I'm sorry, I didn't know your jaw would fall off. — 01:30, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, and after taking a good look at the staff page and talking it over a little with Xion4ever I've come to the conclusion that we don't have enough active staff members. We have 12 admins and out of those admins only 4 of them are listed as active. THEN out of those admins only one of them edits regularly. That's one out of twelve admins that is a regular day to day editor. Then we go to moderators, we have four moderators. Out of those four moderators I'm not sure if any of them are really active. TNE is slightly inactive do to real life complications, DTN isn't as involved with the wiki as he used to be, and Urutapu and HoO haven't edited in a while. Staff members are not above other users. They are regular users who have been given responsibilities. You cannot carry out those responsibilities if you're not here. Some of our admins haven't edited in over half a year. And absolutely none of our bureaucrats are active. I suppose my point is that we need more staff members. Staff members who edit here on a day to day basis. I'm not trying to offend or put down current staff members (although if my observations are correct a majority of them may not even see this message) but if you had an actual job in the real world and you didn't show up for it, you would be fired. I wanted to have my thoughts heard because I feel like this is an important topic.
FINAL THOUGHT: I think we should elect or appoint (or whatever you do) more staff members.
Demonic Saint - Then go talk to a wall... TALK - I dreamt I was a moron - 01:46, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
We need staff that will edit regularly and do not abuse power. Choose the right users, that's all I ask. If the staffs become inactive then it will be just one MORE useless staff member.
Master Boye - Along the road ahead lies something you need. However, in order to claim it you must lose something that is dear to you. TALK - To lose and claim anew, or to claim anew only to lose... — 07:22, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
I second that: it's not just picking the users who do the most, but picking those who do the most in conjunction with those who can handle the responsibility of coming on frequently.
UnknownEnigma - In the meantime, would you be interested in meeting another who is considered a hero? TALK - Your existence is worth nothing!
UE completely agrees. Having those at the position of leadership that aren't currently active is like electing a boulder for president. It doesn't do anything. You might as well not have made them leaders.
Nitrous X Talk! — Then I shall make you see...That your hopes are nothing. Nothing but a mere illusion!
Don't I even warrant a hello, Lexaeus?
I agree with everything you said. We need more active staff members. But first, we need to find out the ones who are temperarily inactive and when they plan on returning. I know that TNE will probably come back after a while, but I'm not sure about the others. But you're right, JFH, this needs to be resolved.
[nods] I agree, its ridiculous to have so many admins, and yet have such a low percentage of them that are still regular editors. There are plenty of active members right now that would do well as mods or even admins.
LapisScarab Good tidings, friends. Today is a momentous day. I am pleased to announce that a new comrade has been chosen to wear the coat.— 02:12, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Neumannz — Looks like I'm gonna have to jump...! TALK — I work alone! Except when I work with Xion...which is all the time.
— 02:33, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Well, all the important arguments have been made, so there's not much for me to add, but it's only the responsible thing to do to have reliable, present staff members around the wiki. (No disrespect to any absent staff members, whichever ones you are. You have your reasons.)
We definitely need new staffers. No question about it. but they must be reliable. Otherwise there's no point in having them.
Ultima - Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test.
I don't think we need more staff. To be honest, we don't need active mods, since the only psecial abilities they have are rollback (although they should have more). Also, I am actually active. I may not edit here very often, but I do watch this place, just incase you people need help from an admin. So really, I thnik it would'nt really help anybody if we promote editors to mods. -15:50, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
We wouldn't just be adding Mods. The Moderator's rollback ability is only really necessary in times of severe vandalism, so not very often. Also, even with you being an active admin that really only makes 2 out of 12. My argument stands.
Yes, may i say I haven't seen many here in a long time. DTN is back, so that is another mod, makes 2. But still, Ultima is here, and Kryten is here. Kate seems to be having complications in life so she isn't editing. Still, it is a waste of time having all of these administrators here when they aren't even here. Personally, I think an op or mod should be de-opped or de-modded (?) if they are inactive for a certain period of time. I mean Riku##### left after making 26 edits! Scottch and all of the originals have left too. They should be de-opped until they return. I mean it is useless having people be admins. if they don't even edit on the wiki anymore. Therefore, I agree with JFH, we should de-admin people, and assign new ones. I mean TNE is at the top of the featured users, and her rank is only a mod. I really don't see how that is fair. *rants on about nothing and recaps ideas*. Therefore, I believe in what JFH is saying. *Falls asleep after examining the blank look on the faces of the audience*. User:ZexionTheGamer/Signature
Ultima - Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test.
Well we would only be changing peoples status to mod, as none of the mods right now are active, and we don't just promote people straight to admin status. Also, rollback is horrible. All it means is it takes about 1 less click to undo an edit, and it just is not worth giving to anybody. Also, de-opoing people is not the answer. Those peole worked hard to earn their title, and deserve to keep it until they decide to give it up. Also, the reason that TNE is not anything more than a mod is because most of her edits are on user talk pages. Also, TNE is inactive. -16:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Dan - My friends are my power! — 18:23, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone should be de-staffed, as Ultima said, they worked hard for their title. We're not in desperate need of a staff election, but I'm not saying it's a bad idea to consider one.
I never said anything about taking admin or moderator positions away from current admins and mods. I simply said we needed more active staff members. And if people can't just be promoted to admins and you're ruling out moderators then we'll never get new admins. We may not need moderators, but if we don't have any we'll never get any more admins either.
JFH, I was just saying my idea (no, you didn't say it). Still, you are right Ultima. I am just thinking that some of these admins left within the first month of the wiki. Why not just remove their image (Place it in an archive like "the previous admins") then assign new ones. I mean, there is only 1 Bueracrat, and he isn't here that often. We really need to get more staff members. 3 or 2 is just not enough. JFH told me that a 100 article wiki is recommended to have 4 administrators, so... User:ZexionTheGamer/Signature
Ultima - Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test.
A wiki with 100 pages does not need 4 admins. This wiki is fine with only 2 or 3 active. We have survived with only 2 admins active before, and we can do it again. We admins are a hard working bunch, and if something needs done, we will do it. And anyway, if there is a problem, and an admin does not respond to the crisis after being alerted, you can always contact a member of wikia staff, like Uberfuzzy, and they will get the job done. But if you do contact them, make sure it is urgent, like if the wiki is on fire or something. -21:01, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
According to one of those help pages you're supposed to read when you start a wiki, it is recommended you have about 4 admins. It also says the number of admins on a wiki is completely up to the founder. Since our founder isn't here anymore it's up to us to decide how many admins we have. But this isn't really about the number of admins we have. We have plenty of admins. But only 2/12 of those admins are really editing at this time. I know we can survive with only 2 admins, but I don't think we should be.
Ultima - Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test.
OK, I don't like the idea of new admins, but if the majority of the active community wants it, then it should probably happen. But in my opinion, there is only 2 candidates worthy of become admins, thesetwo . -21:18, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. HoO and DTN are both pretty inactive. Making two inactive Mods Admins is kind of pointless. That's like two more inactive staff members. Kind of pointless.
Neumannz — Looks like I'm gonna have to jump...! TALK — I work alone! Except when I work with Xion...which is all the time.
— 22:08, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about who to promote before you decide if you're going to promote at all. Are enough people satisfied that this would be a help?
I agree, we have to decide if we're even getting new staffers before we decide who they are. I'm obviously all for it.
Eternal Nothingness XIII - You have to be strong. Strength of heart will carry you through the hardest of trials. TALK - What I do, I do for friendship. — 22:20, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
I really don't care either way. What I will not stand for is this forum or potential future election being used to insult/bring down other users (an example being "He/she doesn't edit mainspace enough, where as I do all the time. Don't vote for him/her, or you'll be making a big mistake for this Wiki"). I will be sure to alert a staff member if I see this happening, should an election take place. Should this happen, we are to view the user as a whole, and not base him/her's chances on becoming a staffer on personal experiences. When I say whole, I also mean every aspect.
Two active admins is not enough for a wiki like ours. We definitely need new admins, and fast. Give worthy people, such as NinjaSheik, TNE, DTN and ENX the adminship, it's in good hands with them. We can definitely trust these four. DTN and TNE are on break right now, but they would still make great admins. As for the higher talk page editcount than mainspace, who really cares? As long as the edits are good, quality edits, and the talk pages don't outnumber the mainspace by too many, then go for it.
LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had?
We have to remember that non-mainspace edits are often answering questions about the way the wiki works, giving warnings, and trying to decie how to better the wiki and its articles. Non-mainspace edits still count.
I disagree on the non-mainspace edits, granted some users use talkpages as means of helping new users, etc. Also those users who use talkpages as means of helping new users, etc. are known (such as Xiggie). However, (I know with "older" editors) there is alot of wiki princesses and such. You don't elect and admin/mod for being a wiki princess, you elect them for their help editing articles and other mainspace areas.
DTN is back. Still, I think it should be HOO and DTN. They have been good to the wiki, been here quite a while, and have their hearts in the right place, trying to help this place as much as possible. I do agree with Xion, however, she makes a good argument. User:ZexionTheGamer/Signature
Neumannz — Looks like I'm gonna have to jump...! TALK — I work alone! Except when I work with Xion...which is all the time.
— 01:22, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of the idea of relying on edit counts. For one thing, I know I prefer to do significant edits over the nitty-griity details, unless I come across an edit I find undo-worthy, but I wouldn't want to be judged by my relatively low edit count, nor would I want a potential admin to be judged like that. I would suggest relying more on what we've seen of an editor's behavior and habits on the wiki, which includes both edits and discussions. Sometimes it's more important for the admin to be there to handle people than just content.
NinjaSheik - All of this might have started with a lie...But I'm really am glad that I could meet you... TALK - One day, the light-it will be ours, and it will bring us together. Til then, I'll be in your heart...
Do any of you know any good canadiates for new staff members?
Just off of the top of my head, ENX, Xion4ever, and even you are all staff worthy in my opinion.
NinjaSheik - All of this might have started with a lie...But I'm really am glad that I could meet you... TALK - One day, the light-it will be ours, and it will bring us together. Til then, I'll be in your heart...
Thanks, but does the other staff members think of this?
LotsoBearLover - Welcome to sunnyside! TALK - You've got a playdate with destiny!"
I really think ENX should be an admin.
Ultima - Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test.
Before peopel start saying they want blah blah blah as an admin, please look at their edit count. Just because someone has made thousands of edits, it does not mean they have helped the wiki. Alos, please don't just look at the mainspace edits, also look at their file, template, category, and card edits. Also, I am againts people who are not already mods becoming admins. People have to work up the ladder, not just skip to the top. But I am fine with people saying that they want blah blah to become a mod. -21:09, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
For however many of our mods become admins, we should elect an equal amount of mods to make up for it. Otherwise the next time we get new staff members there won't be much to choose from.
Administrative Input
BebopKate - This one is Zazzles...because he's Zazzy! TALK - Here's your cat...and here's your $20...06:58, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious. What issues are we having we need new staff members for? Are we being excessively hit by vandalism? Are pages nominated for deletion not being taken out? I'd like to know. There are ways to deal with vandals, bullies, and other issues if an admin isn't around to help at the moment.
It's true; I have not been editing much lately, partially because my real life has gotten complicated and partially because I'm trying to keep away from BbS spoilers. But, just as I say on my talk page, I do check in at least once almost every evening; I look over the recent edits (backlog included), pages for deletion, the forums, and check my talk page for messages in case there are any issues. If I don't see any, I don't stick around if I have other things to do. Bluer, our current bureaucrat, is active; just not on here. If you have any need for his magical powers, you can drop him a message.
I know this is going to make me really unpopular with some of you, and take some of you guys by surprise given how much I like input, but I honestly think any future mod and admin promotions need to be limited to current staff making the choices. This isn't a power trip, or to put you guys down. But hear me out:
First, this is a common practice on many wikis; you make good edits, you get noticed by other admins, and you're chosen. I was never elected by a wiki vote, nor was Azul, nor any staff who pre-dated us.
Which leads into point two: I think staff members tend to take detailed notice of traits that make for a good staffers overall; there would be little worry of us picking friends or so-called "wiki princesses", as many above have mentioned concerns about.
Finally, I think the public voting last time resulted in some hurt feelings and grudges that are still around, not to mention added pressure for some promoted staffers that seriously took away their enjoyment of the wiki. I don't want any bruised egos trailing around creating future issues, nor do I want to take away someone's ability to work here without being able to turn down a staff position.
JFHavoc, you say if we didn't show up for a job, we'd be fired; this is true. However, there is one key difference between a job and this wiki. A job is something you do because you need to. A wiki is something you do because it is fun and to help others. I'm sorry we don't appear to eat, sleep, and breathe Kingdom Hearts, but we just can't. Most all of you guys are flexible and pretty giving towards us, and we truly appreciate it, but it bothers me occasionally when someone expects one of us to be around all the time. Short of assigning a staff member from every time zone, it's just not going to happen. I just help where I can, and that's all I can do. I wouldn't expect anything more from any of you.
I'll keep an eye on this topic for further opinions and input. Even if I don't respond, rest assured I'll have read and pondered it. If you still feel we need more staff, then so be it, but I do encourage everyone to think very carefully about their reasons and motives.
You bring up some good points as always. The main reason I brought this up is because of the small percentage of admins still active. You don't have to be editing pages every day, just checking in is good enough to know when things are going wrong, but even so I still feel getting new staffers should probably be done. If you feel this is better left in the hands of the admins then that's fine. I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer an election, but you have to make some sacrifices for the greater goal sometimes. I know voting may bring up some issues like the ones you listed above, but I still think it could be an option. Perhaps if the staff chose candidates and then we voted or something like that. I really just think we need new staff. The methods are still up for debate.
BebopKate - This one is Zazzles...because he's Zazzy! TALK - Here's your cat...and here's your $20...07:16, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough points, and that sounds like a reasonable compromise. I personally would still like some more input, editors and staffers alike; I'll keep watching the thread.
DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven!
And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 07:49, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
I can see from both of your viewpoints, BebopKate and JFHavoc, but for different reasons and subjects.
On most wikis, staff members are not elected, but instead are added by an active bureaucrat who notices a need for further users with administrative functions. We have two of our four administrators listed as "Active" available for contact, as well as Ultima the High Seraph. Hexedmagica is also good about responding to requests for his use of administrative functions by an IRC Query, since he is on both this wiki's IRC Channel and the Final Fantasy Wiki's IRC Channel so often. Azul81677 can also be contacted, since he appears on the Final Fantasy Wiki's IRC Channel (#FFWiki) every few days or so. In addition, administrators and moderators should not just be elected because we supposedly do not have enough of them, but instead because there is a need for more of them. This really only applies to administrators, since rollback is never something that a wiki needs its users to have in order to grow and improve. The only reason that I could find for any new administrators would be for extremely frequent contributors to have the administrative functions so that they can use them in their very common and active editing, so that they do not have to wait for an administrator. However, even then, there are several administrators that can be contacted.
In contrast, the availability and speed of an administrator is not always guaranteed to be one that is efficient and beneficial to the wiki at all times. We all understand that administrators have lives; difficult, busy, and complicated lives. We cannot expect for them to be able to be available for administrative function at a moment's notice. For this reason, it may be wise to give administrative functions to (a) user(s) who are frequently online, actively editing on this wiki, and available around the clock. Furthermore, some of our administrators do not just stop editing, but actually stop being available as well. For example, some administrators' computer issues have not only ceased their editing, but also their ability to respond to requests to use their administrative functions. In the event that our administrators that are available for contact begin to diminish into being unavailable for contact, new administrators would need to be added. However, this is not a large issue currently, so this would only apply to a future scenario of judging whether new administrators are needed on this wiki.
On the subject of how to select new administrators and moderators, I somewhat agree with BebopKate, though I can see where JFHavoc is coming from. In the last staff election, very many users were simply voting for the users that they thought were friendly, though those users had hardly made a significant amount of wiki-beneficial edits (mainspace, filespace, Kingdom Hearts Wikispace, among others) compared to their non-beneficial edits (mostly user talkspace) and other candidates' wiki-beneficial edits. There were users who got nominated only to not get close at all to receiving a staff position, which not only made them obviously feel bad, but also shows that some users are judging the users they nominate for more than just their contributions to the Kingdom Hearts Wiki. On the other hand, it is completely unfair to leave the duty of selecting new staff members to only the current staff members. Although the staff members are the editors who are most likely to notice an editor for their contributions to the wiki and give a fair judgment, this is completely hierarchical. It is important to not segregate such a large part of the community, the non-staffers, out of such an important decision. However, it is inevitable that voting for friends, WikiPrincesses, and not voting for a user due to a personal experience with them are bound to occur. The solution I suggest is one that does go against what I just said about not segregating users from important decisions, but there is no other way to include non-staffers in the process of selecting new administrators and moderators without doing this: only users with "x" number of edits, whether it be total edit count or only wiki-beneficial edits, may vote for new administrators and moderators. This prevents WikiPrincesses and users who solely hang around on the IRC Channel from possibly having a large, biased, and unfair effect on the results. In my opinion, we should either filter users by this method, or leave the decision to staffers alone.
An interesting idea. I would suggest going off of total edits because, important or not, those users are around a lot to see another user's personality and contributions.
KrytenKoro - "Hurricane beats all housing or apartments. This sucker is a Cat-6!" TALK -
A few things:
1) I would suggest sticking to edit counts in productive areas, because a wikiprincess mod is too much of a risk:
2) If people are worried about admins not being around at all times, that's a false worry. Every single day, unless I am incredibly busy, I check all mainspace edits, productive template and category edits, and the upload log. Unless there is a huge problem with edits to user talk pages, forums, or other social areas, we're covered.
DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven!
And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 00:01, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with KrytenKoro on the subject of how to count to number of edits a user needs in order to vote. To comment on what he said, the IRC Channel is self-maintaining with its many active OPs that are online nearly every day, and most users do not cause social issues on the user talk pages because they are public for any user or anon to read.
Azul81677 - "Ebil minds think ebily alike." - A collaboration between 2 very ebil minds TALK - 20:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
While it's true that many of the staff are no longer editing or present on the wiki, it does not mean that they are no longer available for contact. Bluerfn always seems to pop in when a major problem occurs or when his Bureaucrat abilities are needed. I haven't edited in awhile but I log in at least 3 times a week to check for immediate messages at my talkpage, school consumes most of my time. Ultima is in the loop with current issues, more so than I am, and Hexedy is there when you need him. Kryten and Kate seem omnipresent ;} So no matter how inactive we are or seem, we are always around. Kinda like herpes. When times are tough we flare up, but when things are calm, we are no where to be found. Once it's triggered... BAM! We're everywhere. ewww that was a disgusting analogy, but whatevs, you get the point lolz
Now, that being said. I do not agree with a public voting/election for Admins. Our turnout last year was very stressful on all of us. And I feel like I was partially responsible for advertising, setting up, etc. the election. So, for the promotion or addition of Admins/Bureaucrats, I feel that it should be left to the existing staff members. Mods, on the other hand, can go either way: be selected by the community based on skillz (i.e. what Kryten proposed) or by staff only. While mods are important to the wiki and our current mods are outstanding editors, Admins should be chosen more carefully since they do work with deleting pages and other "delicate" functions at KHWiki.
To wrap this all up. Do we need to make more staff members? The staffers who have commented have already made it clear that we are here to deal with problems even if we are not editing or obviously present, and mods are basically regular contributors, just with a quicker anti-vandalism tool. If the majority of the community and staffers believe that we do, then, we will.
DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven!
And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 20:35, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Both Ultima the High Seraph and Azul81677 have stated that if majority of users want more staffers, than there should be. In conjunction with this, I am going to start a "voting" similar to how we decided on the ban policy on the IRC Channel. Simply add your name to "Users who support the addition of new staff members and/or administrators" or "Users who do not support the addition of new staff members and/or administrators". Since both of these andinistrators, and BebopKate, have mentioned that the desire of the community's majority should have an impact on if the Kingdom Hearts Wiki receives new staff members and/or bureaucrats, I hope that this will accurately show if the majority of the community wants this action to be taken.
If you are neutral in this decision or have conflicting thoughts, then do not feel like you need to vote in this. In fact, nobody really needs to vote if they do not want to.
Users who support the addition of new staff members and/or administrators
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, and after taking a good look at the 
.png){kind=small}
I don't think that anyone should be de-staffed, as Ultima said, they worked hard for their title. We're not in desperate need of a staff election, but I'm not saying it's a bad idea to consider one.
_1_KHCOM.gif){kind=icon}
_4_KHCOM.png){kind=icon}