• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

The Vs. Battles Wiki Problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
> We're not going to suddenly start massively deleting profiles or reevaluate every single CRT.

Well, we could delete a fair number of bad profiles. We probably won't, but we definitely could where necessary...
 
I mean, isn't that why the audit group exists?
 
Ideally, yes. But I haven't found a good place to propose the deletion of verses which have been rated as Red, as months later are still in just as bad a spot.
 
Damage3245 said:
Ideally, yes. But I haven't found a good place to propose the deletion of verses which have been rated as Red, as months later are still in just as bad a spot.
Click to expand...
Ideally the wiki audit hub would be the place to post about verses like that. If you want to draw more attention to those verses, you can also contact all supporters/knowledgeable members/editors of the relevant pages. If you want even more notice than that, you could highlight the audit hub thread again.
 
Listen carefully, we have too many staff, but not that many staff at the same time. It's a paradox. We have about 73 staff yet only about 20 (rough estimate) are actually active in "staff areas". The rest might still pop up, but aren't really doing anything as a staff, meaning they hardly post at all anymore.

We can't want someone to have a colored name for the sake of having a colored name. If they aren't contributing to begin with, why are they staff? I understand having limited time, I never suggested staff with limited time retire (and I strongly discourage they do so) because they post enough, and when they do, they are constructive.

People are busy with school/college, job, and family. You can be a part-time staff member, that's completely fine. I'm very much an example. But what's the point of being staff if you literally never post or only do so once every three weeks? Antvasima is still overworked as a result of this.

We're still understaffed as we're overstaffed. We need more part-timers, not someone who only posts when their verse is in jeopardy or peep around the corner when drama surfaces.
 
Like I keep saying, I don't think there's really any way for us to be overstaffed if you approach things from that angle. Using that term seems evocative but not accurate, I don't really like rhetoric like that.

As far as I can tell, you don't think many staff members are inactive to the point where they shouldn't be staff (seemingly drawing the line at consistently only posting every 3 weeks or so), which I don't think covers many staff, and which we already tend to demote staff for (although I think demotion time is more like 3 months than 3 weeks), so even if we are "overstaffed" by that definition we barely are, while the understaffing is a much more relevant issue.
 
No, we are overstaffed. We don't need 70+ staff members as I've explained (value of contributions and trust should not be tied to one's position). That's not debatable. I am not however, calling for the demotion or retirement of those who are inactive or are semi-active. Us being overstaffed is not tied to people's activity, just the fact that we don't need that many staff. Wookiepedia has about six times the amount of pages we do, and is about a mainstream topic unlike our niche one, yet they have 14 staff members.

Your argument only works for my understaffed argument, which in that case fine, we might not be paradoxically understaffed but we're undeniably overstaffed.
 
So I've read through the OP and there's a bunch of stuff I disagree with.

For starters, I disagree with banning high tier obscure verses. Understandably, verses that are essentially fanfics should not be allowed but what about stuff like random mangas or games like Pillars of Eternity. Continuing with the PoE example, I made one profile of it a while back hoping to find a supporter. Months have passed and no one has turned up thus it would be considered obscure even though its a very famous Obsidian RPG IP outside of the wiki. In such a case, obviously the one who created the page ends up as the only "knowledgeable" and in case of CRTs, will end up the only one defending the stats they've placed. On the one hand I can see why the staff would suspect the person of inflating the stats, but on the other it would be extremely irritating that the key decisions to be made during the CRT are at the hands of people who know nothing of the character/verse. Even so, the CRT largely works and stuff, including calcs and statements can indeed be verified so I don't see what's exactly wrong with the status quo. I guess this paragraph is my take on the numbers of pages, stat inflation and CRT system.

About people being crazy over hax, well maybe. But is that really a problem?

As for calc abuse, regular members' opinion doesn't matter anyway. At best you can pass a rule preventing verse supporting calc members from evaluating calcs of their supported verses, if such a rule doesn't already exist. That being said, I can understand if ensuring this proves difficult as not every member is listed on the supporters/opponents section of a verse page.

As for overstaffing, I don't really see a problem. More staff = more likelihood of at least one being present during every minute of the day, to respond to emergencies like troll attacks or take part in the large number of CRTs you've mentioned. The largish number of staff also ensures an even distribution of power while also increasing the range of verses that the staff as a body has knowledge/expertise of. Besides, the inactivity clause exists in the Staff contract to cull the unworthy.

As for the new tier system, no comment cuz my participation doesn't usually go to such high tiers. Same for the Staff vs Community. If a problem exists, I haven't faced it. Although I did see Matt on one occasion drop into a CRT only to post a cynical disagreement comment only to not comment any further when people ask why.

Off topic but where tf did Star Wars get 155k pages from?
 
Banning the calc member just because they like a verse is kind of silly TBH. For starters, they might know more about the verse and how it works and honestly, even those asking for downgrades and disapproving calcs might actually like those verses a lot themselves but want to strive for accuracy over feelings.
 
I hope this is the last time I have to repeat myself: I am not suggesting we delete obscure verses (high tiered or otherwise).

Why is everyone so sensitive? Acting as if I'm coming at their precious obscure/niche verse with an axe. I'm not.

I do however, have a problem with any verse with nearly impossible to verify information (especially due to language barrier). It's why Golovachev was deleted.
 
I also do care, when people who claim to have such logical arguments, only tend to play gatekeeper to their favorite niche verse, but when a highly controversial CRT for a big named verse happens they and their "logical arguments" are nowhere to be found.
 
Just preface the OP in gigantic text that this is a General Discussion thread and not a Wiki Management thread given how weirdly nitpicky and triggered folks are being on here
 
I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting what some people think you're suggesting, so chill out.

Don't we have multilingual members for stuff like that?
 
TacticalNuke002 said:
I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting what some people think you're suggesting, so chill out.
Don't we have multilingual members for stuff like that?
Click to expand...
You: "For starters, I disagree with banning high tier obscure verses."

^This implies that you assume the OP was meaning to suggest that obscure verses should be deleted.
 
Did you read what Sera has also been saying throughout the thread? Or read "Things like the Masadaverse should have nothing more than its translated material accepted for profile creation (Dies irae, not Kajiri Kamui Kagura). Why stop there? Deleting any pages without calculations"

i.e she gives context to what she means.
 
So you think a verse only one or two people are able to actually verify the information (especially when it's an extremely high tier verse) should be allowed?
 
I find people getting sensitive over Sera's viewpoint regarding obscure verses to be the exact reason why they've become part of the site's stat "inflation".

Yes, if a verse is mostly untranslated (keyword: mostly), it has no business being here. This is an English wiki. Most of its viewers either have English as their native language or are obviously proficient in English to some extent (enough to read its articles at least). If the work is translated, that's great, but if not, what business does it have being here? Sera makes perfect points when using Golovachev as an example, a Russian verse of untranslated works that only one (two, counting Sera herself - being proficient in Russian) was able to verify the information. And that verse was extremely high tier and had several Tier 1 and Tier 0s. That's a problem.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and when said evidence can only be provided by a few people - said people not even providing scans but just text (which was a problem Demonbane had some years back), then that's a serious issue that is currently only being ignored to spare feelings. Clearly obscure verses as in those that just aren't really popular are not going to be deleted or banned, even if they are high tier.

There's also the issue of untranslated scans being linked in pages, but that's a bit off topic.
 
The discussion seems to have turned a bit heated here. If anybody feels agitated about this thread, please take some time to relax and calm down before you post again.
 
Anyway, for the record, since I am a very picky perfectionist, we currenty have 67 staff members, or 65 if we consider that Azathoth will remove his bureaucrat position soon and that Dark649 has disappared for several months, so we will likely have to demote him soon. Mine and Promestein's two bot accounts do not count.
 
I must have accidentally counted some guys twice, since some staff are listed more than once (like Kep and Bambu are both admins and calc group). 67 is still too much. Keep in mind that I feel this way because the staff position is mostly meant to serve as a moniker of trust. We certainly do not need this many staff for discussion moderation, mass-editing, or wiki management.

I can see needing as many admins as we do, since we have a history of trolls and raids. But given that admins basically do what discussion mods do plus extra, and given that there's quite the number of admins (yes that includes bureaucrats and consultants) do we need all those discussion mods?

So far, the reason why we have so many staff is because while they each have a different area of focus, a staff position here means "trusted member with weight to their words in a discussion". Rather than "members tasked with a specific wiki management role". There are wikis with far more pages than ours yet have three times less staff than we do. Why is that? I understand we have the largest number of active members of any fandom site, but I feel recognizable blue names with no bad record should be considered as trustworthy as a staff.

I make these very points in the OP. I may have miscounted the number of staff we actually have, but we still have too many. More so than changing the number of staff members, I want to change the mentality that led to why we have this many in the first place. The staff we have now are fine the way they are, otherwise.
 
Well, the staff of other wikis only need to monitor recent edits, and me and the content moderators already handle that part. The problem is that this community both has more than twice as many active members as any other wiki in Fandom and has a lot of discussions to monitor and take part in as well. That demands an awful lot more time and energy in sum total than simply monitoring edits, and also a much more varied expertise given how many different verses/fictions that we feature here.

Meaning, the more staff members that help me out the better as far as I am concerned, as long as they actually try to help out when they can find the time, and also try to be rational, levelheaded, unbiased, and reasonable, i.e. strive for accuracy as much as they are able and also try to keep things orderly and peaceful within this community.

It is a false equivalency to compare us with other wikis when our requirements are much higher and largely very different in order to make this community work properly.
 
You miss her other points. You claim you need as many staff as possible to help you out, yet barely any actually do. We can have over 100 staff members and you will still be as overworked as you are now. That's where the "understaffed" paradox comes from.
 
Yes Ant I just said that. We do have more active members and more discussions but more staff doesn't change that. That doesn't make it a false equivalency to compare to other wikias, not at all.
 
Well, if half of our recruitments turn out to help me out to an acceptable degree and the other half do not, but do not cause any harm, that is still a big win for my worktime.

Anyway, aside from that I would like to give Elizhaa another shot at becoming an administrator and that Dargoo Faust wants to join the calc group, I don't think that there are any potentially urgent promotions that we have to perform in the near future.
 
I can get behind that. Also I do apologize if I'm being too harsh considering your worktime. That's not my intent, and I get it - especially given at how long you've been at this yet still march on, it's perfectly fine to want help.

Side not but, give Elizhaa another shot? He declined the first time around?
 
No problem. I try to soldier on, yes. I also do not have anything more meaningful to do, so organising this place gives me some sort of purpose.

Some of our current staff members thought that Elizhaa wasn't good enough at communication to become an administrator, despite how extremely helpful he is with lots of different tasks, but I think that he has improved in this area, so I would like to ask again.
 
Well, I'm the opposite of her. I'm one of the most messed up people in the entire world. Even people who physically can't hate people have hated me, I'm THAT bad. Good job you don't know me well! xD


I'm mainly just for helping specific threads, that's all.
 
Elizhaa, is this the same as Nedge? The communication is mostly a language barrier
 
Yes. Nedge switched usernames if I remember correctly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
I will be mostly absent for a while
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Random-Helper323
Random-Helper323
AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2 3
Replies
82
Views
9K
SDTaro
SDTaro
O0DSF0o
Suggestion: Epilepsy Warning Template
Replies
2
Views
501
O0DSF0o
O0DSF0o
Rogue_Forge
Wiki Cleanup Project, removal of the "via powerscaling" reasoning
Replies
3
Views
725
Planck69
Planck69
AthelChan
  • Locked
Ban Roblox Verses on the wiki
Replies
30
Views
2K
FinePoint
FinePoint
Back
Top