Admin Duties Suggestion

[Golden_Void]

I'm thinking perhaps sectioning the administrative duties? We have a whopping 16 admins, a quarter of that amount is bureaucrats, 4 content mods, and 13 discussion mods.

16 admins means that we can evenly create 4 teams of 4 admins, each with a different purpose on the wiki. On a basic level, all admins would be required to perform edits (already implemented).

We can have a group of admins that solely do edits + CRTs/forums, a group that does edits + disciplinary action (searching the site and chat for rule violators, assessing the rule violation thread closely and identifying sock/bad behavior, being more vigilant for edit vandalism, as Ant believes this is a dangerous problem), a group for edits + media management (Rendering images, image requests, versus match addition/removal), and a group that performs edits + wiki projects such as the NarutoForums project, article cleanups, that sort of stuff, and possibly can help organize revision projects for verses.

I think this would promote more efficiency in the wiki, as it would divide up the tasks between admins, leading to smoother and faster operation. It's already basically implemented, as we have admins like Repp , A6 , Darkanine , and Kami who do file/image/image rendering/etc. work, as they have such a tag for the things that they do (with the exception of Rep).

This isn't to suggest however, that this forces people to only fulfill their assign roles, as we know this already doesn't happen, but rather it would promote focus to key areas in the wiki. Of course the non-admin staff can assist wherever they have the permissions to do so.

I spoke to Ant who thought this was a forceful suggestion and would create further unwillingness to work, so I figured I'd bring it up and ask if this is the case.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

This would lead to more efficiency, if everyone had more clearly define roles, of course no has to strictly follow those roles of course.

This is all voluntary and we all have lives outside this site, but if everyone agrees to as we are already doing, volunteer to perform a specific task, which they would like to do, i don't think there is an issue.

Nobody would be forced to anything, it's just based on the admins volunteering to do something. It could be argued that nobody should be forced to volunteer to do anything, that kinda defeats the purpose of their being admins in the first place though, as we are all volunteering to perform specific tasks already, all we would be doing is more clearly defining what those task are.

I see no issue with this.

 

[Ryukama]

I think some further organization of the admin duties would be a great idea and help with the productivity of the site, however as said it shouldn't be done as a forceful obligation. Just a suggestion for staff to focus primarily on what they are best at doing.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I think some further organization of the admin duties would be a great idea and help with the productivity of the site, however as said it shouldn't be done as a forceful obligation. Just a suggestion for staff to focus primarily on what they are best at doing.

^this

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

Ryu sums up my thoughts on this.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Same.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am not sure how to organise this, and there is a major risk that it will strictly lead to any admin assigned a task doing less of other areas, rather than more of the assignment, which would lead to me having to do even more work.

All admins should preferably be willing to help out with edit monitoring, content revision threads, conflict resolution, and enforcing the rules, as stated in all of their recruitment interviews.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I do not appreciate taking this public after I privately rejected the suggestion. I have enough problems to deal with already.

 

[Golden_Void]

You never rejected it. You just said you didn't think forcing people to do certain work on a voluntary hobby would be efficient, which I'm not doing.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, that was a rejection, but perhaps I should have expressed myself better.

 

[Antvasima]

In any case, this could easily lead to chaos in the wiki organisation, so I am extremely reluctant about encouraging this sort of endeavour.

It might be best if we remove the highlight and lock this thread.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

@Ant I am honestly seeing a lack of faith here, a lack of faith that the admins will fulfill their roles.

If we don't have faith in each other that we can all fulfill our roles effectively, then there is nothing we can do about the current issues that we face. And the site will inevitably fall apart.

Whether you overwork yourself or not because you don't have faith that we can help with our duties, nothing will change, you will eventually burn out and we would have to deal with it then, if we don't have faith in each other nothing will improve the situation.

I am not trying to be offend you or anything, but this is how i see it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, but I still do not know how to set up a working organisation for this.

 

[Golden_Void]

• Find out which admins are best suited for each strategic category, minus the ones I've already listed (unless they want to switch or something), and give them a tag like Images Helper, Forums Helper, Violations Team, so on and so forth.

Or

• Create subgroups of the main admin title separated by teams (Images Team, Violations Team, Media team, Projects team, Coding Team (these would also be tags)) etc

As for going about doing the job itself, they should already know what's expected of them, and should work towards completing their tasks as often as possible.

With the way my suggestions are set up, some groups will basically have a smaller workload compared to other groups that require different skill sets, which ultimately puts more emphasis on checking edits, which, as you said, keeps you up for hours that are detrimental to your health.

 

[KamiYasha]

Sounds good, division of labour is a great thing, as long as it's voluntary.

 

[Reppuzan]

I think specialization sounds good, since some Admins are better at things than others.

Cal is obviously better than me at math, but I'm the type who would regurgitate small essays of information onto bare pages.

As stated above, it should be voluntary and not confining, and more of a guide to steer new users towards Admins that would be more helpful to answer questions while also cutting down on the workload for us.

We already have a group for Staff who are good with numbers, so I don't think this will be too controversial.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if it would lead to the rest of the staff cutting down on their workloads, it would still lead to me having to pick up the slack, and I do not have the time and energy to do any more work than I already do.

In addition, this approach would lead to the wiki being increasingly sensitive to single staff members quitting from their positions.

If, on the other hand, it would lead to increased commitment in the assigned areas, and not lessening the contributions in general areas, including content revision threads, it would not be a problem for the wellbeing of the wiki.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I like Rice's second idea of the sub-teams. This is all completely voluntary so if an admin doesn't have the time or drive to perform these tasks, they don't have, but if they can, all the power to them. Quite a few wikis already do this, like the OUAT wiki with the "Images Team" and "Transcripts Team", and they do just fine.

Do we chose what teams we fall into or is that chosen by someone else?

 

[Antvasima]

Also, as people keep reminding me, I am severely overworked already, and do not have the time and energy to properly organise this type of endeavour on top of everything else.

 

[Golden_Void]

Well, if it would lead to the rest of the staff cutting down on their workloads, it would still lead to me having to pick up the slack, and I do not have the time and energy to do any more work than I already do.
In addition, this approach would lead to the wiki being increasingly sensitive to single staff members quitting from their positions.

If, on the other hand, it would lead to increased commitment in the assigned areas, and not lessening the contributions in general areas, including content revision threads, it would not be a problem for the wellbeing of the wiki.

1. It would do the opposite actually. The amount of intensity the admins use in their jobs has always been up to them, but with the way the wiki is set up, all admins would still have the basic responsibility of edits, and with different applications of skills across different groups, some groups of admins would have increased availability to perform edits, on top of having 4 content mods. The forums would have a group of admins, as well as the entire discussion mod team.

2. This is always a possibility no matter how we organize the wiki. The probability of this happening however, is a different story. As long as wiki relationships maintain the good level of health as they've been having, bar personal life issues, I can't see this being an immediate concern.

3. Yes, in a nutshell, this is the goal. :^)

Also you can have Ryu, Azzy, and the admins help relieve the stress of organizing this. I can also help wherever I can. Whenever its best to organize this is fine, there's no immediate rush, plus you're on vacation yourself.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, Reppuzan focused on that this would reduce the workload for kost of the staff, which would be catastrophic both for myself and overall content revision thread resolution.

 

[Golden_Void]

Yes, it would reduce the workload in that every individual admin isn't playing the entire field, but instead each base would be covered by a unique individual, therefore completing the same work at an even, if not faster rate.

 

[Antvasima]

My apologies, but I find it extremely unlikely that 4 admins would be enough to handle all of our many content revision threads. If this discussion leads down that path, we would never get almost anything done.

All admins have a responsibility to help out with edit-monitoring, content revision threads, rule enforcement, and conflict resolution, to the extent that they have time and energy.

However, if this would simply make regular members know who to visit for which type of problem, and organisation into units for certain tasks, I suppose that this could be beneficial, as long as it does not affect the other work.

 

[Golden_Void]

4 admins + 13 other mods for this direct purpose. Not every CRT requires staff presence besides when a conclusion is reached, changes are made, and the thread is locked. It's not like only 4 admins and 4 admins only will be allowed to do the work that they do.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I agree with this suggestion

@Ant, everything is too much work, or too hard. But do you really think that giving the admins the workload of the entire wiki is a good idea? It's not even like it will be much different from now, where there is already apparent specialization between Admins (just that there is no title). This will just make it more clear who is more authoritative for what. Plus maybe it doesn't help that we have made it so that everyone is tii reliant on staff members. We made it so that everyone needs to always go to contact a disproportinately smaller group, who are usually the most busy in life, and this slows up the process far more. This is why the Doctor Who revisions took so long, this is why so many revisions go unnoticed, because our staff are too tasked and overworked on everything, when if they focus on one subject, would be far more efficient.

 

[Antvasima]

@UMR

Well, the content revision threads are understaffed enough as it is in terms of staff members evaluating them, and several of the discussion moderators are mostly inactive, so if most of the admins just decide to leave them hanging, we really would not get almost anything done, so you have potentially started something very dangerous for the wiki here, despite that I told you not to.

That said, again, if the staff simply want to focus more on certain tasks that is fine, but leaving most of the other wiki work undone would be disastrous.

@FanofRPGs

Much of the entire point of having a staff is for the most rational and reliable members to help out with evaluating content revisions. If we let any new members decide what to do without any sort of supervision whatsoever, we would quickly end up with extremely unreliable statistics all over the wiki.

 

[Promestein]

I don't think it'd cause that much issues but I don't think it's really necessary, either. I don't really have much to say

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I don't think it'd cause that much issues but I don't think it's really necessary, either. I don't really have much to say

Pretty much how I feel.

 

[Antvasima]

I should make a note that I have apologised in private to UMR for having a too harsh tone above. I was in a stressed out mood that day.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I am still fine with if the staff wants to organise themselves more. I am just very worried about, for example, if they would suddenly start to ignore helping out with other tasks, such as content revision threads, which have enough problems as it is with being evaluated.