Editing Forum:Staff Members

{{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 ~~~~ -->
{{Sticky}}

<!--
==Users who support the addition of new staff members and/or administrators==
#[[User:NinjaSheik|NinjaSheik]]
#[[User:LapisScarab|LapisScarab]]
#[[User:Dan da Man36|Dan da Man36]]
#[[User:Xabryn|Xabryn]]
#[[User:Demonic Kunai|Demonic Kunai]]
#[[User:Danjam|Danjam]]
#[[User:LevL|LevL]]
#[[User:Sapharus|Sapharus]]
#{{User:LegoAlchemist/Sig}}
#[[User:Yuffie Kisaragi|The Great Ninja Yuffie!]]
#Cloudfightback
#[[User:JFHavoc|JFHavoc]]
#Riku's Love
'''Voting is closed; please do not add any new votes to this section.'''

==Users who do not support the addition of new staff members and/or administrators==
#<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting">[[User:Ultima The High Seraph|<font color="#1E90FF ">Ult</font>]][[User talk:Ultima The High Seraph|<font color="#000080 ">ima</font>]]</span>
#'''<font face="Trebuchet MS"><span style="background:#3300CC">[[User:Bluerfn|<span style="color:white"><sup>BLUER</sup></span>]]</span>[[User talk:Bluerfn|<span style="color:#CC0011">一番</span>]]</font>''' 18:31, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
#<span>[[User:EternalNothingnessXIII|<font color="black">'''Eternal'''</font>]][[User talk:EternalNothingnessXIII|<font color="darkred">'''Nothingness'''</font>]][[User:EndlessOblivionKH/EO's Jukebox|<font color="dimgray">'''XIII'''</font>]]</span>
#[[User:Azul81677|<font color="#4682B4">Azul</font>]] <sup><small>('''''[[User talk:Azul81677|talk]] ・[[Special:Contributions/Azul81677|contribs]]''''')</small></sup> 23:28, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
#[[User:Super Sword-chucks|<span style="color:#9BCD9B;">'''ダブル・'''</span>]]'''[[User talk:Super Sword-chucks|<span style="color:#B4EEB4;">エス・シー</span>]]''' 23:38, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
#— <span style="font-family:Mistral">[[User:Yuanchosaan|<font color="skyblue">Yuan</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Yuanchosaan|<font color="#00BFFF">Salve!</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Yuanchosaan|<font color="#1E90FF">Acta</font>]]</sub></span> 07:42, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
#--[[User:Otherarrow|Otherarrow]] 09:29, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
#{{User:HeartOfOblivion/Sig}} 13:16, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
#{{User:BebopKate/Sig}} 21:35, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
#--Firaga44 13:37, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
#<font size="3" face="Calligraph421 BT">[[User:MelodiousNature|<span style="color:#C80815">'''Melodious'''</span>]]</font><font size="3" face="Segoe Print">[[User talk:MelodiousNature|<span style="color:#004123">''Nature''</span>]]</font> 02:27, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
#[[User:ZACH|ZACH]] 16:42, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
'''Voting is closed; please do not add any new votes to this section.'''
-->

==Discussion==
{{JFHavoc|time=01:30, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|talk=I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, and after taking a good look at the [[Kingdom Hearts Wiki:Staff|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.

Thoughts?}}

==Thoughts==
{{R&D|time=01:46, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|squall=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|time=07:22, January 3, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}
{{UE|time=02:04, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}
{{NitrousX|text=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.}}
{{LapisScarab|time=02:12, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|inverse=[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.}}
{{neumannz|time=02:33, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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. {{User:KingdomKeyDarkside/Signature}}
{{MM841|15:50, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|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.}}
{{JFHavoc|time=15:55, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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}}
{{MM841|16:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|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.}}
{{Dan da Man36|time=18:23, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|happy=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.}}
{{JFHavoc|time=19:43, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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}}
{{MM841|21:01, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|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 [[User:Uberfuzzy|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.}}
That sounds fair enough. JFH, what is your final say? {{User:ZexionTheGamer/Signature}}
{{JFHavoc|time=21:07, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}
{{MM841|21:18, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|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, [[User:DoorToNothing|these]] [[User:HeartOfOblivion|two]] .}}
I agree fully! I think that would be great for them as they are great editors! {{User:ZexionTheGamer/Signature}}
{{JFHavoc|time=21:52, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|time=22:08, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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?}}
{{JFHavoc|time=22:16, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}
{{EO|time=22:20, March 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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 [[User:NinjaSheik|NinjaSheik]], [[User:Troisnyxetienne|TNE]], [[User:DoorToNothing|DTN]] and [[User:EternalNothingnessXIII|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.{{User:KingdomKeyDarkside/Signature}}
{{LapisScarab|time=00:27, March 26, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}

{{Xion4ever|time=00:35, March 26, 2010 (UTC)|text=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. 

]http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Editcount]}}

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|time=01:22, March 26, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|text=Do any of you know any good canadiates for new staff members?}}
{{JFHavoc|time=02:50, March 26, 2010 (UTC)|text=Just off of the top of my head, ENX, Xion4ever, and even you are all staff worthy in my opinion.}}
{{NinjaSheik|text=Thanks, but does the other staff members think of this?}}
{{DemonicKunai|time=20:42, March 26, 2010 (UTC)|text= I really think ENX should be an admin.}}
{{MM841|21:09, March 26, 2010 (UTC)|Before peopel start saying they want blah blah blah as an admin, please look at their [http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Editcount 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.}}
{{JFHavoc|time=03:58, March 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}{{MC|talk=Aww Man! I was supposed to vote No but looks like I'm too late... I sure am unlucky...}}

==Administrative Input==
{{BebopKate|time=06:58, March 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}
{{JFHavoc|time=07:12, March 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|time=07:16, March 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}
{{DTN|time=07:49, March 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}
{{JFHavoc|time=08:06, March 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|A few things:

1) I would suggest sticking to edit counts in productive areas, because a wikiprincess mod is too much of a risk:
*Mainspace: Articles and Card
*Maintenance: images, categories, templates, mediawiki
*Wiki forum (if possible to segregate): TWTNW

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.}}
{{DTN|time=00:01, March 28, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}
{{Azul|time=20:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)|text=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. <small>ewww that was a disgusting analogy, but whatevs, you get the point lolz</small>

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.}}
{{DTN|time=20:35, March 28, 2010 (UTC)|text=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 [[Forum:Proposed ban policy (IRC)|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.}}
{{LA|Vtext=Hold on a second, I believe it was Xion4ever who said that you have to be a mod first to be an admin. Has this been brought up? Because I agree.}}
{{Bluer|20:06, March 29, 2010 (UTC)|Someone asked for my input, kupo. IMHO, our wiki has been in good standing these past few months, kupo. We've also added new staff members on August last year. I can see our admins being around, kupo, even if they are not readily visible.

Usually, what concerns me most when wanting to give privileges to other users would be when the wiki is under very heavy traffic and is susceptible to major vandalism every single day, kupo. Also, administrators have access to tools that would help make this wiki working, kupo, and so far I haven't seen any discrepancies in maintenance, codings are working and bugs are cleaned up, kupo. 

So far, the ones recently elected as administrators have done, and still is doing a wonderful job and I'm certainly pleased to have them maintaining this wiki alongside our editors, kupo. That being said, kupo, I do not wish to add new staff into the fray, not without a really pressing issue at hand, kupo. I'm sorry, JFHavoc, but this is one where I have to say: not yet,}}
{{DTN|time=22:40, March 29, 2010 (UTC)|text=I have very seldom had to give out warnings in the last few months, Bluerfn, to follow up on that. The wiki ''will'' become a high-traffic site as compared to its current state of traffic once ''Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep'' is released in North America, which should be this summer if Sqaure-Enix follows through with their word. I'm think that would be the best time to add staffers.}}
{{JFHavoc|time=01:32, March 30, 2010 (UTC)|text=DTN, you yourself said that things like staff elections take away from actual editing. We probably want to get new staff members ''before'' we become a high traffic site.}}
{{DTN|time=01:42, March 30, 2010 (UTC)|text=''At least'' two months early is an extreme amount of time; if Nomura pulls another ''Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days'', we may end up waiting five months instead of two months. The effect of a staff election does divert the community's traffic away from the articles, but the effect is peripheral. I apologize if I did not make that clear when I made that statement.}}
{{HOO|time=13:16, March 31, 2010 (UTC)|text=Ok, I'm going to put my two cents in. I don't think we need more admins or mods because we certainly have a lot. Even if they're not present all the time, they can still be contacted. The wiki hasn't been hit with a vandal recently. I feel like we've done this before so I don't want to repeat the same things as everyone else has said. 

I know I haven't been editing here like I usually do but I do have my reasons. Like BebopKate said, I'm staying away mainly for Birth by Sleep spoilers. The other reason is because of school. The major I have requires many hours of practicing and I have other classes to study for as well. This doesn't mean I'm gone forever. I still check in and welcome new members and if any crisis came up that for some reason needed my attention I would try to be as fast as I can in responding or helping. Once school is over for me I will be back here to edit more but until Birth by Sleep is released I won't be here as much. My talk page is still there if anyone needs help with something.}}
{{LevL|time=13:46, March 31, 2010 (UTC)|text=I think we need to know when the voting will be closed. We don't want people to suddenly close the voting when the thing they voted for has one vote more than the other. We need to prevent that.}}
{{BebopKate|time=21:47, March 31, 2010 (UTC)|text=Good point, Levl; how about voting should be closed by Saturday?

This week has allowed me to be a bit more flexible in my time, so I've been checking the wiki more.  And, I'll just say it: there's not been much to do.  I haven't had to revert anything, or block anyone.  I'm still trying to stay away from spoilers, so my edits are small, mostly gnomish in nature.  I've just mostly been doing some spring cleaning in the image and video sections, and that's about it; important yes, but something you'd hardly need a staffer right away for.

Let's face it: until ''Birth by Sleep'' drops over here, it's just going to be quiet, a time of low edits for ''everyone'', especially those of us who are trying to stay spoiler-free.  We had the same issues right before ''358/2 Days'', and we're going to again after we get most of the ''Birth by Sleep'' stuff up, until the next ''Kingdom Hearts'' game drops.  That's one of the problems when you have a wiki that has been pretty much whipped into shape...there's just not a lot for anyone to do.  As for when ''Birth by Sleep'' drops, I think we'll be just fine.  We got through ''358/2 Days'' just fine with this many staffers.  And if we do need staff for some reason, I'm sure we can recruit some fairly quickly.}}
{{LevL|time=19:58, April 1, 2010 (UTC)|text=I agree with BebopKate that Saturday, or maybe Sunday, would be a good time to close the voting. Any other thoughts?}}
{{JFHavoc|time=16:09, April 2, 2010 (UTC)|text=Fine by me.}}
{{JFHavoc|time=17:12, April 3, 2010 (UTC)|text=Well, it's Saturday, according to the vote it's 12 for and 11 against. What happens next?}}
{{LevL|time=18:47, April 5, 2010 (UTC)|text=Indeed, what happens next? I hope somebody will respond this time...}}
{{DemonicKunai|time=20:44, April 5, 2010 (UTC)|text=Yes, are we going to get new Admin or not?}}
{{EO|time=20:46, April 5, 2010 (UTC)|hooded=I do not think only admins should be elected. Promotion to admin opens up slots for future moderators, after all.}}

==Post-vote discussion==
{{BebopKate|time=02:16, April 6, 2010 (UTC)|text=It sounds like some discussion among staff is due, but first, I have a question for those of you who voted "yes": What is the ''single'' most important reason you think we need a new staff member for?  Be '''specific''', please.  Based on those answers, I think that will help us decide if we need to promote a mod, create a new mod, break down staff duties to make sure all points are being hit, or something else.}}

{{MelodiousNature|time=<font size="3" face="Calligraph421 BT">[[User:MelodiousNature|<span style="color:#C80815">'''Melodious'''</span>]]</font><font size="3" face="Segoe Print">[[User talk:MelodiousNature|<span style="color:#004123">''Nature''</span>]]</font> 02:27, April 6, 2010 (UTC)|text=I've been gone for over four months and I've only seen improvement from KHWikia. The wiki has progressed amazingly and is as popular as ever!

I do not believe any additional staff will improve this site any more than it currently is. The current staff (as limited at they are) continue to provide exceptional dedication and help to the wiki and all it's members.  Any competitions to decide more staff would be (in my opinion:

*Cause competition and jealousy along with over-confidence or sadness amongst the chosen members and the other members and would be unneccesary as it would essentially be a waste of time

If there ever came a time where staff were needed (and not wanted) then further debate would have us all agreeing it unanimously but we're split among this decision.

The wiki is stronger than ever and I cannot see any benefit in volunteering further staff on KHWikia. At this moment, the wiki is very well and additional staff will not change this outcome for better or for worse!

P.S. I'm sorry for the Inactivity, Personal Issues and Education took over But I'm Back and Happy to be so!}}
{{NinjaSheik|text=Everything you said was true. However, let's remember the more popular a wikia gets the more it will be vandalism. True, many of us users are here, but we can only give warnings to those vandals. Only the admins can ban, and the only ones I see active the most is KrytenKoro. Everyone else is busy else where.

However, KrytenKoro can't always be here when we're in a pinch. All of you noticed that too as well. A more active and responsible user should be granted with the title administrator.}}
{{LapisScarab|time=02:56, April 6, 2010 (UTC)|text=For me it was mostly about efficiency. With more admins/mods, it will be easier to revert vandalism and solve problems faster than with less admins/mods. You could argue that tossing admin/mod status to a bunch of users could result in other problems, but not if they are handed to trustworthy editors (but I digress, that has been discussed enough above). A lot of the "active" admins and mods simply haven't been active enough in my opinion, which I'm not condemning, since as a different user pointed out some time ago (forget who it was), this is primarily a hobby. That said, if we can get trustworthy admins and mods that are also active contributors, why wouldn't we?}}
{{DTN|time=05:13, April 6, 2010 (UTC)|text=Sorry to bring down the users who voted for new administrators and/or moderators, but I realized that I went about this the wrong way.

If you look early in the discussion, the ineffectivity of elections compared to fact and editing-based selection by staff consensus is judged to be true. I agree with this, but I realized that I contradicted myself and started up a vote. A wiki should not be run by votes; for contests and polls, voting is acceptable, but not in something that can affect the wiki the way that electing possibly improper staffers can. A wiki is run by '''consensus''', ''not'' voting. The discussion that we had was part of the movement toward reaching that consensus, and it seemed that it went, in majority, to not inducting any new administrators or moderators. Furthermore, the vote showed a 12-13 vote. This vote is hardly a decision if it only differs by one vote, especially when most of the votes for new staffers were cast by users who have not made many wiki-beneficial edits themselves, and therefore may not have as much of a resourced and experience-based opinion as an editor who has not only been here longer, but has contributed to the growth of the wiki more, ''as a staffer should''. This is in part reflected in the amount of staffers who do not wish for new staffers to be elected compared to the amount that do.

I do not think that a vote that is so close in its numbers should be valid to judge whether new staff members are to be inducted to the wiki or not. The vote does not show a majority of users wanting to appoint or not appoint new moderators or administrators, and one vote, especially one that was cast ''after the voting was closed'', should not have this large of an impact on the wiki. So, in conclusion, is it really worth satisfying thirteen users, many of which are not active contributors to the wiki, when you are going to go against the likely more often experience-based judgment of twelve users, plus myself, who are active? I most certainly think '''not'''.}}
{{LapisScarab|time=05:21, April 6, 2010 (UTC)|text=It is entierly possible that I just missed someone who answered this, but I'm curious. To the users who don't think we need new staff members, why what is your reason for thinking so? I saw plenty of users comment that the current staff is more active than we think, but wouldn't having more staffers help us to cover more ground? Again, apologies if I missed this further up on the page.}}
{{Danjam|time=5:23, April 6, 2010 (UTC)|baba=I do agree with what DTN is saying, a few of of voters who agree are generally more inexperienced, I, being one of them. At first I thought that hardly any staff members were active, but then like JFH , I realized that we didn't really need any, as they are not editing, ect. but just 'hiding in the shadows'. I would have changed my vote but, the voting was closed when I was about to, so, in conclusion, I agree with other users, that we don't need new staff members.}}
{{LevL|time=05:42, April 6, 2010 (UTC)|text=What is the problem of having new staff members? It can only improve the wiki, as long as those new staff members are active, decent editors. Or am I completely wrong?}}
{{KrytenKoro|I think one to two new admins would be acceptable, if only for this - we have a large backlog of files to be deleted. I delete any spam pages I see, as well as any fanart, but I try to stay away from deleting official images just because they have the wrong licensing or some such. Furthermore, I've not really seen anyone going through and (conservatively) pruning them - we need someone who will try to incorporate the images where reasonable, but delete them whenever they are clutter. That is a lot of work, and honestly, I don't think I would even have time for it for a few months, much less ''want'' to do it.

Plus, if we do promote "certain editors" to admin to handle this, then they can do work directly and won't have to waste time marking the images for deletion in the first place.}}

Okay, so this means we have 14 for no 13 for yes. Make that 15 for no because someone undid my name in the not agree category. Still, we may need 1 or 2 staffers, '''but'''1) we need to make sure a burecrat chooses with '''''NO''''' bribing, and 2) that the person is responsible. I don't disagree with having new staff members, but pretty much all of the current staff members are active, so what is the point? I say do what you want, but remember there isn't really a point, and to keep the voting fair. NO BRIBES! {{User:ZexionTheGamer/Signature}}
{{BebopKate|time=20:41, April 6, 2010 (UTC)|text=Kryten, you make an excellent point.  I've been trying to prune, and I haven't even touched a quarter of what we have to go through.  We also have a pretty horrendous section of videos that need to be gone through as well.  Extra hands are definitely needed there.

What if we we promote two mods to admin for this and to provide better coverage.  What do the rest of you staffers say?}}
{{NinjaSheik|text=I think that's okay.}}
{{MM841|22:07, April 6, 2010 (UTC)|Well, I know I won't be going anywhere near the articles for deletion category again, not after last time <small>''shudders''</small>. I'm all for promoting responsible editors to give us existing admins an extra hand. Who do we look like here, an octopus? Sorry, I trully am sorry.}}
{{DTN|time=23:44, April 6, 2010 (UTC)|text=As always, KrytenKoro makes a good point. I'm glad that you brought this up, KrytenKoro, because it seems that every single one of us had missed it. Even after Ultima The High Seraph hit over 200 images with <small><s>ancient Egyptian laser beams</s></small> deletion, there is still a ton of images. In looking at the logs and special pages form time to time, the amount of untranscluded images there is absolutely copious to the point that it will take the a large amount of time and effort from multiple administrators to clean it out.

BebopKate and I discussed a method of selecting staffers. As I stated above, a decision on a wiki is best made through consensus, ''not'' by vote. Other messages detailing past inductions of new staffers support this claim. However, as I have also stated in a previous message in this thread, it is not in the wiki's best interest to allow just any user to vote, due to the vast demographic amount of WikiPrincesses and low-lying editors. We discussed that the current administrators should select the administrators, and the current moderators should select any additional moderators. However, do we really need any additional moderators? All that a moderator gets is rollback, which is really nothing better than the undo feature. <!--If anything it is more bothersome, because clicking it not only reverts the last edit on the page, but every other edit-in-succession before that by the same user.--> I recall reading a user's message detailing a moderator's ability to not be restricted in the amount of pages they move being unlimited by the server over time, though I know this to be false from experience of moving weapon articles from ''Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days''. In addition, moderators cannot move files, as another user claimed that a moderator can do. The purpose of inducting moderators is to select a user that we think could one day be an administrator on the wiki if ever needed, based on their contributions to the wiki with respect to where their edits are divided among namespaces and their behavior on the wiki. There are a multitude of users who have these qualities, but, pardon my next comments, these users do not always have good habits of reacting to wiki-events properly or have the interpersonal skills to ask for the assistance of other users or assist them in a proper and polite manner. Don't get me wrong, the ''Kingdom Hearts'' Wiki does have an outstanding community of reliable editors with a good work effort, but there are incidents that I have seen<!--and that you have seen as well, don't deny it.--> that a user can overreact to the point of bad representation. I really would not want to select any staff members that don't represent that characteristics of mature and respectful behavior that the ''Kingdom Hearts'' Wiki's staff is supposed to uphold.

In conclusion, I think that current administrators should select the new administrator(s) to be promoted from moderator status. I think that it would be best to hold off on selecting new moderators until the release of ''Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep'', so that we may get a better observation of possible new moderators and that inducting one at this point would have no meaning behind the decision. At that point, I think that the current moderators should select the new moderators, with guiding input from the administrators.}}
{{KrytenKoro|I think when I was promoted, the discussion was on IRC, wasn't it? I think if the current (or at least active) admins could have an IRC chat this weekend, we could get this done.}}
{{BebopKate|time=03:36, April 8, 2010 (UTC)|text=I can do very late Saturday or all-day Sunday.  If nothing else, e-mail is slower, but could work as well.

Let me know if a consensus for a time/day is reached.}}

If you ask me, I think you will be in need of more administrators very soon. --[[User:Anonymous1.0|Anonymous]]
:Saturday night works for me. I'll try to be there at 5:00 PM, but if not, start without me.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 03:47, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
::I'll probably be on all day saturday, just to be on the safe side. <span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting">[[User:Ultima The High Seraph|<font color="#1E90FF ">Ult</font>]][[User talk:Ultima The High Seraph|<font color="#000080 ">ima</font>]]</span> 10:35, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
{{BebopKate|time=03:54, April 10, 2010 (UTC)|text=Saturday is fine, but with the understanding that "very late" means just that.  As in 11:00 PM EST or later, as I have a church project I'm participating in.

If the other staff members are there, go ahead without me.  I'm fairly sure we're all thinking along the same lines anyway.}}
{{MM841|10:29, April 10, 2010 (UTC)|That may prove a problem. The latest I can be on at is around 1:00am GMT. Again, If I'm not there, go on without me.}}

{{GS|time=15:48, April 19, 2010 (UTC)|text=Well, it looks like I've missed a lot.  I'm back if my assistance is still needed.}}
{{maggosh|text=So am I.}}
{{NinjaSheik|happy=You two are always needed! Welcome back, Lord GS! We've missed you so much!}}

== Moderators? ==
{{KrytenKoro|Okay, the bones have been cast, the decision has been made. Should we maybe elect two new moderators to replace them?}}
{{neumannz|time=16:39, April 11, 2010 (UTC)|text=Seems like a smart idea. On the staff page you only have two listed as moderators.<br><small>(You really said "the bones have been cast"?)</small>}}
{{DemonicKunai|time='''<font face=Trebuchet MS color=firebrick>—</font>[[User:Demonic Kunai|<font face=Trebuchet MS color=Darkred>Demonic</font>]][[User talk:Demonic Kunai|<font face=Trebuchet MS color=midnightblue>Kunai</font>]]<sup></sup>''' 17:03, April 11, 2010 (UTC)|text=That's a good Idea.}}
{{DTN|time=17:43, April 11, 2010 (UTC)|text=<center><big><big><big>'''!_!'''</big></big></big></center>

Thanks you so much for the adminship, everyone. I have every single one of you to thank, for your support and for your teamwork-effort!

Also, I have already commented on why I think that we should not appoint new moderators, but in the event that we do, would HeartOfOblivion and I still be able to meet with the other moderators to select the new moderators, since we were to be appointed at such a similar time as to that of when the new moderators were to be inducted? Having two users select two new moderators seems rather... "lonely", for lack of a better word.}}
{{EO|time=20:38, April 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=A huge congratulations to DoorToNothing and HeartofOblivion. I fully agree that new moderators should be appointed.}}
{{Xion4ever|time=21:34, April 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=Indeed, congratulations to both DoorToNothing and HeartofOblivion! ^^

Let us be reminded that electing new moderators not only adds two new users to the staff, but also provides future options for potential adminship (should there ever be a need in the far future). For the moment I agree to adding new moderators.}}

So most people agree on the fact that we need two new mods (including me). But... nobody has said anything about candidates. When do we start with that? {{User:KingdomKeyDarkside/Signature}}
:I believe it was decided that current/old moderators are in charge of selecting the actual moderators.--[[User:Xion4ever|<span style="color:black">''Xion''</span>]][[User talk:Xion4ever|<span style="color:darkred">''4''</span>]][[User:Xion4ever/Atelier|<span style="color:maroon">''ever''</span>]] 00:37, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that's what I thought. {{User:KingdomKeyDarkside/Signature}}
:Current mods ? If this is the case, I have quite a long list of contributors to select, but ultimately, the shortlisting is up to you. How does that sound ? We also need input from Urutapu and the rest of the staff. {{User:Troisnyxetienne/Signature}} 10:12, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

{{Tfwon|text= I agree whith enternal nothingness}}
{{EO|time=19:41, May 5, 2010 (UTC)|shocked=Yeah... when is this being decided, anyways? This, as well as the admin election, should have been/should be a '''community''' decision, not just a staff one.}}
{{TNE|time=06:40, May 6, 2010 (UTC)|blahtext=Agreed, guys. Now, since things have settled down and we're about to await the BBS release, I suggest we have the mod elections IMMEDIATELY when the English version of BBS is released. That way, all the users who were avoiding spoilers - the regular ones, even - will have returned, and we'd be more than ready for our elections. We have a pool of regulars here, so I want this to be challenging, but I don't want anyone to be left out. Thoughts ?

Nomination should be done, say, in the middle of this month (that'd be an ideal time), but we need a closing date.}}
{{DTN|time=06:55, May 6, 2010 (UTC)|text=I still would ''much'' rather have a staff decision or exclusive election<ref>An exclusive election is one in which the community does vote for new moderators, though you must have a certain number of edits ''in productive namespaces'' in order to vote. I think that the current staff does the nominations in such an election, and this prevents creating a moderator out of user that, productive or not, does not display and regularly abide by the ethical characteristics that a model user, or staff member, should follow. Equally important, as KrytenKoro said, "a WikiPrincess mod is too much of a risk."</ref> to decide moderators... which I do not see any point in electing at the moment. However, ''if we are going to have to induct new moderators''<!--Which I am really not wanting to do; seems pointless with so many admins and seemingly no need to open up positions for future admins-->, I would prefer to make the decision in either of these two manners. EternalNothingnessXIII, it was decided in an above section that is was better for the current administrators to select the new administrators, so the giving of administrative functions to HeartOfOblivion and myself was purposefully done the way it was. In addition and ''similarly'', we never decided that we were going to have an election to decide on any additional moderators<!--Nor did the point of moderators being added get anywhere, which I preceived as "not happening".-->. I strongly suggest looking at alternatives.<!--And not electing moderators at all.-->

{{Reflist|1}}
<!--Hidden text is spread throughout my message for further input on why I think we should not elect moderators at all. Please see my above messages as well.-->}}
{{TNE|time=07:04, May 6, 2010 (UTC)|text=Alright, let's get wikiconsensus. Staff alone, as I see it, wouldn't suffice ; we know how to filter the nominations where needed. ''N'est-ce pas ?''

Yes, we know the usual Wikiprincesses, and [[Special:Editcount]] will not suffice to tell the value of another user because we can't gauge what exactly the person did on the wiki : did he help others on user talk pages, or did he use it for socialising ? Did he welcome that many users throughout the course of his editing ? I remember getting messages from unknown people already because I've been part of the Welcoming Committee, so to speak, for a while. We know who's been regular on the Mainspace and who hasn't ; who has been regularly giving suggestions, and who hasn't. If I know the current scrutiny methods aren't going to be enough, then all I need to do is have an overview of what he's been doing. I've been getting close to users more than I "should" be, but it helps me greatly in that I know who has the potential and who hasn't. I'm not going to cite names here, we'll leave that for later (that is to say, when it actually takes place), and the balance of admins over mods is... rather lop-sided, to end it all. Yes, maybe we don't see the need for it, given the amount of people who have sysop status now.

<!--I'm pretty sure that by the end of this statement you can already guess my stance over this whole matter.-->}}
{{JFHavoc|time=17:13, May 10, 2010 (UTC)|text=I don't like this whole secret staff appointment method. Don't take offense to this, but it reminds me of communism. The staff is putting into power who they want in power and the regular user can't even offer up their two-cents. I suppose I can deal with it for admins, but the community should have a say in who is elected moderators. (And yes we definitely need them). Also, edit-counts are too full of variables. (As TNE pointed out). Being a WikiOtter, I'm involved in user talk pages for ''much'' more than fraternization. Even the Main space has variables. I think it should be a plain and simple election that ''everyone'' can be involved in.}}
{{KrytenKoro|We did try a pure democratic approach last time, and it was pretty much a mess.

Also, to be accurate, it's much more like a democratic republic. Or, to be even more accurate, it's like a democratic republic which elects janitors.}}
{{neumannz|time=19:04, May 10, 2010 (UTC)|text=Well, if you're gonna nominate some new justices for the Supreme Court of... janitors... you may as well have an open discussion, even if the final confirmation falls to the current... um, Janitor Congresspersons.}}
{{Xion4ever|time=21:55, May 10, 2010 (UTC)|text=A proposition for nominating/electing new moderators (should we decide to do so):

Judging by voting methods from [[Forum:New Staff|the last staff member election]] and the beginning problems from [http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:Petition:_More_Ops_on_IRC&t=20091024155527 the last channel operator discussion] its clear that past voting methods didn't work out. To include both opinion from the community and staffers what about this method (similar to the one I posted about the Op election)- To prevent the "nomination" process from turning into an actual voting session, and to make sure people don't vote for their friends (I'm sure some users will if the election is ran similar to the last staff election). Why not just create a master list contaning a list of users who would be cut out for the job? Each user would only have one "vote." The master list would be users chosen by the community who they think would be suitable moderators. After the master list is completed, staff members elect the actual moderators from the master list. Think of this as a semi-compromise, the community gets input in "voting" by selecting the users eligible for moderator position while the staff members have the final say. To continue, by using this proposed plan, staff members wouldn't be able to pick/choose users immediately without community discussion.

This is just an idea, but I think it would fix this voting problem. We don't want to make a user an moderator just because they had alot of votes from friends. We want a user(s) to become an moderator to help out on the wiki.

On the topic of wiki-princesses, otters, and so on: 

First, there is a fine line between being a wiki-otter and a wiki-princess. Don't confuse casual conversation as helping someone; although we all need a good listener/friend to talk to, casual conversation on talkpages spam the recent changes and increase a users edits for the wrong reasons. Although a conversation between friends is healthful and good emotionally, physically (wiki-wise), it rarely does good. The edit count gives an overall summary of the users edits, that is true. However, we [the community] know which users are wiki-princesses and wiki-otters, those who edit mainspace/templates/wiki-discussions/etc. and those who spam talkpages constantly. Those who claim they help out in talkpages more than casual conversation <small>(which mostly belongs on the IRC channel)</small> are known and acknowledged. 

To continue about the edit count page: 

Quality over quantity. You could have twenty five edits on talkpage and twenty edits on the mainspace, although the number of talkpage edits outnumber those from the mainspace, those twenty edits could be created/re-constructed pages, uploads, categorization, etc. Regardless of the edit count, if a user has a lot of good, high quality edits on the mainspace and a '''few''' edits on a talkpage they don't deserve to be ignored. However, this doesn't mean elect a user who has one hundred high quality/good edits and three hundred talkpage edits. Although they might help out on talkpages, the mainspace edits should be considered first.}}
{{TNE|time=01:23, May 11, 2010 (UTC)|text=To add on to quality over quantity, I personally believe that a careful observation should be done on the potential candidate. A person with high template edit count would probably be picked if he's the type to develop navigation templates and whatnot, but he wouldn't be picked if the only thing he modified was his talk bubble. Stuff like that. The same goes for talk pages, userspace, forums and user talk pages. As always, mainspace takes priority, but the Editcount shouldn't be used as the only source to determine if someone's worthy of standing up to it.

Yes, when I was elected, I had fewer mainspace edits than Ultima and GS (I think), but it was enough to go past the threshold which was then required to become a mod.}}
{{DTN|time=01:57, May 11, 2010 (UTC)|text=No, JFHavoc, staff selection is not communism. <!--Unless if we all were to get togethether next Halloween with our Hitler moustaches ready-to-go, then there might be something sketchy.--> Communism is defined as a political organization or system in which the central power belongs to one cohort or group of people with a common political preference (political party). The staff is not a political party, nor are we the only power on the wiki, or evidently in this election since the community persists on posting their opinions of how this should be done.

In contrast, to take a page out of SovietFFWiki's book, completely staff-based election has not had negative or undesired results in the past on this wiki. For example, the staff selected KrytenKoro to become a moderator, which later led to him becoming an administrator<!--And we all know that KrytenKoro is one heck of a good administrator. Good KrytenKoro. Biscuit.-->. BebopKate was also<!--I think--> selected to become an administrator by the current administrators at the time of her appointment.

In conclusion, Xion4ever proposes a good compromise. I really do not want this to be an open election, but I also do not want the entire community upset because they could not rally for User X to become a moderator. However, this must be taken into consideration: in an open election, anyone can vote. "Anyone" heavily consists of a large proportion of WikiPrincesses that ''will most likely'' cause the distribution of votes to go to users who are more social than beneficial to the wiki. I think this is too much of a risk to even try, so staff selection seems to be the most appropriate choice.

Also, I agree with KrytenKoro. The last open election was almost chaos. The whole thing was very unorganized and was indeed influenced by, what I can identify as, WikiPrincesses.}}
{{KrytenKoro|Okay, the first question is: Is everyone in agreement about electing two (2) new mods?

I personally think a completely democratic-republican setup could work best and satisfy everyone, so after the first answer is determined, I think a simple requirement is for the community to select, let's say, six (6) candidates from [[Special:Top/community]]. All of these editors have shown that they are, at the least, going to stick around. Nominators should take care to consider the nominees history with unglamorous work - that's the main duty of an admin or mod, really. Look for someone who's already doing the background work, and could use the extra abilities to work even faster.

Finally, since more than half of our admins have retired, it might be worth redoing this whole process later this summer, since this ''is'' such a large wiki.}}
{{JFHavoc|time=02:12, May 11, 2010 (UTC)|text=I agree with Kryten ^_^}}
{{TNE|time=02:32, May 11, 2010 (UTC)|text=I'm with you on this one !

I agree that sometimes, therre are are risks to be taken, we get into the process of selection that we'll know how to deal with them, ''n'est-ce pas'' ?}}