Forum:Staff Discussion

Forums: Index > The Labyrinth of Time > Staff Discussion

		Deadlyslashsword - +It takes disaster to learn a lesson, but you're going to make it through the darkest nights+ TALK - 20:35, December 28, 2010 (UTC) - Some people betray and cause treason...we're gonna make everything alright.
		The topic of having a discussion about how our staff works has been a recurring topic, at least on IRC, for awhile now, and a couple of users wanted an open forum for staff and non-staff alike just to have a general discussion about it. Below is a list of topics that have been brought up, but feel free to discuss whatever topics you feel are pertinent. Do we need another Bureaucrat? Do we need more active Bureacrats? What is to be done, if anything, about inactive staff? Do staff members who have been inactive for a long while still deserve staff rights? How long a period of inactivity would be reasonable? Do we weigh the period of inactivity against the conributions that garnerned them staff rights in the first place? Which holds more weight, the contributions, or the inactivity? Do we take into account how they got their staff rights? Is it wrong to strip staff of their rights if it has been determined that they no longer contribute? Moderators: A reward, or a necessity? Are there current editors who deserve modship? Will they be witheld this position because we're overflowing with inactive staff? At what point will the contributions of the current editors be considered greater than the contributions of current inactive staff? What traits make up a good moderator, and in turn, admin? Is it merely gaining a massive amounts of edits in a short amount of time, or is it more than that? Should staff also be active in the community, and active in general? Is it important for candidates for moderator to have been here awhile, and have good knowledge of not only how we work, but who works here, since mods may in the future be candidates to replace inactive admins? I hope no member of the staff feel offended at this, for this is not a critique of how you do your job. This is merely a discussion that will hopefully promote a more active and helpful staff that will be better able to serve the community.

Discussion about Bureaucrats

		DoorToNothing - You do not yet know... what lies beyond the door. TALK - Remember, you are the one who will open the door to the light.
		In response to bullet 1: The only purpose you should have for adding another bureaucrat is if the one or two that currently exist are becoming difficult to reach even by off-wiki communication, or if they have shirked the responsibility complete. To expand on the latter, if the bureaucrats get the updates to user rights done a week or two late, that's generally an indicator you may want to consider moving an admin up.

		Bluestarultor - Blue Psychic Best-of Stellar Arena TALK - 21:32, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
		I personally think having more crats is a good thing. We currently only have, what, two? And I can't even recall the last time I saw Crazyswordsman. Diablocon has been around recently, but I think we need to distribute the load more. I'd say we could use an addition at this point, because Diablo doesn't seem all that active and aside from that, there should always be at least one real backup anyway.

		Yuan 翠珊 — 22:30, December 28, 2010 (UTC) "He wants to write a love song / An anthem of forgiving / A manual for living with defeat"
		No. The only difference between bureaucrats and admins is that the former can make new staff members. Since Diablo can still be reached easily, there's no need to make a new one for that purpose.

		8bit BlackMage - Beyond the Sky TALK - Why do chemists call helium, curium, and barium 'the medical elements'? Because, if you can't 'helium' or 'curium', you... um... ._.; - 23:45, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
		^ This, there have been no administrator nominations recently that would require a bureaucrat.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff25/bluerfn/occu-27.png

		Ser Blue says at 01:28, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
		Agreed. Plus, most of the elected admins are keeping to their responsibilities .

Discussion about Inactive Staff

		DoorToNothing - You do not yet know... what lies beyond the door. TALK - Remember, you are the one who will open the door to the light.
		In response to bullet 2: No, no, no. My belief is that one is given special user rights, both admins and mods, for an incredible amount of work they have done that separates the excellence of their work ethic from the rest of the community. To strip a user of that right is to ignore their contributions to the wiki and deny them what they have earned. Relinquishing a user of the rights simply for being gone puts that user, who may have put several thousands of edits into making this wiki great, back into the same category as the WikiPrincesses that they certainly cannot be called. Also, an inactive admin may seem gone, but remember that they can return at any time they so choose, and if they do, should still receive the recognition of their efforts on the wiki and retain their abilities.

		Armageddon11 - Sind Sie das Essen? Nein, wir sind der Jäger! TALK - 21:27, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
		A major difference between the positions of mod and admin: modship is usually described as being a medal given to exceptional contributors to the wiki. Since the position holds little actual power, this is fitting. Admins, however, are promoted at the need of the wiki, not the individual. If another admin/s is needed for the good of the wiki, they will be chosen out of the mods considered appropriate for the position. But a reverse of that logic is that if an admin is no longer active or needed, they could potentially be relieved of their higher privileges. Think of it kind of like this, a member of a parliament would lose their chair if the public is not convinced they are satisfactorily doing their job (I think in some layouts you can also only be a PM for a certain amount of time), but a war veteran will keep any medals they gain for their service for the rest of their lives. I'm not outright supporting the demotion of staff members, and there are of course questions about whether it would be practical (no one is saying deciding which mod is most suited to being made an admin is easy). Still, just some of my thoughts on the matter.

		Bluestarultor - Blue Psychic Best-of Stellar Arena TALK - 21:59, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
		Quite frankly, I hold the opinion that inactive staff are not doing their job and their slots should be freed up for more active members. Talk all you like about modship being a special medal of recognition, but the fact of the matter is they also have additional powers not available to other people. I myself would love to have rollback ability at times. It's a useful power. The thing is that giving it to active members is fine, but if they go inactive, it's wasted. Admins that go inactive especially should be demoted. That's a lot of power to have sitting around. This is nothing against the people in those positions currently. If they hadn't at one point deserved them, they'd never have been promoted. But the question is really whether they continue to deserve them. I'm an editor at another site and always worry I don't edit enough. I'd hate to lose my staff position, but I know if I do, it'll be my own fault. I have responsibilities I need to take care of, and if I don't, they have every right to find someone who will. The same goes here. If you have limited slots, giving those slots to people who will use them is important.

http://i790.photobucket.com/albums/yy181/ScatheMote/AnotherSmug.png

		ScatheMote - 22:27, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
		We should not remove staff positions from inactive users unless they request it. There aren't a set amount of positions; if we make more mods, admins, or bureaucrats, the positions won't disappear. Users should be remembered for the contributions that they made to the wiki; stripping them of their power does exactly the opposite. As a mod, the title is really just for recognition; we seem to oftentimes forget that on this wiki and almost never promote users. I and Jeppo were the last two mods promoted; this happened last January, which is almost a year ago. Stripping inactive mods of their power is similar to denying they and their contributions never existed.

		Yuan 翠珊 — 22:37, December 28, 2010 (UTC) "He wants to write a love song / An anthem of forgiving / A manual for living with defeat"
		No. The number of inactive staff doesn't affect whether new staff members will be promoted, so there is absolutely no gain from stripping them of their titles. We acknowledge what they've done on the wiki, which barring mass deletion, won't disappear. You'd also have to decide when a user would be considered inactive. Several months with a few edits? A year with none? Sometimes users come back after they've supposedly left (Bluer and Hecko, for example). Others still patrol the RC occasionally despite not being active editors. If they keep their powers, that's another patroller and janitor for the wiki. If they lose them, nothing is gained, and something will be lost. Likewise, I would support new, deserving moderators regardless of the number of inactive staff.

		Deadlyslashsword - +It takes disaster to learn a lesson, but you're going to make it through the darkest nights+ TALK - 22:45, December 28, 2010 (UTC) - Some people betray and cause treason...we're gonna make everything alright.
		The last time we had this dicussion (which was awhile back) the excuse was that we don't need anymore mods. If the title is more for recognition than for power, and there are no slots, what's the harm in promoting more? Also, I believe Faethin was planning on restructuring the Staff page to discern greater the difference between the active and inactive. Fae set the bar at 4 months with no activity as being "inactive". Besides that, I agree completely with BSU. As long as they're listed on the staff page for being staff at one point, I see no wrong with stripping the inactive of their position, and, by chance they come back, we can always restore it.

		Yuan 翠珊 — 22:52, December 28, 2010 (UTC) "He wants to write a love song / An anthem of forgiving / A manual for living with defeat"
		If you strip them and decide to give them back later, that simply means more work for the bureaucrat. Again, you're not gaining anything at all by stripping users who worked hard for their title. Why do it? The justification was we had enough active mods, and no deserving nominees put forth (Henry, Scathe, Jeppo and Xenomic were promoted around that time, weren't they?). We don't promote people willy-nilly because it cheapens the title. The crux of it is that we don't promote staff just to promote staff. If you want a new staff member, you'll have to nominate a person. A brief addendum: I want to say that sometimes, stuff happens which is beyond anyone's control. Your house burns down. You have final exams, a new job, and a new boyfriend. You need to travel to another country for medical treatment, and you have no internet access. Your computer breaks down, repeatedly. All these have happened to staff members in the past, but everyone came back - even if it took a while. They all intended to return to the wiki. Imagine the confusion and disappointment they would feel if they weren't able to help the wiki to the extent they had before, simply because, sometimes, real life gets in the way.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff25/bluerfn/occu-27.png

		Ser Blue says at 01:41, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
		No. Stripping inactive staff of their user rights is a pointless exercise. Unless requested, as yours truly did, users can simply choose to logoff the wiki. Stripping user rights should, IMHO, be made if the user has substantially caused intentional damage to the wiki database ie vandalism to the mainspace, and other reasons that wikis such as Wikipedia or Wikia wikis deem fit as cause for user right stripping.

TacticAngel TALK 06:18, December 29, 2010 (UTC) I would have to agree with Yuan on all points in this case. Perhaps it is a sentimental thing, but I knew a lot of those people, and the Wiki wouldn't be here for you if it wasn't for them. There was a time when there, literally, were only 3 or 4 of us really doing anything... plus, who really thinks they're going to come back here and do something awful?

		Deadlyslashsword - +It takes disaster to learn a lesson, but you're going to make it through the darkest nights+ TALK - 07:20, December 29, 2010 (UTC) - Some people betray and cause treason...we're gonna make everything alright.
		Who really thinks they're going to come back at all?

I say we place all the permanently inactive users (e.g. ILHI) in the acknowledgments while they maintain their staff status and have new mods replace those seats. Digitopolis 08:15, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Some Color Mage / Talk Contribs / / 09:49, December 29, 2010 (UTC) You're implying there is such a thing as a vacant seat. This isn't the case, there are as few or as many positions available as the staff wants.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff25/bluerfn/occu-27.png

		Ser Blue says at 11:58, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
		And I agree wholeheartedly to TA, who is also one of the significant founders and oldest contributors to this great wiki. Most of the inactive staff of now built this wiki for us. I didn't mean to imply that they'll come back and vandalize, because I know for certain and without a doubt that they are the best of staff you'd ever want for a wiki.

Discussion about Moderators

		DoorToNothing - You do not yet know... what lies beyond the door. TALK - Remember, you are the one who will open the door to the light.
		In response to bullets 3 and 4: Moderators, as well all know, cannot delete articles, block users, or protect pages, the three most important jobs of a staffer that all happen to be administrative tools. Moderators are certainly not "necessary," but it does reflect the great work ethic and plethora of active contributors in the "workforce" of the wiki. I cannot say that I know anyone who would be fit to become a moderator because that I have not made this wiki my home wiki. Also, if the contributions of the current editors become greater than the current or departed, just move up the greater workers, but do not demote any staff members. See bullet #2. Too often it is thought that the higher the edit count or mainspace edits, the better the user and all the more reason they should be on a wiki's staff. This is not in the slightest bit true. While it is very important that candidates for a new moderator or administrator are active and editing the wiki's important database namespaces, the prospective user must also have good skills in communication and holding responsibility. For the former, the ideal staff member, particularly an admin in this case, will be able to convey points without getting a hot head, blowing up at a specific user, and can agree to compromise, basically that their opinion is not ultimate and is always subject to change at the discretion of the community. To expand, there are other points of non-staff responsibility on the wiki: the news, the Colosseum, the forums, etc. Non-staffers who are running these points of interest are already showing their ability to handle a part of the wiki, so if that user becomes a possible moderator or administrator, these are ideal places on the wiki to observe the history of, showing the user's experience with handling large responsibility.

		Yuan 翠珊 — 22:46, December 28, 2010 (UTC) "He wants to write a love song / An anthem of forgiving / A manual for living with defeat"
		The qualities we look for are: Activity on the wiki. This isn't just edit count, but their willingness to work, their breadth of contribution (namespaces, topics), frequency of edits, and what they focus on. Familiarity with wiki policy and coding. An admin is able to help other users if they need advice on either of these issues, and comment on discussions about them. They may also be required to edit code-heavy MediaWiki pages. Experience. We tend to wait a while before promoting users, as short bursts of great activity often resolve in lengthy wikibreaks afterwards. Furthermore, experience garners the above-mentioned familiarity with wiki policy and coding, and has the added benefit of allowing the user to know how to discuss with the community. Attitude and community. An admin must be familiar with the community, and get on well with them. I stress that the promotion to admin is a sign of respect from the community, not one which will start garnering respect for the user. A nominee must obey the rules of the wiki, and remain polite and helpful. Strive to communicate as clearly as you can. Arrogance, biting newbies, and falling back on personal attacks will diminish your chances severely. All these, but less so, for the moderators. The first tends to take precedence in the case of modship.

		Bluestarultor - Blue Psychic Best-of Stellar Arena TALK - 22:59, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
		EDIT CONFLICT: In no particular order, I think that edit count is a good indicator of activity for a moderator, and activity is fine for a mod. Responsibility would be even nicer, but activity, so long as it's all in good faith and hasn't caused problems, suits the power that modship offers. That said, what's good enough for a mod is not good enough on its own for an admin. In that case, responsibility and an ability to work with others become much more important. They're highly preferable for a mod, since people do look to them for help, but for an admin, those qualities regulate the image of the wiki. I'll go so far as to say that there are people around here who deserve to be admins who may not deserve to be mods. A frantic edit count might actually hurt one's qualifications for an admin position, because first off, if you get a WikiCat, that provides them with an easy way to get one step closer through modship. Second off, with that kind of behavior, you have to question their impulsiveness. Making many small, less-than-constructive changes doesn't say much for one's ability to handle a situation logically or have a thick skin. I'll come right out and say I've personally been shocked by some of the interactions between members of the staff and some of the staff's poor people skills. And it's not just any one person. I've seen multiple instances of various staff getting nasty. And by nasty, I don't mean just abrasive or blunt or snarky. I mean saying things that are just unnecessary and discouraging. The higher up on the ladder you get, the more important it is to avoid that. To finish this off, all staff should be picked for their overall contributions to the wiki, not just mainspace edits. Part of that is mainspace edits, but it also should include their willingness to be helpful on the whole, with people, too, in talk pages, and any shows of responsibility they might have regardless of namespace. And, again, they need to stick around. Again, activity indicates this, but it need not be frantic edits.

		Yuan 翠珊 — 23:37, December 28, 2010 (UTC) "He wants to write a love song / An anthem of forgiving / A manual for living with defeat"
		A quick example to go with my last post: Xenomic has certainly made enough contributions to be an admin, if the community decided we needed one, but he doesn't have a great deal of familiarity with wiki coding or policy. Nonetheless, I'd vouch for him if he were nominated. The conditions are flexible.

Comments

		DrakeyC - Crossing the distant night...Wandering the desert sea...The gods' voices are mirages... TALK - 08:23, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
		I'm of the opinion we don't need anymore staff at the moment. Moderators can move multiple pages at a time and move files to new names, how often are these skills actually needed? Sure we get the occasional new guy who uploads File 7gHJrewhew526 or whatever, and once every couple months some vandal will go on a moving spree, but it's rare. Besides as it has been pointed out there's no set limit to how many Mods there can be so we don't need to remove the powers from anyone. Admins can protect and delete pages and block users, tasks which are needed more readily. However we have Bluer, Fae, Yuan and 8Bit around all the time, if we need anything done by one of them they're easy to reach, at least one of them (usually Fae and Yuan) is on the IRC most of the time. As for B-crats, all they do that Admins can't is promote new staff members, and Diablo is readily reachable if we decide we need that.

i think drake should be admin becaus he has the most edit on the wiki also their should be new moderators because all of them are inctive an their are more deserving people like jim cloud sorcerer nobody and deadly slashsword and leon95 who have more edits than lots of staff users