Likferd wrote: You raise some good points, and I see how this argument could be made for the average wiki. Indeed, the only major differences between VCROC and administrator are access to the admin dashboard and the ability to view and restore deleted articles. But the reason there's such a large divide between these user groups here is because each is tasked with different responsibilities. VCROC is awarded to diligent editors who face obstacles that could be overcome if they had the tools associated with that right. Administrators do much of the same, but emphasis is placed on deletion appeal. Moreover, administrators resolve conflicts between users, investigate site issues, and make sure everything is running in an orderly fashion. In short: VCROC and administrators have similar rights, but admins have additional responsibilities while VCROC are primarily concerned with quality control.
Could we abolish VCROC altogether and have administrators perform all these duties? Well, yeah. But clearly defining what is expected of someone is a good way of making sure work gets done.
No offense Bitter, but you really don't bring any valid points to the table with this.
 Is there another VCROC (too lazy to look right now)? If so, I'm sure I'd be fine with them too.
Aside from me, no. Thiago is running for it but it doesn't seem that his app will pass at this time, while Underscorre should recieve his rights soon.
Honestly, the difference between the two is clear, but in a way, it's also unnecessary and silly. The reason it's currently here is almost basically to decide who would be good for admin, despite the differences, but the people we have there and the people possibly getting it I'm sure would do well with full-on adminship.
TL;DR 
 Support -
Tbh the only reason I said I wasn't comfortable with VCROCs being able to do Deletion Appeal is because some of the past VCROC members have, in my opinion, demonstrated rather poor judgment in regards to quality assessment (G4T0R4D3xEN3RGY being the most recent example I can think of).
As much as I like the sound of having a sort of "pre-admin" right to see how well potential admins perform when given user rights, I think it would be more practical to just not give anyone like that deletion rights in the first place.
Also, I don't really think admins have that much more responsibility than VCROC in all honesty. They're both essentially wiki-janitors in my eyes.
EDIT: changed my mind
Reposting this here because I feel it's relevant.
ImGonnaBeThatGuy wrote:
A week or so ago, I roughly outlined the roles of rights holders:
- Rollbacks should be doing the majority of the editing. Formatting correction, grammar and punctuation fixes. They should also be marking for review and doing Delete Nows and giving valid reasons. To get to VCROC they need to be active and show good judgement in regard to quality.
- VCROC should be doing the majority of QC and deletions. They should also be active editors and reviewers. They need to be active in site matters. Adminship should only be given to people who show good judgement not only in regard to quality but in handling users, site change proposals, be knowledgable of site rules and TOU. Adminship shouldn't be an automatic promotion due to seniority. We don't need a lot of admins.
- Admin should be making sure the site runs smoothly. Answering user question, responding to conflicts, looking into issues. They need to be active in discussions about site issues. They need to help with deletion appeal, as well as doing QC.
That was one nice thing about VCROC, it could, theoretically, divide the labor a little more. Theory and practice, though.
What would happen now is that VCROC gets combined with admin. This essentially means that admins do EVERYTHING.
LOLSKELETONS wrote: Reposting this here because I feel it's relevant.
ImGonnaBeThatGuy wrote:
A week or so ago, I roughly outlined the roles of rights holders:
- Rollbacks should be doing the majority of the editing. Formatting correction, grammar and punctuation fixes. They should also be marking for review and doing Delete Nows and giving valid reasons. To get to VCROC they need to be active and show good judgement in regard to quality.
- VCROC should be doing the majority of QC and deletions. They should also be active editors and reviewers. They need to be active in site matters. Adminship should only be given to people who show good judgement not only in regard to quality but in handling users, site change proposals, be knowledgable of site rules and TOU. Adminship shouldn't be an automatic promotion due to seniority. We don't need a lot of admins.
- Admin should be making sure the site runs smoothly. Answering user question, responding to conflicts, looking into issues. They need to be active in discussions about site issues. They need to help with deletion appeal, as well as doing QC.
That was one nice thing about VCROC, it could, theoretically, divide the labor a little more. Theory and practice, though.
What would happen now is that VCROC gets combined with admin. This essentially means that admins do EVERYTHING.
Yes the admins do everything, that's sort of the point of a System Operator. Having a separate group with nearly identical permissions purely for the purpose of "labor division" is mind bogglingly stupid. Instead of having a completely separate rights groups for this why not just get together and sort of assign each other jobs or specific tasks that they should focus on? It really is that simple to do.
Yes the admins do everything, that's sort of the point of a System Operator. Having a separate group with nearly identical permissions purely for the purpose of "labor division" is mind bogglingly stupid. Instead of having a completely separate rights groups for this why not just get together and sort of assign each other jobs or specific tasks that they should focus on? It really is that simple to do.
I don't really agree that it's stupid. VCROC was a smaller step up from rollback to admin. While some users probably would feel comfortable making that jump, I think it's understandable that others would not. Granted admin is not that big a step up from VCROC, though.
I have to agree with Guy here. But it isn't just labor division. In the past, we've had VCROC who tried to become administrators, but serious flaws came to light before they could. Some examples include G4T0R4D3xEN3RGY, Nommehzombies, and admittedly myself to a lesser degree. And that's just in recent memory. If these users were immediately promoted to admin, there would be a kind of disillusionment with the team as a whole. If we eliminate VCROC and let someone jump from rollback to admin, people we don't really know all that well could end up being terrible investments and reflect poorly on the administration.
Perhaps I'm arguing from tradition, but there is a reason VCROC has been around for so long. It isn't as useless as you think.
Edit: There's also the fact that some people want to help with advanced quality control (e.g., deleting articles), but don't want the burden of being an administrator. User:The Koromo is a good example of this. He apparently had a terrible history as an administrator and doesn't feel comfortable with the prospect of being an admin ever again. He does, however, want to contribute to the site. He'd be a great VCROC in my opinion.
Group rights.
Rollback
- move pages
- mass-undo edits made by a user
VCROC
- + Rollback
- Delete pages
- Edit protected pages
- Protect pages
- Block users
- Unblock users(?)
Administrator
- + VCROC
- Undelete pages
- Edit AbuseFilter
- Edit MediaWiki pages
- Delete forum threads