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
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.
The issue is, there's no real difference. Admins were doing a majority of the Quality Control and Deletions. We had literally one VCROC member and one person who could get it, and they've been moved up to adminship.
TL;DR Admins already were doing EVERYTHING.
On that note, there's no real reason for this thread to continue to be up, as the VCROC group right has already been removed. With that, I'm locking this thread.
Shining-Armor wrote: VCROC is literally admin. They have almost all of the power of an admin except they lack the ability to undo what they have done. A VCROC member could cause just as much damage to the site as an admin could and do so just as easily as fundamentally there is almost nothing different. As for VCROC being a stepping stone it gives users a false divide between admin and rollback as there really is no middle ground. A user going from Rollback to VCROC will experience the same shock as someone going from Rollback to Sysop because they are the same thing. Again I think this needs to be said VCROC only lack the ability to undo what they have already done and this is not a good idea.
Once again, I would agree with you for a wiki specializing in basketweaving and what have you. But historically, VCROC and admins have slightly different jobs on this wiki in particular. The undelete feature gives one the ability to do deletion appeal, an additional responsibility that a person may or may not want to do. Moreover, administrators have the ability to close threads and delete comments, which gives them complete control over articles, blogs, and the forums. You can start to see a kind of divide forming; VCROCs are concerned primarily with editing and quality control, while the task of an administrator is of a more bureaucratic nature.
Steam Phoenix wrote: The issue is, there's no real difference. Admins were doing a majority of the Quality Control and Deletions. We had literally one VCROC member and one person who could get it, and they've been moved up to adminship.
TL;DR Admins already were doing EVERYTHING.
That isn't true. Although Gator's contributions were iffy, Veronica and I were reviewing and editing diligently. Veronica apparently wasn't interested in administrator at the time, and Underscorre was gearing up to become VCROC, so a lack of VCROC members wouldn't really be an issue. In fact, with the exception of Empy, the level of VCROC activity actually exceeded that of admin activity for a while.