My understanding behind the current policy is that Staff are by default trusted, but I realise that there's potential for conduct to be overlooked.

The issue at hand: For votes to give staff modtools, there is no opportunity to raise potential issues about the user before the vote starts. This could result in the majority of staff voting yes before someone brings up something damning that would otherwise change the outcome of the vote. As modtools give staff members the ability to permanently affect the site through deletions and editing locked pages, this might result in a modtools user taking nonideal actions that could have otherwise been prevented.

Who does this affect: Staff and anyone with an article that could potentially be deleted

Proposed Solution: All mod tools votes must have a mandatory two-week discussion period beforehand, similar to the promotion policy. All other aspects of the mod tools vote will remain unchanged.

Why the solution is effective: This will allow anyone with potential concerns about the candidates to bring them up before the vote starts. This way staffers will be aware of the concerns before they vote yes.

Potential issues: This will delay staffers getting mod tools by two weeks. I don’t know of any situations where a staff member would need mod tools within an immediate 3 week period, but one might potentially exist.

Discussion Timer: