Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-5590118-20150104162634/@comment-25393922-20150109210419

Likferd wrote:

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? 1. I fail to see where those two arguments conflict. Honestly, admins need to have the better majority of the work - we are the leaders of the community. But this seems like we are trying to put responsibilities onto another group whilst almost shirking our own. How hard is it to make a site proposal, update the rules, make a few deletions, and appeal a couple of deletions when someone doesn't see a problem? It's not that difficult.

2. I never said you did. But as Deletion Appeal is oftentimes taken care of, we aren't exactly spending alot of time doing other things. I may have misunderstood your argument, I will admit. Here's the thing, though: responsibilities compile with rights. As admins, it's our job to take care of the site and improve it - that is the best thing we can do. Rollbacks should be on the look for vandalism, but I don't see them being the ones to block the vandals, which therefore means admins should also keep an eye out.

3. What I'm getting at there is that part of the reason VCROC exists is to see who could be admin. The role itself exists namely for site clean-up - which, imo, is a job for an admin. I'm simply trying to point out that said reason isn't really accurate. On that note, without the VCROC, it would take more care to select administrators because of how big a step it is up - would you have made Simba or Nommeh admins when they were only rollbacks? I wouldn't. But we made them VCROC, which, when you look at it, is pretty well the same thing.

As far as the bottom goes, I can't remember how long ago your app was, nor do I care to look. I know it wasn't that long ago, but since then, I've been thinking about these things, and I've changed alot of what I think about. I would probably oppose any VCROC app for a person who I don't think would be fit for admin nowadays because of how little difference there is between the two. Do I see the future? No, but I can take a good guess on how well someone can do even when they don't have the right. And I do admit, I was wrong when I opposed your app - you've done a good job so far, and you should keep that up.