• 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.

Important Question: Wiki Opinion on Verse Audits

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah. For admins and content mods. Same people who can delete stuff can undelete it, its the scripts which are tricky to retrieve stuff from.
 
Wokistan said:
This is more "can we not have like a million people all arguing at once and trying to do shit out of spite to other verses" like what happens in stuff like Naruto and bleach. If that guy has the scans to save the verse but didn't get noticed, that guy can always send a PM to someone or something to request access.
Click to expand...
I'm against having to request access to deliver evidence and debate. At the very least as default state of things.

Restrictions can happen after it demonstrably didn't work otherwise, but should be the exception. And one always has to keep in mind that opponents are also part of a healthy review process.
 
DontTalkDT said:
I'm against having to request access to deliver evidence and debate. At the very least as default state of things.

Restrictions can happen after it demonstrably didn't work otherwise, but should be the exception. And one always has to keep in mind that opponents are also part of a healthy review process.
Click to expand...
Remember this is less about verses that just have contested stats and more about profiles that just don't have anything backing them up. If expanded to just general file review I don't think locking it out would be best either but that's not the main concern as of now.
 
Man, I have to say, I'm really down with the idea of an audit group. Say I'm talking about Fate (big fan). I don't want lowballing BB's hax because they don't understand what the Mooncell is (yes it's happened before) and I don't want someone wanking base Gil's Ea to universal because it's "connected to the root" and then they act like I'm a Fate hater... a Fater (yes, have also happened before). The Audit Group seems like it would clear up a lot of misunderstandings and act as an arbitrator
 
I think it was said above that this audit group wouldn't be used for revisions but mostly for verse deletion
 
Yeah the audit groups focus would be examining profiles/verses for accuracy/justifictions. They wouldn't step in for average crt stuff from my understanding. They aren't taking the place of, or interfereing with the average content revision process If I understand this correctly.
 
1. The audit group's main purpose is to see if a verse is justified in its ratings, abilities, etc. If we lack the means to confirm this, then it isn't justified. However, the goal isn't to just blindly delete verses. Deletion is a last resort if a verse can't be fixed. Please, don't take the approach that this is just to justify deleting a verse because staff said so.

2. Both normal users and staff are welcome to volunteer, decisions on who will be made into the auditors aren't made yet.

3. As Wok says, this isn't about confirming which stats are viable. We aren't concerned with that as of yet, just so long as current stats have backing in some meaningful way. So no, this isn't meant to be a replacement for content revision but instead an organized method of checking in on a verse to see if it holds up.
 
As long as the audit group's members know when to recuse themselves. I myself wouldn't trust myself to audit Medakaverse or Destinyverse after all the stuff that happened previously, for example.

Likewise anyone trying to ban a verse's profiles likely wouldn't be a good candidate.

The best candidates for that group would probably be those who kept cool at all times and have not shown any significant bias up until now.
 
As I said above, we will be attempting to ensure that nobody tied to a verse audits that verse.
 
NeoSuperior said:
As long as the audit group's members know when to recuse themselves. I myself wouldn't trust myself to audit Medakaverse or Destinyverse after all the stuff that happened previously, for example.
Click to expand...
Press F for Firephoenix and Wokistan.

@Bambu-boi i disagree, we still need people who at least know the verse to evaluate.
 
IMadeThisOn8-1-2017 said:
While I agree with the idea, my omly issue would be in regards to the "selected staff and users" that would go through everything.

Bias exists among staff and users whether we like it or not, some will favor wanting to remove or "save" a verse from having it's stats removed. So how do we know the selected users are going to be true to task or at least unbiased?
Click to expand...
I'm planning to have the Discord be open to anyone, even those not part of the "selected staff and users" to be able to see, they just wouldn't be able to send messages.

We'd also prevent people from making decisions on verses we know they're knowledgeable on (as Bambu mentioned a few posts above yours). I think that's as much due dilligence we can do, as we obviously can't tell if someone secretly knows about a verse and lies to save it.
 
Making decisions on the verse =/= contributing. If destiny somehow got slated for removal I could argue for it staying all I want, I just wouldn't have the position of authority to give final judgement like I might theoretically have over others.
 
Supporters and knowledgeable members can contribute without being the final judges on a verse. Making the courtroom metaphor again, the audit group would be the judges, the supporters would be the defendants. This is to avoid bias in the audit group.
 
Well the easy solution is having this function exactly like the "Page deletion thread" and the "Reports thread".

They'd of course be open forum, so anyone and everyone can comment to save the verse they plan to clean up.

This connects to the List idea I had before, where we'd have the list be open to view, while editing the list would be down to the Auditors.

People would be able to see their verse and comment in the thread, the auditors would then be able to either add a note to the list such as:

Spider Jerusalem (No Supporters, XYZ has claimed to be going to clean up the profile[9/12/2099])

The Black List verses and pages would likely get a month - three month period where people get contacted if they're supporters of the verse or waiting for someone new to take up the verse and post that time, the page/verse would get deleted and if someone wants the verse back because they're going to be cleaning up the verse, then we do what Wok said and just restore the page.
 
So there will be 2 sides Pro-Upgrade or Anti-upgrade (The term upgrade can be interchanged with other words)

Both sides must present their case in a professional manner.

Then at the end there will "Judges" that judge each argument. In other words the 2 sides must convince the judges?

I can only see this ending in bloodshed, imo..

is there a length of time, a thread # limit before a CRT can be judged?
 
TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:
So there will be 2 sides Pro-Upgrade or Anti-upgrade (The term upgrade can be interchanged with other words)

Both sides must present their case in a professional manner.

Then at the end there will "Judges" that judge each argument. In other words the 2 sides must convince the judges?

I can only see this ending in bloodshed, imo..

is there a length of time, a thread # limit before a CRT can be judged?
Click to expand...
No no no, I think the courtroom's a shitty metaphor.

Audit group finds a verse, labels it as suspicious, and if needed makes a CRT about it. That is the extent of their role.

They don't have special CRT judging powers.

These CRTs won't be special. They'll be like any other.

A caveat is I think a CRT should only be made in the case that someone objects to deletion, or if the issues with the page don't warrant a deletion. If there's a page with unsourced statistics and no-one contacted will defend the page, I don't think a CRT should be needed to delete it, just a one week time delay and public warning (this is an important part, they won't get deleted out of nowhere with no chance to save them).
 
An open forum is inadvisable. When literally every verse is under review that idea becomes an invitation for chaos. Instead, the hub thread will be open/closed when needed to announce updates. Verse specifics need to be handled elsewhere.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
An open forum is inadvisable. When literally every verse is under review that idea becomes an invitation for chaos. Instead, the hub thread will be open/closed when needed to announce updates. Verse specifics need to be handled elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Well, the are many perks for having it be open forum, one is that if we miss a page that is old and needs attention brought to it, people can report it in the thread, then and there we can make a choice, this also allows people to dispute the discussion as well as involve the commiunity, the Wiki has enough bureaucracy in it, it doesn't need more gate keeping and further division.
 
And the downside is that nothing gets done when everybody is invited to say everything all at once. We've seen this on other highlighted threads- the thread gets lost, it all becomes cross-chatter and static. So the idea doesn't work when put in practice. It should be a single hub thread cut down and kept tight and let verse-specifics take place in their own threads.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
And the downside is that nothing gets done when everybody is invited to say everything all at once. We've seen this on other highlighted threads- the thread gets lost, it all becomes cross-chatter and static. So the idea doesn't work when put in practice. It should be a single hub thread cut down and kept tight and let verse-specifics take place in their own threads.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say so, important threads which are open forum aren't pure chaos.

Report threads are usually very calm, the only time they explored is (due to their nature) when someone calls someone else out on the thread and they refuse to listen.

In this case there would likely be a warning in the OP stating that only serious talk is allowed, meme posting and such should be done elsewhere.
 
have you just not seen the state that threads like RVT and stuff can get

Discussion taking place elsewhere both keeps the main thread sanitized and doesn't invite unruly chaos in our literal HQ for this project. It doesn't need to be open to even invite the possibility of non-serious talk since anything unrelated to announcements on projects already have a slated alternative place to occur (their own threads).
 
Udlmaster said:
I wouldn't say so, important threads which are open forum aren't pure chaos.

Report threads are usually very calm, the only time they explored is (due to their nature) when someone calls someone else out on the thread and they refuse to listen.

In this case there would likely be a warning in the OP stating that only serious talk is allowed, meme posting and such should be done elsewhere.
Click to expand...
But they also get a bit chaotic when there's multiple reports happening at once. And if a large number of people on the wiki are each trying to discuss whether a dozen different verses should stay or be deleted at the same time, I think that could get disorganized, because there's many people discussing different heated topics at the same time.

However, my initial idea was something pretty close to this, so I'd be willing to try it out regardless.
 
Agnaa said:
IMadeThisOn8-1-2017 said:
While I agree with the idea, my omly issue would be in regards to the "selected staff and users" that would go through everything.

Bias exists among staff and users whether we like it or not, some will favor wanting to remove or "save" a verse from having it's stats removed. So how do we know the selected users are going to be true to task or at least unbiased?
Click to expand...
I'm planning to have the Discord be open to anyone, even those not part of the "selected staff and users" to be able to see, they just wouldn't be able to send messages.
We'd also prevent people from making decisions on verses we know they're knowledgeable on (as Bambu mentioned a few posts above yours). I think that's as much due dilligence we can do, as we obviously can't tell if someone secretly knows about a verse and lies to save it.
Click to expand...
That's much more appealing.
 
I am generally in favor of having it open with strict guidelines as I don't wish to exclude people but at the same time don't want it to become a chaotic mess where nothing of worth is accomplished.
 
This seems fine to me.

It would be great for a group to check for inaccuracies in versus, provided that the audit group doesn't abuse their authority or changing/removing verses and profiles despite many knowledgeable members and supporters of the versus having viable evidence to justify the contents. We don't want the contents supported with viable evidence by the supporters and knowledgeable members being overruled (especially by bias or hasty decisions) after all.
 
I am totally up for this idea as a whole, and I do agree having it open would be a big no. Strict Guidelines doesn't mean people won't get chaotic at times, it already happens in many of our threads, and said guidelines making people more prone to be calm when reminded of said guidelines is not a good compromise to me.

Having the "HQ" more properly monitored and an entirely different place like the discord group that is open to everyone feels better.
 
I mostly agree with this. Udl's Red/Black/White list sounds particularly interesting.

I don't have much confidence in a dedicated group staying consistently on the job for something like this and still think occasional 'purges' or community clean-up drives would accomplish more in the long run, though.
 
I think that Wokistan, Mr. Bambu, and Agnaa make sense.
 
Just as an update. Previously the only part of this little concept I hadn't had an idea on how to implement was actually choosing people that could join. It shouldn't be staff only, though we didn't have a valid method of screening people.

Agnaa has suggested something I'd like input on, which can be ironed out of course. The idea is simple, just letting anyone join who fit a couple of criteria (Hasn't had warnings about editing mistakes, and has over 1,000 edits). Is that generally acceptable to everyone?
 
Tbh i think the criterias should be:

  • A lot of experience with creating and editing profiles
  • A lot of experience with site rules
These 2 are off the top of my head.
 
The people helping wouldn't be interfering in the creation and editing of profiles. They are only checking for profiles that have bad justifications, finding someone to take care of it or convincingly explain the justifications if there's anyone knowledgeable that wants to, or consign it to deletion.
 
@Earl I feel like those two are a bit hard to actually check. If they were criteria they'd have to be implemented through intuition/recognizing them which seems a little unreliable.

I'm hoping that 1,000 edits (the number could be placed higher if needed) would signify familiarity with site rules, and a lack of editing warnings would signify skill at creating/editing profiles.

I guess we could also use the wiki's filters to check that they have actually edited profiles before, to check that they haven't just posted on the forum for all their edits, if people think that's a good criteria?
 
I know, but creating and editing profiles correctly would mean that someone is very experienced in all the parts of a profile (ap, powers, feats, summary etc). Random edits on profiles can be as much as checking for typos. That was my point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ari64-SP
Opinion on Composited Pages/Multi Media Franchises
Replies
0
Views
412
Ari64-SP
Ari64-SP
PROPLAYEN
Why is Homestuck not on the FC/OC wiki?
Replies
2
Views
862
henryzx900ruly
henryzx900ruly
Antvasima
I am taking a vacation
2
Replies
76
Views
8K
Zeinx1
Zeinx1
Shmooply
  • Locked
Why don't Content Moderators hold the same voting power?
Replies
26
Views
1K
Deagonx
Deagonx
LeoEpicGamer8910
Can this FC/OC verse be on VS Battles Wiki?
Replies
2
Views
1K
LeoEpicGamer8910
LeoEpicGamer8910
Back
Top