestions for powers. Nobody is saying that if the group was implemented, they'd get all these powers. If we go to Wikia with this suggestion (assuming the majority of the community says yes), then they need to know what powers this new group would get. They also need to see that it was a community decision for the new group and for the rights they'd get. --Speysider Talk Page 10:42, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Well I agree with both Speysider and Snapper2 are saying. Narutopedia could use a little extra hand to stop vandals or other troubling users, but having a "mod" does sound like having a new sysop.--White Flash (Contact) 11:10, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * That's true, but it's just that I don't think it's wise to just keep giving editors a sysop flag if they need a particular power: having a new group for people to be promoted to that has particular powers but no admin dashboard is a good compromise imo =] --Speysider Talk Page 11:21, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * What can a mod do? Delete/block/protect pages?--White Flash (Contact) 11:27, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * That would have to be discussed between everyone here if this proposal is passed. Most likely protect, but don't know on whether blocking and delete is appropriate. --Speysider Talk Page 11:29, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

@Simant: Just curious as to why you opposed this proposal. Not reprimanding or anything because I'm not going to force people to agree, but am curious. --Speysider Talk Page 11:59, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Per snapper2, none of this 3/5th of powers of an admin. — S im A nt 12:03, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

This whole thing is a little confusing. I understand something like this would be beneficial to Naruopedia, but there are some drawbacks I find.
 * Let's say we gave User A (the mod) certain rights.
 * Vandal A creates nonsense pages and uploads inappropriate images. User A has only the ability to delete pages and images. Vandal A still goes at it with no sysops to block him.
 * Vandal B comes in and edits pages, they are reverted but Vandal B still repetitively vandalize the same page. User A has only the protection ability. Page is protected, but Vandal B goes on another page and so on to the point User A must protect 40 pages. Rinse and repeat until a sysop comes in and block him.
 * Now Vandal C does what A and B do. User A now has only the blocking ability, Vandal C is block but the pages he created and images he uploaded are still there. Again, must wait until the sysop comes and delete those pages/images.

Wouldn't it be easier to have a sysop who has all those abilities?--White Flash (Contact) 12:09, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends on what powers mods would get. It could be a case that mods get delete and block rights, protect and delete rights, protect and block rights or all three. It is unlikely that there will be vandals here now though, due to the fact all vandals need to make an account and most won't bother to do so to vandalise the wiki. But I understand what you are saying, although I just can't see the benefit of constantly making people "sysop"'s just to give them protect/delete/block rights and Wikia could easily start getting annoyed with the persistent promotions. If we went with the "just make someone a sysop to confer X,Y,Z rights", then every other person who is active would be a sysop and the wiki wouldn't be visited as much. I like Narutopedia because of the fact it doesn't have too many "admin" level users and this proposal allows the sysops to confer certain rights without giving the full flag of sysop. --Speysider Talk Page 12:15, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * True but if we pass this idea, how many moderators would we need?--White Flash (Contact) 12:50, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably only 2 or 3. Not a lot are needed atm. In future, more could be added though. I already have an idea for a couple of people who'd fit the position of Moderator ;) --Speysider Talk Page 12:53, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm alright with this idea. It might give the syops a breather or two. Now comes the question, which rights would be suitable for the mods? Blocking? Deleting? Protection? Can they have all 3 rights? 2 or just 1?--White Flash (Contact) 13:41, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Per Snapper2. Reading things over, this does sound little more than a pseudo-sysop; a sysop with less powers than a actual sysop, when in theory we could just have another sysop. This also brings to question why a two hour wait for something is such a world shattering big deal. It's bad sure but nothing world shattering.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 14:37, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Kinda agree with TheUltimate3 there, at first I thought it would be a good idea, then the constant wait for a mod would be rather nerve wracking.--White Flash (Contact) 15:08, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to say, after reading what Snapper had to say, I have to agree. I could possibly see having a new sysop, and, if the community agrees to that much, I have a suggestion for whom that might be, though I have a feeling that everyone knows who that is (Cerez, duh). But, at the same time, the idea that you would give people some sysop powers simply for the fact that you don't think having a sizable number of sysops is a bad idea, is silly. I know I get in to the arguments on some talk pages, but me being a sysop, as Snapper mentioned, doesn't add anymore weight to my opinion than anyone else's. We aren't the "big bad government" out to ruin user experience. Its not like having many sysops is a "scary" thing. Sysops are promoted as the wiki needs. We only have as much as the community indicates that we need. So, if this community is indicating, and it would seem that it is a little bit, that we need another sysop to deal with some issues going on around the wiki, then that would be fine. But creating an entire user group that can do 3/5 of what a sysop can do is pointless when you could just promote another sysop and save ourselves the unnecessary trouble. ~ Ten Tailed Fox Yamagakure Symbol.svg 15:23, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

This is kind of why my agreeing was contingent. Don't get me wrong there are definitely times when we get persons that come on and upload pornography or spams an article continuously and there are no available sysops to sort the issue out for a length space of time. That is also why I said it would be good to have persons here that are able to help out a bit more. At the same time however, the same issue can present itself where no one from either group are available at that point in time. Still SimAnt did revise the revision rules of reverting edits under certain circumstances. To me, this can swing either way, I still won't disagree that it may not be necessary. In Itachi san's case, that was a little more than a nuisance because it's between intervals that he would return and make the same revisions to the same pages. It does seem like the need for the group might be redundant in any case because of the absence of IP users, we could swing either way. Let's watch how things unfold for now and see whether or not there are enough cases to warrant either or the two propositions.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 15:26, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Cerez has it right here and that maybe it's better to just see how things unfold, but we could always just use this thread to continue discussing this as necessary. If the group's needed then we can go to Wikia and say "Hey, we need a new usergroup with XYZ permissions": if it's not, then we can just promote someone to sysop. I just don't think there's any need for more sysops as this point, hence the idea for moderators so that we don't start giving people full sysop status just because they need X right. However, there is still the fact numerous users have indicated that they support this proposal. How about asking Wikia if we could trial having a moderators user group for maybe 1-2 months and seeing how it works out ? That's assuming Wikia would allow that to happen. --Speysider Talk Page 15:31, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * In my honest opinion, we don't need either. Its not that the sysops appear only once two days or so and waiting for some time doesn't hurt. This might only be helpful in times of edit-wars. As for the vandalism, the filters deal with most of them and the ban on anons has already reduced it many folds. ~ Ultimate  Supreme  15:49, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I really am curious about this magic number of sysops, or at least the suggestion that readers/prospective users regularly look at a list of a wiki's sysops before using the wiki. Does anyone here do that? I don't, and here's why: I have no concept of who those sysops are (I have never crossed paths with them before) and I don't know how vital their services to the wiki are (I'm probably only going to read a couple of articles and will never venture outside the main namespace or look at page histories).
 * Hypothetically, if I did look at a list of sysops, how would I react? I suppose it is possible for there to be too many sysops: if a wiki had fewer than a thousand articles but more than ten sysops, that would seem disproportionate. But all that really matters is that the wiki be of good quality, free of any long-standing factual errors, formatting problems, or instances of vandalism. If a wiki of the Narutopedia's size can be all of these things with only three sysops, then I am impressed by those sysops' dedication. If a wiki of the Narutopedia's size can be all of these things with twenty sysops, then I am impressed that a single wiki could attract so many trustworthy individuals.
 * People keep using the word "need", be it a need for another sysop or a need for limited sysop privileges. I believe that need should be the only determining factor in whether someone gains any sorts of right. Historically, there have been two sorts of "need" that lead a person to becoming a sysop:
 * Whether the sysop-to-be admits it or not, they need one or more sysop privileges in order to contribute to the wiki to their fullest ability.
 * ShounenSuki kept asking for pages to be moved.
 * Snapper2 kept asking for things to be deleted.
 * Simant kept asking for infobox and semantic-related edits.
 * Omnibender kept asking for blocks.
 * Ten Tailed Fox kept asking for... I don't recall. Whatever it was, Dantman felt it was valid.
 * It's important to note that each of these sysops did not need a full set of protect+block+delete+other in order to edit as they did, yet they received all of those privileges anyway and the wiki is no worse off for it.
 * The wiki at large needs the sysop-to-be to have sysop privileges.
 * The wiki needed some sysops when it was starting out, and Ultimate3 and Jacce were obvious choices.
 * The wiki needed UltimateSupreme to remove sensitive wiki-architecture from the rough-and-tumble.
 * So then, are there any editors that satisfy one of these needs?
 * I'm not aware of anyone who requests sysop actions often enough that things would be simpler if they were sysops.
 * Speysider keeps insisting that the wiki does not need another sysop, and several others have expressed doubt that there is any sort of need at all. They acknowledge that it might be nice if certain users had certain privileges, but they do not say there is a need.
 * Cerez keeps being floated as a possible exception. He may not need to be a sysop to continue editing and he may not want it, but if the wiki feels that someone who contributes as much as he does needs to be a sysop, then that satisfies the second method.
 * It is not my opinion that Cerez currently needs to be a sysop. It is not my opinion that the wiki currently needs a couple people with protection rights. If I'm being honest, it is not my opinion that all the current sysops need to be sysops; I really only delete stuff, and nothing I delete absolutely needs to be deleted. It is, however, my opinion that these contortions to say a mod is not a sysop and should not become one are foolish and even suspicious.
 * This concludes my say. ~SnapperTo 18:29, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * "It is, however, my opinion that these contortions to say a mod is not a sysop and should not become one are foolish and even suspicious."
 * By saying that, you refuse to believe that mods and sysops are completely different. That's like me going onto a forum and telling a mod "Oh your an admin" when he clearly doesn't have any administrator level status, nor any admin based powers. Mods are mods and sysops are sysops. Mods are NOT sysops. They cannot be compared, nor even assumed to be the same thing, because they're not. Sysops get the admin dashboard and the ability to edit in the MediaWiki namespace. Do you really want random editors to have access to these things that they don't need ? I certainly wouldn't, unless they actually needed to see these things and most sysops here don't need access to the admin dashboard, nor the MediaWiki namespace. The only person who'd need admin dashboard access is Dantman and only Simant and UltimateSupreme would need MediaWiki namespace access. --Speysider Talk Page 19:14, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Now hold it right there. I see exactly what Snapper is getting at now, after reading your response. You seem to be suspicious of the actions of sysops, so, your solution is to create a lesser group to prevent people from having full access to sysop powers. You need to understand that these "random users" you keep referencing would never be made "mods", were this group approved, much less "sysops". Only those who are deemed trustworthy are made sysops. And, to my knowledge, you have no reasonable basis, on this site, to be weary of the sysops. You seem to suggest that they will somehow mess up the MediaWiki pages or utilize the Admin's Dashboard in a way that would be detrimental to the wiki. This is not what we're concerned about, because, frankly, it isn't a reality. Nor really even a concern, as no one among the sysops, that I'm aware of, have ill-intent for the wiki. No, the subject of this debate, I think, has shifted to one simply question: "Why would we create a completely new group, these mods, with some sysop powers, when we could just promote a sysop to take care of that from among our more trusted users?".


 * From that, we could also ask this: "What situation warrants a new group, or even a new sysop?" I have to say, it seems the major basis of your arguments, based on your past couple of responses, seems to stem from your general distrust of the sysop flag. Let me ask you this; Why do you keep suggesting that we would let "random users" have access to any power, much less a flag of that nature? And, why are we treating sysop as a status symbol, which is how I perceive you are making it, when its just an extra tool for normal users? The world will not end if we have more than your "allotted" amount of sysops. ~ Ten Tailed Fox Yamagakure Symbol.svg 19:31, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * "You seem to suggest that they will somehow mess up the MediaWiki pages or utilize the Admin's Dashboard in a way that would be detrimental to the wiki."
 * I in no way implied that whatsoever. I'm merely suggesting that if you give someone the status of sysop, they've got access to these features which they might not need or may abuse. I'm not talking about current sysops, I'm talking about future sysops.
 * "Why do you keep suggesting that we would let 'random users' have access to any power, much less a flag of that nature?"
 * I think me and you both know exactly why I think that and I don't think it's necessary to explain why here. ;).
 * To put it simply, because of the way you got sysop status, you have created a precedent in which any random person can just come here, make some contributive edits, then spam Dantman with "Can I haz sysop flag just like how Ten Tailed Fox got them?" on either his talkpage or via emails. That's not to say your reasoning is wrong, but because of how you in particular became a sysop, it creates a precedent for others to copy. That's why I absolutely hate those who just go to the highest level and ask for sysop and bypass the usual way of getting to that status. All the other sysops on this wiki got their status because they did something that warranted them to get that status.
 * EDIT: This is in no way a dig or personal attack at you, so please don't take it to heart. --Speysider Talk Page 20:00, July 10, 2013 (UTC)