Editing Forum:Staff 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 ~~~~ -->

Regarding [[KHWiki:Staff policy|this]], which staff and editors alike came up with during the roundtable last night, we're opening up to thoughts of other users as this is not a policy in effect but one in development, so we should discuss this.

{{EO|time=02:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)|hooded=I'm not waiting for a forum to add my thoughts to this. If they must, they can be moved to it when the forum comes. 

"Do your job well and do what you can with your rights" is the most we can expect to do on a website where the only people editing are staff members. We're not being attacked by vandals or cooperating with well-meaning regulars like we were on Wikia, so unless we're just disagreeing with each other's opinions or trying to eliminate all traces of a particular staff member's work just because we don't care for his or her writing style, the ability to rollback or delete things is superfluous. This site is dead for half the day, anyways, so it's not like it needs to be under constant guard. Unless we get a string of vandals in the next two months, it's impossible to expect us to be able to use certain administrator functions such as the deletion of pages or reversion of severe vandalism at least once every time the end of the two-month period roles around.

You cannot say inactivity will not be tolerated unless it's excused until you decide upon what qualifies as a legitimate excuse. Even then, there's no way to prove the honesty of the user who makes said excuse. You can't be inactive if you're making a single grammar edit a day; that still counts as activity, albeit very little. It's ridiculous to expect staffers to have to make all of these major edits in a single day; some of us don't have nearly the time or stamina required to satisfy those of us who created this policy, especially when the expectations are so vague. Again, on a site where our articles are hardly ever touched by others, in most cases, we're reduced to only being able to make small edits such as corrections in grammar. There's no need to make a major edit to a page that is practically flawless (we're only going to drive ourselves mad if we strive to perfect perfection), and that describes pretty much every article here.   

Expecting staff members to be on the IRC practically 24/7 is kind of ridiculous. Some of us simply don't have the time. There's no reason to be there for the community when we have no community to speak of. Again, the only ones who make any sort of edits here are the few active staff members we have left, and the occasional regular. Half the people on our IRC don't even edit here anymore, if at all. For what possible reason would the "community" need six staffers on the IRC simultaneously? One can suffice if it's a matter of getting a simple question answered. For what possible reason would the "community" even need a staff member to begin with? The staff is on the IRC to be alerted to problems on the Wiki, such as with vandals...and we have none of these issues. We still seem to live under the illusion on this site that we still operate like we did prior to our separation from Wikia...I pray I'm not the only one who sees that this is not the case. If it's a matter of having staffers on the IRC simply to protect the IRC itself, we're lucky if we even have 10 people on the IRC at a single time. These days, we keep seeing the same five or six people, and they never do anything that requires staff action. I can't remember the last time someone had to be kicked from the IRC channel...It happened at least twice a month prior to the formation of SEIWA...Besides, what good is a staff member on the IRC against a malicious user who is breaking IRC policy if he or she doesn't have Op rights, which at least half of our staff members do not? I recall the days when having Op rights was a required part of the staff member package...An Op right-less staff member is as useless as a flat tire. Forbidding a staff member from using another IRC channel without being on the Wiki's is taking things a bit too far, methinks, as well. The IRC, after all, is supposed to be a laid-back place of chatting and simply being who we are; it was formed for idle chatter to reduce the stress placed on the Wiki's Recent Changes by conversations on user talk pages. If we're trying to make the IRC as rule-laden as the Wiki and its talk pages, then that takes the one reason of going to #KHWiki-social out of the picture (#KHWiki-noticeboard is redundant when all we accomplish there, though very little, can be done through the talk pages and forums here). An IRC channel attracts users when it's active, and let's face it. Ours isn't. Half the time, it's dead. I, for one, would much rather be on an active IRC channel where I can talk to people freely and not be reprimanded for it than one that is dead half the time or getting the life choked out of it by rules. I honestly don't see a point to our IRC channel anymore...it's just an extension to the talk pages these days; it's not at all like it was when it was formed prior to SEIWA. 

I agree with the qualifications for a retired staff member, however, I do not like how we say a staff member seeking to resume activity need only contact "a higher staff member". In a place where certain staff members continue to stress they are not superior to anyone and aren't supposed to be in the first place, this seems very hypocritical to me. It would be better to say they need only contact a bureaucrat, since they are the only ones who can change user rights.}}

{{Sove|roxastalk=This is more a draft than a policy in effect now, seriously.

I mentioned hard studying and injury as valid excuses during roundtable and more can be suggested. And the month limit can be changed, but that needs discussion.

I did say that practically 24/7 IRC presence is overdoing it. Staff member presence on IRC is not asked because of users who need to be kicked (so not all staff members need OP rights), but because they are the users who are most likely going to be asked something relating to the wiki. Yes, sometimes we do have 4 staff members on at the same time, but it does not mean they are immediately available. A staff member without OP rights is not useless as a flat tire. I totally agree that #KHWiki-noticeboard is redundant, and we have no longer used it for anything else than roundtables. And seriously, the social channel is much more active than you say it is. You really have no right to say that when you don't even go to the channel.

'''"If we're trying to make the IRC as rule-laden as the Wiki and its talk pages, then that takes the one reason of going to #KHWiki-social out of the picture"'''

I don't even understand what you mean with this.

PS. You can be on multiple IRC channels at once with the /join command, or are you still trying to keep your identity a secret from ffwiki guys? Seriously, they all know who you are.

PPS. The reason OP rights were removed as a staff member guarantee was apparent lack of IRC experience of most OPs. An OP with no experience is useless as a flat tire as an OP.}}

:ENX, we're not trying to stress about protection on the IRC, we are trying to get as many possible to answer things because these days, the only staff member on relatively 24/7 is me. AND EVEN THAT we are not asking of our staff members. It asks whenever possible which means anything from 1 hour to 24 hours. It's not asking for you to be there during the time where you would be having a funeral or going on a holiday, but if you're just sitting watching TV and doing nothing else, there is no reason why you shouldn't be on the IRC and there is absolutely no reason to be on one channel and not the next. And lastly, "There's no reason to be there for the community when we have no community to speak of.", that's kind of a bad thing to say because, surprise-surprise, there are people who actually come to the IRC. You wouldn't know that because you barely come on. {{User:Erry/Sig}} 03:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

{{LapisScarab|time=07:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)|text=I'm going to mostly stay out of this since I've been gone for a year, but there are a few things here I'd like to comment on. Inactivity and a slowed editing pace aren't the same thing. Inactivity isn't measured by the number of edits, it's measured by how easily the user can be contacted and how quickly they respond. A user who has nothing to do and just makes gnome edits isn't necessarily inactive, but I admit it can be a sign. A user that doesn't respond to talk page comments until a week later is largely inactive, and that is an actual issue. 

The IRC thing kind of bugs me, though I admit isn't just because I really don't like chat set ups like the IRC and know very little about them. 

I think you're looking into the phrasing there a bit too much, ENX. All that is implied there is that they need to contact a staff member that can restore their powers (i.e. a bureaucrat, as you said), nothing else. No one's imposing superiority, but I do think the wording would be better and clearer if it simply said "contact a bureaucrat", since not everyone may know what qualifies as a "higher" staff member and what is meant by that.}}

==New Discussion==
{{TheFifteenthMember|time={{User:TheFifteenthMember/Sig1}} 11:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)|default=In the roundtable, didn't we say that staff who declare ''temporary'' retirement still keep their rights for when they return? <small>If we didn't, I meant to say it.</small> Then, Xion and Erry can keep their rights if they wish so there's less hassle when they return. Maybe, those temporarily inactive should be labelled so on the staff page or listed somewhere else. Thoughts guys?}}
{{KeybladeSpyMaster|time=15:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)|text=No, we didn't. I checked the logs last night when Xion announced her temporary inactivity on the IRC. According to the decision Friday, they both lose their rights immediately. I think that should be changed to retaining rights if the inactivity is temporary or definite. If it's indefinite inactivity that they know will end, but aren't sure when, they they can have their rights removed. I don't know, what do you think?}}

{{TheFifteenthMember|time={{User:TheFifteenthMember/Sig1}} 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)|happy=That's what I think. I meant to say this on Friday but I guess I forgot.}}
{{KeybladeSpyMaster|time=16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)|text=Yeah, I think we felt good when we decided to make it more lenient, but we missed this detail.}}

{{Chainoffire|time={{User:Chainoffire/sig}} 03:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)|xemnas=perhaps we can differentiate between some terms:

*'''Declared Retirement''': A user leaves and has the intention to never return with notice. (Regardless of the fact that they actually may or may not return.) This user should not be contact for wiki matters. This user should have their rights removed. If they return, they can get their rights back instantly with no probation period. Their staff icon will be moved to the retired page. (ex. KrytenKoro)

*'''Declared Temporary Retirement''': A user leaves for an extended period of time with notice and has the possibility to return, but also has the possibility of never returning. This user should not be contacted for wiki matters unless they declare their return. This user should not have their rights removed after 6 months of inactivity, but only after the user has been notified and questioned about their intentions to remain active or retire. If they return, they can get their rights back instantly with no probation period. Their staff icon will remain on the staff page, and be grayscaled. (ex. Erry) 

*'''Declared Inactivity''': A user leaves for an extended period of time with notice and has full intention to return. This user can be contacted for wiki matters unless otherwise stated by the user himself/herself. This user should not have their rights removed unless they remain inactive 2 months after their given period of time. After the 2 months, the user shall be inquired as to their intentions of whether or not they wish to extend their inactivity, retire, or remain active. The extension shall last as long as the user needs it to be, and the user may only receive 2? extensions until they are considered to be temporarily retired. If no period of time is given, the user will be asked about their intentions of activity after 2 months after the declaration of inactivity, and my fall under the "undeclared inactivity" category. the user will be contacted of their intentions for returning or why they are not back after those two months (or whatever amount of months we decide). In case something happens that causes that extended inactivity. A legitimate reason for declaring inactivity is encouraged, but not required, especially if it is a personal matter. If they return, they can get their rights back instantly with no probation period. Their staff icon will remain on the staff page, and be grayscaled. (ex. Xion4Ever)

*'''Undeclared Inactivity''': A user leaves for an extended period of time without notice or declares inactivity and does not return. This user should be stripped of their rights after 4 months of inactivity, but only after the user has been notified and questioned about their intentions to remain active or retire. If they return, they shall receive a 2 month probation period, where he/she must prove that they are still worthy of holding their powers once more. Their staff icon will be moved to the retired page until after they return and are granted their powers once more. (ex. Troisnyxetienne)

It is encouraged that the users that fall under the first 3 categories put a notice on their userpage/talkpage, but it is not required so long as the community knows.

Things that need be worked out are in red.}}

{{KeybladeSpyMaster|time=04:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)|text=I agree with everything here. The time listed is pretty reasonable, so I don't have much opinion. I think two or three extensions of declared inactivity is reasonable without legitimate excuses. Other than that, I agree with the policy Chain has laid out for us. What do you guys think? I'd especially like to hear from the current site staff, since it's their jobs/titles/powers that we're playing with. I'd like to know especially if this is a feasible and livable policy, or if it's too strict, or even if it's too lenient. Like, it'd be great to just decide like that, but since they're the ones being affected and live this full time, I think their voices need to be heard here.}}

{{Chainoffire|time={{User:Chainoffire/sig}} 05:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)|normal=Another thing I wanted to bring up is for Declared Inactivity and maybe Declared Temporary Retirement. Maybe we could have the staff images remain on the staff page, but have them grayscale and put asterisks by their names and, using the hover template, state whether they're inactive or temporarily retired.}}
{{ANX219|time=15:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)|text=Looks pretty solid to me. I also like the idea of the grayscale images, it sounds like a cool effect to the page. :^)}}

{{TheFifteenthMember|time={{User:TheFifteenthMember/Sig1}} 16:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)|dango=Agreed with everything to this point. We just need the opinions of some staffers before we implement the changes.}}

<small>Currently posting this during a break during band camp...from my phone. </small> I cannot give a full response as both a user and staff member. However, I'm going to throw this out there...I've said it before and I'm saying it again now. At least to me, being a staff member means other things than just editing. We come "to power" by nominations from the community. Those users selected are then discussed among the staff and finally chosen. As I've always seen it, we (staff) are mainly at the mercy/judgment of the community...In a way servants-we are servants of the Wiki. Our main priority is editing, yes, but we also must remember our role in the community.

I just now thought back to when I wasn't a staff member. If the staff had full power to decide what determined them inactive and such, man...We have a good staff here, at least I think so- stepping outside the staff/editor position. Regardless, that is not right. We, staff, should have some say, but the community should be the main voice...Assuming it is reasonable, that is.

So, that's all I'm gonna say. You guys decide. As for what to do to me, you could toss me into the Realm of Darkness for a while. Ha ha. {{User:Xion4ever/Sig}} 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 So, that's all I'm gonna say. You guys decide. As for what to do to me, you could toss me into the Realm of Darkness for a while. Ha ha. {{User:Xion4ever/Sig}} 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
-:I always thought of the staff as a large proportion of the community so we still wanted your opinions. To avoid overlooking some details, it's important that we look from a staffer's perspective and the most qualified people to do that, are the staffers themselves!
-:Anyway, there's been no protest or argument against so I'm sure we're good to implement the changes now (how 'bout that grayscale effect?). {{User:TheFifteenthMember/Sig1}} 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)