Editing Forum:Restoration of my Rights

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 49: Line 49:
*The staff policy is incredibly new and hasn't been put into effect yet. It's never been tried before and we always said it's not set in stone, so don't take it as a personal critique. It's just something we haven't done before. But yes, we probably should stick to it by this point.
*The staff policy is incredibly new and hasn't been put into effect yet. It's never been tried before and we always said it's not set in stone, so don't take it as a personal critique. It's just something we haven't done before. But yes, we probably should stick to it by this point.
</last point wasn't a fact>}}
</last point wasn't a fact>}}
{{KrytenKoro|Clarifying: I believe ''any'' editor who we can trust to not flippantly abuse the admin tools should have them. That should be considered ''separately'' from other transgressions, such as personal attacks or unwillingness to work with consensus, which would instead lead to blocks or bans (as I myself have recieved in the past), rather than demotion -- that behavior should only affect admin rights if the user is going to use them to evade the block by unblocking themselves. The only non-tool risk with admins that I know of, of promoting someone who decides to focus more on making their friends happy than maintaining any sort of quality to the wiki, is definitely absent here -- whether or not I agree with ENX on each issue, he's definitely editing based on his own convictions, rather than throwing his hands in the air and claiming that inaccurate trash edits should be kept simply because we don't want to "scare away" the offending editor. (This is a sidenote, I guess, it just...I've had to abandon wikis where I was even the bcrat before because I mistakenly promoted people who cared more about making friends than ensuring any kind of quality. Those kind of editors infuriate me.)
{{KrytenKoro|Clarifying: I believe ''any'' editor who we can trust to not flippantly abuse the admin tools should have them. That should be considered ''separately'' from other transgressions, such as personal attacks or unwillingness to work with consensus, which would instead lead to blocks or bans (as I myself have recieved in the past), rather than demotion -- that behavior should only affect admin rights if the user is going to use them to evade the block by unblocking themselves.


We're a small community, and we police the obvious vandals very efficiently. Frankly, it's more efficient to just give editors the ability to deal with problems as they come up, rather than having to wait for an admin to be available. If it helps, we can rename "admin" to "janitor", maybe. I'm putting forward a suggestion that all the active, non-frivolous editors get an admin position.
We're a small community, and we police the obvious vandals very efficiently. Frankly, it's more efficient to just give editors the ability to deal with problems as they come up, rather than having to wait for an admin to be available. If it helps, we can rename "admin" to "janitor", maybe. I'm putting forward a suggestion that all the active, non-frivolous editors get an admin position.

Please note that all contributions to the Kingdom Hearts Wiki are considered to be released under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license (see KHWiki:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)