Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-5590118-20150104162634/@comment-24881871-20150109065125

Steam Phoenix wrote:

It's almost as though you're saying "VCROC should be kept because they have responsibilities!" So does everyone else in a community at large, and as admins we shouldn't be trying to excuse ourselves from everything but deleting a couple of pages and doing a few Deletion Appeals by shoving a majority of the site clean-up onto four or so people.

I have no idea where you got the idea that having a VCROC team is "shoving a majority of the site clean-up onto four or so people." Weren't you trying to make the argument earlier that admins have to do everything?

Steam Phoenix wrote:

We should not assign responsibility to a single user group, because as it goes higher, the more it seems like a vacation. A majority of our rollbacks became inactive, and they didn't do much of jack shit at several points. In this event, with this setup, their responsibilities either go unattended to or get shoved to someone else.

You've built a strawman here. I didn't say a user group should only do certain tasks while neglecting everything else. My point is that emphasis is placed on certain tasks depending on the user group. Administrators, for instance, can revert vandalism when they see it, but that's something rollbacks should be looking out for. Similarly, while quality control is a big part of an administrator's job, they should put a lot of their time into Deletion Appeal since VCROC don't have that ability. So perhaps VCROC do 60-70% of deletions while admins get the rest and do deletion appeal.

Steam Phoenix wrote:

On that note; VCROC almost has made us not precarious enough with who is selected as an administrator (Nommeh, for example). It's not an effective tool in determining a person's value or ethics to the community. A person's value and ethics are an effective tool. It's not about reputation or who has to do what with everything. It's about doing our part. With that, the selection of an admin isn't based around who was the best VCROC - it's based around who can work hardest, figure things out, and actually do things when thrown the ropes. If that's the only reason we have to keep the right, then there's even less reason to keep it.

How has VCROC made us less cautious in regard to whom we promote? That makes no sense whatsoever. We discovered Gator was plagiarist before he had the chance to become an administrator. Nommeh was briefly made an admin, but it was for such a short time there weren't any negative repercussions.

This isn't an address to anything you said on this thread; it's just something extra to think about. You supported my VCROC application, saying that there "wasn't even a question." Yet a few months later when I applied for administrator, you said this:

"'Part of the reason I'm opposing is that adminship is only physically a step up, but our duties and responsibilities matter as well. Our attitude matters.'"

You're really driving home the point that as far as user rights go, there isn't a major difference between VCROC and administrators. But your attitude towards my application reflects the opposite view. If "there's no real difference" as you say, why did you support one and oppose the other?