Important Question: Wiki Opinion on Verse Audits

[Mr. Bambu]

The issue with Earl's ideas are that there's not really any method to actually see if those fit a given person. No data to access.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I have monitored the daily edits for years, so I might be able to help with that part of the screening process, if you suggest candidates to me.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I appreciate the offer, but with Agnaa's ideas that is generally still covered. 1000 edits (or whatever number we set it as that everyone is happy with) proves reasonable knowledge on the site, and the lack of editing warnings means they have experience (hopefully?) with site rules.

 

[CursedGentleman]

Screams for help in Scooby Doo

May be able to help whenever I'm done with Scooby Doo Massively **** all CRTs

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

I have done a shitty job contributing for edits in profiles so I know I am out already .

 

[The_pen_or_the_sword]

On one hand it doesn't seem fair to ant for him to try and screen audit members. While I trust his judgment this feels more like something we should set a base standard for rather then heaving the responsibility onto ant. It also doesn't seem like the benefit would be worth the extra work as in the end if someone seems to bias/inexperienced they can simply be removed from the audit group.

Apologies if this comes across as rude as thats not my intent, I'm simply sharing my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yes, but i was thinking of "people who we actually know". Example i don't monior Bambu, but it's to my knowledge that he is familiar with profile creation for verses like D&D, the player etc.

Similarly Bambu may not monitor me but knows im responsable for creating Getbackers, created a lot of profiles on rakudai and DxD etc.

So not about monitoring, but more about knowledge.

 

[Antvasima]

@Mr. Bambu

By my experience, most of the members with just 1000 edits are beginners who have strictly been active in versus threads. You preferably needs a higher edit count border than that (4000?), as well as some information regarding how skilled they are at editing pages.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

4000 would be fine for me. Like we said, 1000 was just sort of a placeholder.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm fine with asking Ant (or any other recommended staff member who has been actively watching edits for a while) to screen the names of editors. But I'd only want to do so if it seems necessary, as it would both make applicants take longer to get accepted and add to Ant's workload.

Bambu just now echoed my thoughts on using 4000 as a border.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems fine then. It probably wouldn't take long for me to evaluate lists with suggested candidates though. You can send me PMs at fanfiction.net.

 

[Antvasima]

I know that Dark649, Elizhaa, Skalt711, Ogurtsow, and Promestein also tend to help out with monitoring edits btw.

 

[Xulrev]

Per the 1000 edits discussion:

Setting a limit based on numbers and not quality of discussion contribution seems arbitrary. Case in point - me.

It's not a terrible idea on principle, but hell even someone like DT has a severely low edit count for the length of active time they have on-site (5k edits over a two year tenure, compared to say, Wokistan at nearly 20k within a year).

 

[TacticalNuke002]

A lot of people also manage to raise edits via sheer bumping.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

I still think that the suggestion I offered above for selection should be considered.

 

[Andytrenom]

You can use the edit counter page to check the the distribution of edits btw

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Editcount

 

[GojiBoyForever]

How will trustworthy members be selected? I personally think it would be best if both regular members and staff would come together to decide who's worthy.

In case anyone forgot

 

[Agnaa]

How will trustworthy members be selected? I personally think it would be best if both regular members and staff would come together to decide who's worthy.

We considered some voting, at least for bringing non-staff in, but that brings in worries about certain fanbases inserting a person they like in, and if a lot of positions are decided by this it seems prone to drama over people supporting/not supporting certain candidates.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

I see your point, but theoretically that's where staff would come in and also help evaluate the user.

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, I don't really see the point of staff evaluations and voting mixing. People would already be able to "vote" themselves in by applying, and they'd be evaluated just the same.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I have a fairly good grasp of how well regular members have contributed to content revision threads as well, but in that area other staff members frequently also have enough experience to help with evaluations.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Well this method could possibly save more time for people involved.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yeah i believe a overall discussion on choosing the members should be done. So what kind of members i propose are ones that are actually active a lot and are not new to the wiki as long as those members are (preferrably) not staff (cus that would just increase the workload on staff members). So for example people like:

Agnaa, Iapitus (obviously not iapitus as he's been busy with real life lately so he would be unable to do this, but he would be a candiate if he could be active), Steven etc.

So people who have been generally active in both threads and profiles.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Firephoenixearl makes sense to me.

 

[Ogurtsow]

Using the Editcount special page, we can easily reveal which areas someone's edits come from mostly, and who are experienced wiki editors and not just forum debaters. Thus I think 1K edits in the Main Space should be enough for a potential candidate.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that the staff should do the evaluations in private. That way nobody who is rejected has to feel publicly humiliated.

 

[Agnaa]

Using the Editcount special page, we can easily reveal which areas someone's edits come from mostly, and who are experienced wiki editors and not just forum debaters. Thus I think 1K edits in the Main Space should be enough for a potential candidate.

I like this idea but I only have 852 edits on mainspace. Should I recluse myself from actually evaluating this project once everything's set up?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Your choice on that one. I feel like the potential candidates even if rejected won't be as immature as to get mad over it either way. So in that regard i feel like whether we do it here, or the staff privately decides it doesn't really matter. So I will leave that up to your decision @Ant.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

It can be in private if you wish.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that a combination of editing and content revision thread competence should be used as qualifying factors.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Using the Editcount special page, we can easily reveal which areas someone's edits come from mostly, and who are experienced wiki editors and not just forum debaters. Thus I think 1K edits in the Main Space should be enough for a potential candidate.

Can't say i will agree with that tbh. There are many people who have way over 1000 edits in there, but have most of those edits as simple typos or minor clean-ups, while there are also people below 1000 who have created tons of profiles or have caused major profile overhauls.

Another thing i do not agree with is to look only at page edits. People also need knowledge on debates, rules, powers and abilities, standards and more to qualify for this as it would be looking at the profiles as a whole.

So here i agree with Ant that we need to think less about the page edit count, and more about overall competence of the member as a whole including CRT's and other rules and standards. To clean up maybe wrong powers and abilities, calculations etc.

 

[Ogurtsow]

@Agnaa

I actually checked some long-time members' edits and noticed that not so many of them reached that many edits in the Main Space. To formulate the idea better, let's say, a potential candidate must have at least 4K edits over all with at least 5% in the Main Space.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Agnaa
I actually checked some long-time members' edits and noticed that not so many of them reached that many edits in the Main Space. To formulate the idea better, let's say, a potential candidate must have at least 4K edits over all with at least 5% in the Main Space.

Doesn't that invalidate overall edit counts? I mean like that, a user with 4k edits with 500 in main space has more chance to get evaluated than someone with 20k edits with 500 of them in the main space.

 

[The_Impress]

Um, what exactly is main space?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Um, what exactly is main space?

Profile edits.

 

[Agnaa]

Um, what exactly is main space?

The pages that are on the main part of the wiki. Profiles, verses, instruction/policy pages, etc. Pages that contribute to the page count of the wiki.

Message walls, forums, user pages, and discussions aren't included.

 

[The_Impress]

I know this isn't the most quantifiable thing, but shouldn't helping out with CRTs be included too? They're seemingly pretty important as well with profile-related adjustments, so...

 

[Ogurtsow]

@Firephoenixearl

Hmm... Fairly enough. Then let's say 200 edits in the Main Page should be enough. It's just to avoid situations when someone with several dozen thousand overall edits began to edit profiles for the first time doing «dirty edits» (Like turning all internal links into external ones in the Visual Editor due to lack of editing experience).

But yes, it's just one of the criterias. A potential candidate must also provide enough knowledge regarding rules, P&As, CRTs, and so on.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Ogurt

Ok i can agree with it being a set number. 200 seems fine. So my curren vote is 6k in total and 200 in Main Space. So my current criteria votes are:

• 6k edits with 200 in Main Space (Minimum, but could be worked around, as in a member with 190 is still ok if he seems good enough)

• All Rounder - Idk how many will agree with me here, but i believe this is one of the most if not the most important criteria. What i mean by this is, a member shouldn't be strictly focused on one thing (example just debating, or just editing), but rather have experience in all fields of a profile so:

• • Editing - Clean and complex editing experience

• • Calc - Both being active in calc discussions or have made calcs themselves (since the user will be checking the calcs and statistics too)

• • Debates regarding powers and abilities - for obvious reasons

This is to speed up the whole process by choosing people who are well versed in all aspects that we're going to check. These are what i think should be the main criterias.

@Zark

Yes that's why we said "just main space edit is not enough". The general competence of the user is important.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Fire's guidelines seem the most reasonable and realistic from what I've seen so far.