Editing Forum:Discussing the policy.

{{Forumheader|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 ~~~~ -->
{{RikutheBloody|time={{User:Master Riku the Bloody/Sig1}} 19:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)|angry=Okay, I'm creating it, the place where we discuss the new Policy.}}
{{TheFifteenthMember|time={{User:TheFifteenthMember/Sig1}} 19:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)|default=Essentially, we are looking at this point of the staff policy:
 The staff member's rights are removed after six months of inactivity, but only after they are warned about the situation. '''If they return and want their rights back, they must undergo a two month probation period, where the user must show that they are active enough to hold their powers again.'''
I suggest it be reworded to say "where the user must show that they are worthy of holding their powers again", which should solve most ambiguity. Thoughts?}}
{{KeybladeSpyMaster|time=19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)|text=I suggest we consider rewriting the whole thing. It largely focuses only on cases of inactivity, and a policy titled "Staff Policy" should probably focus on more than just that. I'm working on a rewrite myself right now (using a format that Chain developed in December for Operation: Keychain) that I'll present when it's finished for your input.

As to the current issue (the specific line FM pointed out), I suggest we append it with "upon approval from the wiki's community" to all cases. The reality is that all staff elections have been done upon approval from the wiki's community. All cases of re-promotion should carry that same clause. But, that's my idea.}}
{{TheFifteenthMember|time={{User:TheFifteenthMember/Sig1}} 19:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)|happy=Good points! Practically agreed with everything you've said. Going beyond inactivity, we should include points on poor conduct or irresponsibility. Good luck on the rewrite!}}
{{ENX|time=19:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)|shocked=EDIT CONFLICT (thanks, KSM and FM :P)! Is it possible we could refrain from using words such as "powers" and "worthy" in our new policy? Such words suggest that becoming a staff member places someone amongst an "elite" group of users, and it contradicts everything the staff stresses about its members being no better or different than regulars. Such words can make those who are not staff (having lived through this myself) seem like they are not good enough, especially when, even though it is for identification purposes, such things as the staff template are placed on a staff member's user page like a trophy to be earned. People should not edit the Wiki solely to become part of this "elite group", just to possess "powers" or "greater say in things" when all they really get is extra tools to help maintain the Wiki. Not only does our message/staff attitude at the present time contradict the democratic style of the Wiki we seem to be striving for these days, but it also creates the illusion of a Wiki-dictatorship.}}

{{KeybladeSpyMaster|time=20:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)|text=I think we still can use "powers" because that's basically what makes an admin different from any other user, which is the additional powers/rights (the technical/official term is rights, as in [[Special:ListGroupRights]]). The term "worthy" can still be used, in my opinion, only if we define what "worthy" means. Otherwise, the term becomes arbitrary and creates the illusion ENX mentioned of elitism. If we use "worthy", we need to define what makes a worthy staff member, or it becomes subjective to each person's own ideas.}}
{{ENX|time=20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)|text=Right, it's the elitism illusion that needs to be crushed here. And well, in terms of saying "powers," there are alternative, less "elitist" words we can use, such as the term "tools" that Kryten mentioned in the other forum. "Administrators are given special tools to help maintain the Wiki, such as the ability to delete redundant images..." sounds a lot better to me than "Administrators are given the power to <insert thing here>."}}
How about "worthy" => "responsible"? And yes on "tools".  --{{User:Neumannz/SigTemplate}} 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

{{KeybladeSpyMaster|time=23:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)|text=[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-V6Ibqb0Ux47v-Xko6XKrGr7rlsRbCFXlszvk6mUPjw/edit?usp=sharing <font color=#FFFFFF>Okay, here it is</font>]. It's rather long, because I incorporated much the current staff policy. Tell me what you guys think.}}
{{Xion4ever|time=00:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)|text=Neumannz's suggestion sounds fine to me on the naming/words to use. As for KSM's rough draft: In general, what you have written looks great to me. As for your question on elections... There was no real/formal election season. In the past, generally an election would happen for one or two reasons- keep in mind that our community was much larger back then, too. The first was that the Wiki needed help on things available only to the staff- deletions, moving articles, rollback, etc. The second was for additional/more community like things, such as banning (we used to have a ton of vandals) or the majority of staff members being inactive. These reasons are also generally why we would bump an existing staff member up as well. I don't think we should necessarily set or force a time elections are held. Perhaps a rephrase of "Elections, as well as promotions for existing staff members, are held <insert reasons here*>." * = reasons I listed earlier.

Maybe I overlooked it, but did FM's/the other forum's idea of "If an inactive staff member wants their position back they must undergo a two month probation period in which the user must show that they are both active and responsible of holding their powers again." ever make it on the draft? 

Also, have you checked [[KHWiki:Administrators|this]] out? I'm seeing some similarities between the two. Either way, perhaps this could be thrown in somewhere? One final thing, just to clear the air right from the start. Is there anything we need to specifically outline/describe/explain in detail under the "expectations" section? Naturally, we're all going to have some minor differences here and there, but, in general, our views should already line up pretty closely.}}

{{KeybladeSpyMaster|time=00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)|text=For anyone who decides to search, for the record, the term "powers" appears once only in my draft, where it says "Members of the wiki’s staff should not abuse the powers granted to them..." I don't think I used the term "worthy".

Xion, you're right, and I actually meant for there to be a certain set of conditions for which there would be elections, not necessarily a time frame. I'll add your statements to the policy.

I must have missed adding FM's statement. I've added it now.

Regarding the page you linked, I actually meant to link it, too, but it was incomplete, and a discussion on its talk page was leaning for its deletion, dated last summer. However, I did look at it as I drafted this policy. We could link it as part of the "Expectations" ("Administrators are expected to adhere to the [[KHWiki:Administrators|Administrator manual]]" or something like that).

I don't know if you guys want to add/subtract from what I've added to the "Expectations" area, kinda just threw in what I felt was expected of me, and went from there.

'''EDIT''': There's actually one additional point I forgot to add but was thinking about, which is to allow for the ability to submit complaints against a given staff member. I feel there should be a way, to dispel this whole "Staff-are-untouchable" idea. What do you guys think? Perhaps reformatting/expanding the Heartless Manufactory for this purpose?}}
{{ENX|time=01:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)|text=My fear there is that something similar to what happened with DTN would occur. We would have to be sure to validate said complaints, otherwie we could have an inexperienced user make complaints just because his or her stuff keeps getting reverted, needlessly troubling the staff member in question. Complaints should only be made if you have a serious issue with a staff member, not because you have a general dislike for one or just don't see eye-to-eye with one.}}

{{KeybladeSpyMaster|time=01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)|default2=I was thinking that the complaints should be related directly to a violation of the Staff Policy. So, regular disagreements and such shouldn't warrant a complaint, but if you feel that a member of the staff is oppressing you or another editor, or is going beyond his/her ability, then there should be a way to submit a complaint, and the rest of the staff/community can discuss if this apparent violation of the Staff Policy.}}
{{ENX|time=01:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)|text=That's a pretty solid staff policy right there, KSM. I fully support everything it says. Way to go! As for the complaint stuff, that seems fine to me. But we must also consider the other party in this, as well. Accused staff members should have the ability to list their side of the story, as well. It's only fair.}}
{{KeybladeSpyMaster|time=01:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)|text=ENX, you're right, there should be a way for both sides to tell their story. I'm thinking it should be controlled similar to [http://kingdomheartsfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Courtroom this] on the KHFanon Wiki. This allows for both sides to tell their part/view, no? Again, up to you guys, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself on this...}}
{{ENX|time=01:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)|text=Tinkering around with something like that might actually not be the worst idea in the world. I'm in favor of it.}}

{{KeybladeSpyMaster|time=02:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)|text=Ok, bringing this back up. I finished the draft, here's what's been updated:
*A link and reference to [[KHWiki:Administrators]]
*Section on complaints, which includes an introduction to a new additional purpose for the [[Forum:Heartless Manufactory|Heartless Manufactory]]

There's only two questions I have on the policy, which relate to elections:
*In the draft, as per Xion's suggestion, I added that one of the conditions for elections was that the majority of staff were inactive in any one category or in the staff as a whole. I added the suggested amount of inactive staff as 50% (50% of staff must be inactive to require an election). Is this okay? Is 50% okay, or do we want a higher number?
*I also left the question of whether we want a specific amount of staff at any given time. I know from reading old forums that at one time, KrytenKoro pushed to have 14 users on the wiki's staff at any given time. Do we want something like this, with a set number of people on the staff at any given time? (though probably not 14, since that's pretty much the entire active community right now minus, like, three...)

Also, when should we probably implement this? When can I update the staff policy? <small><small>I might even go ahead and try to finish [[KHWiki:Administrators|this]]</small></small>
}}