• 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.

Authorised staff evaluations of content revision threads

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizhaa

Elizhaa

VS Battles
Administrator
15,970
8,185
Currently from Site Rules, Advice to the staff of the VS Battles wiki, Editing Rules, and Discussion Rules:

  • Before making sweeping or significant changes to an established and/or popular character or verse, please make a thread in the Content Revision forum first, so that the suggestions may be evaluated by the Staff and the community at large, to ensure that they are acceptable.
I believe there is a lack of specification on staffs evaluation is important that cause my CRT to be accepted.

The thing is only Administrators and Discussion Moderators are charge of CRT evaluation resolution from their respective page.

  • Monitoring important threads, and contributing to resolving them. Important threads include:
So, my solution is to add a text that mentioned only Administrators and Discussion Moderators can resolve Content Revision to these pages: Site Rules, Advice to the staff of the VS Battles wiki, Editing Rules, and Discussion Rules
 
This is accurate, yes. I mean no offense, but only administrators and discussion moderators are supposed to be authorised to evaluate content revision discussions, whereas content moderators are enlisted to help out with keeping our profile pages in good condition, both grammatically and structurally.
 
I take no offense and I now participate as a Knowledgeable members or supporters of series in threads. I think the issue is also applicable to others type staffs as well.
 
Yes, other staff members are still very welcome to help out of course, but they are not supposed to inherently have the authority to evaluate and clear any types of content revision discussions for practical application.
 
Hmmm. Honestly, I'm neutral about this one. This change would increase the staff's workload, but with the recent staff appointment, I don't see any problem with it. Well, aside from the potential approval minor slowdown. For the image CRTs users can ask image helpers for opinion, they should obviously not be in charge of image CRT evaluation though.
 
I suppose this does make sense. Though I would imagine that content mods might have to be involved in the process somewhat just to make sure the changes agreed upon in any given CRT are applied appropriately.
 
Yeah, what Elizhaa and Crabwhale propose make perfect sense to me.
 
Crabwhale said:
I suppose this does make sense. Though I would imagine that content mods might have to be involved in the process somewhat just to make sure the changes agreed upon in any given CRT are applied appropriately.
Click to expand...
The intended point is that content moderators are promoted for entirely different reasons than to evaluate content revision threads. As such, they can help out with them like normal members do if they wish, but are not authorised to evaluate and clear them for application.

Their help is always welcome with applying the agreed upon results though.
 
I thought that was basically what Crabwhale said, Ant, but okay.
 
Yes, that is true. Sorry. I am just making sure.
 
Well, I'm not sure if I like the idea of only admins and discussion mods being able to okay changes but it does make sense, different duties and criterias for selection and all.

I'm okay with this.
 
I'm fine with this too, but imo in non-popular verses other staff or knowledgeable members would probably be fine? It takes me ages to wait for an admin or a discussion mod just for a simple revision.
 
In all honesty I feel like knowledgeables should take precedence over random staff who may or may not know the verse. It's one thing for me to evaluate, say, Destiny threads, since I'm both a discussion mod and a knowledgeable, but I don't think it would make sense for me to take precedence ovesr knowledgeables wuth some random obscure anime I've never heard of, for instance.
 
Revisions for non-popular verses can sometimes have less strict requirements, yes, but you should still preferably always ask administrators and/or discussion moderators to help out with evaluating them.
 
@Wok Problem is pretty much anyone can add themselves to the knowledgeable members so using that to determined someone's authority isn't a good idea.

In cases where you aren't knowledgeable you would just have to ask for proper scans and texts and evidence
 
Not strictly the list, as we all know some people have more basis to be there than others. There are definitely people who've over timr proved their aptitude with specific verses and have demonstrated their knowledge with actual proof and good arguments, and i don't think that them not being staff should really impede their ability to do such.

Basically I'm saying I'd trust I dunno say LazyHunter more with To Aru than someone like me.
 
LazyHunter has repeatedly declined a staff position though, and we generally try to recruit people like him.

Anyway, it is still safest to stick with procedure and have a staff member give a thumbs up for the revisions of knowledgeable members.
 
I agree with @Andytrenom's point from Knowledgeable Members because anyone can add them self to the list and not everyone can be authority like administrators and/or discussion moderators. Scans and link evidneces also help and yiled better result in my opinions.

The issue with the Knowledge Members can probably be resolved if the Knowledgeable Members List page was admin-protected and users have to give valid reasonings why they are are knowledgeable of respective series to staffs like Administrators- this is what I have done for most of series I am knowledgeable about; this a topic is likely for another thread, I believe.
 
The knowledgeable members list should not be admin-protected, as the point with it is mainly to more easily find members to ask to participate in content revision threads.
 
I'm inclined to agree with Wokistan, to a point. I believe that some knowledgeable members should be contacted to verify the legitimacy of certain revisions, preferably ones that have a reputation for being knowledgeable on the appropriate verse, in case there are certain aspects that were ignored or blown out of proportion.

That being said, discussion mods and admins should still take precedence on making sure CRTs are handled properly and applied correctly.
 
Antvasima said:
The knowledgeable members list should not be admin-protected, as the point with it is mainly to more easily find members to ask to participate in content revision threads.
Click to expand...
Definitely. We are not that strict to completely protect this list. The members should be free to add themselves to the list if they are sure that they can provide immense knowledge about the verse. Not only that, verifying their knowledge would require significant staff resources.
 
I agree with @Starter Pack's points towards knowledgeable members.

@Antvasima, noted.
 
@Wok Yeah but unless someone has some kind of official position for being able to evaluate a verse it's a kinda hard to tell one user they aren't able to approve revisions for their verses while this other guy is.

I think it's the fact that their isn't any objective way to distinguish a trustworthy KM from a non trustworthy KM that makes this method not the best

Tho of course any admin or mod evaluating a thread should respect someone's judgment on a subject if they are more knowledgeable than him despite not being in the same position. I'm not saying trustworthy members shouldn't have be given importance than staff in revisions I just don't think you should make it an actual policy to do so
 
Starter Pack said:
I'm inclined to agree with Wokistan, to a point. I believe that some knowledgeable members should be contacted to verify the legitimacy of certain revisions, preferably ones that have a reputation for being knowledgeable on the appropriate verse, in case there are certain aspects that were ignored or blown out of proportion.

That being said, discussion mods and admins should still take precedence on making sure CRTs are handled properly and applied correctly.
Click to expand...
This is a correct evaluation of our standard procedure, yes.
 
I agree that any given revision should have some staff involvement even if minor, however I don't think we should be the sole proprietors of what is and isn't greenlit for verses. Knowledgeable members for each verse should also be contacted and be heard out for evaluations, especially those members who have proven to be reliable and impartial when judging their verses.

I think any workable system needs checks and balances. Admins should act as a check on knowledgeable members, but the converse of this should also be true.
 
Yes, I almost always try to remind others to use the verse pages and knowledgeable members lists to find people to ask to help out with evaluating content revision threads.
 
@BlackeJan

Just give a good reason or agree with other person. Also this is a staff only discussion :/
 
I read it as just claryfing as who's in charge of what thing. If this is suggesting that only a mod can green light something then I'm against it. It'll quickly just become an echo chamber or become painful slow to get anything done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ruphas_Mafahl123
NEW Proposal/Story writing section (STAFF DISCUSSION)
Replies
25
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
AKM sama
New Staff Promotions
2
Replies
70
Views
8K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
11K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top