Forum:Job-rotation: Could it work?

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Job-rotation: Could it work?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6645 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Basicly, there are a number of "jobs" on Uncyclopedia (NRV-checking; VFD; Featuring; Recent Changes patrol; etc.) and most of time, you can couple it up with 1 - 3 admins (NRV-checking: Hinoa, Spang, DWII; Featuring: Rcmurphy; VFD: Gwax (well, used to); etc.). But often what happens is that the admin who has taken a job upon him/herself, grows tired of doing the same actions over and over again. Result: he/she gets tired of it and takes an extended break.
So here's an idea to kick around: we set up a job-rotation system so admins can get a different job every cycle.
Note that I'm being somewhat vague describing the idea so that you can suggest specifics yourself (should you want to) without influence. Also, I'm not supporting this idea just yet, but I reckoned it was definitely worth discussing.
So, by all means, discuss. ~ ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|MDA|+S 08:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes patrol isn't such a problem, as "regular" users like, for example, me patrol the recent changes too, reporting vabnals to Ban Patrol, NRVing and QVFDing useless articles, reverting blankings and spammings and the like... but Featuring and Deletions are major problems in this case. My point is, that you don't have to worry about Recent Changes admin rotations, as plenty (or perhaps it's just me) of other users do that to. If you get my point. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 08:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletions are very sluggish, yes, but featuring? RC seems to do a good job of the task, although I suppose he may want a break... --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 09:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure do. And yes, we continue to be grateful for the efforts of users like yourself. Without your help, we'd have a hell of a lot more admins going on extended breaks.

And though you didn't really indicate any misunderstanding, just to be clear: by NRV-checking, I meant checking expired NRVs for keeping or deleting. Of course there are other timed maintenance templates that need checking ( {{construction}}, {{ugly}}, {{deadend}}, etc.), but I'm leaving possible grouping open for suggestion. ~ ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|MDA|+S 09:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to believe in the idea of everyone doing what takes their fancy at the time, that usually works out surprisingly well. Although it's good to have ways of showing when things are getting behind because no one fancies the task. So I wonder if improving ways of doing that might be better than giving out "duties". I know that if I feel overly obliged to do something specific I tend to lose interest, or avoid it and feel guilty as hell for doing so. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Like a "clock-in, clock-out" system? That might work. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 17:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more of something like a bot that looked out for certain tasks being missed or left too long, and spammed admins' user pages automatically when they were. So we all do the bits that catch our attention, knowing that we will get automatically shouted at if things fall by the wayside. Just a thought anyway -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, they use the Administrative backlog for that. --Sbluen 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that appointing the jobs wouldn't be the way to go. In fact, I was thinking about having a voluntary system. As in sysops who want to rotate jobs with others can "sign up" for it, whilst those who feel they only work well spontaneously, don't have to do a thing.

Other aspects:

• Participating admins wouldn't have "exclusive rights" to a job;
• Equally, they wouldn't be limited to doing that job and that job only;
• Jobs can rotate in various ways (e.g. after a period of time; when anyone involved gets bored with his/her job; when somebody gets bored with his/her job; ...)
• The job-rotation system doesn't have to constantly be in effect. So, for example, a group could agree on one full rotation only.

Obviously there are a lot of things to keep in mind should one set a system up. But being a group of only sysops, there wouldn't/shouldn't have to be a detailed list of do's and don't.

All in all, I think it's achievable. But I get the impression not many admins feel up to it. ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|MDA|+S 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

With those qualifications, it sounds good to me... -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer the fundamental question, no, it could not work. --Sir gwax (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I second this. It's been Gwax's turn to do VFD for like 6 months now, and he's not doing it. I'm stuck doing that shit job. I want "spam n00bs' userpages with welcome messages" or "delete orphans" or something. And besides, if you added me to some sort of roster, I'd blatently not do that job solely to screw the system up. I mean, that's why 75% of uncyclopedia admins are admins here, methinks.

The other issue is that our admins don't all have some consistent amount of time they are available. I live on this site most of the summer. Outside of that time, I get in a half-hour a night or so. Trying to schedule around admin availability would be a nightmare. I agree that an "X needs doing" something or other might be a good idea. But really, do any jobs here not get done for an extended period of time? It seems that most of the housekeeping is getting done. And when it isn't, we get forum posts and notices via user pages and IRC.

Perhaps an "admin worklist" page might be worthwhile, with an indication of what is most pressing. But even then I'd bet that many of the admins would skip it and just do what they normally do. Well, at least I'd do that. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Trial?

If we want to implement this (and judging by the reactions, I think that we don't), then I would at least recommend doing a trial system on, say, VFD--because everyone complains about having to do VFD. I'd post further details, but I'm on the job right now and I need to go. —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that I have a little more time to explain, here goes: the people who volunteer (or are volunteered) for VFD duty rotate taking care of VFD every week. Also, after one week being the designated poopsmith, any admin can request to be removed from the rotation. Admins will not have to do VFD for two consecutive weeks, and to that end, if there's only one admin left on the poopsmith list, he/she gets to force other admins to help.

Is that entirely too complex? Could it work? Who knows--oh, that's right, you. —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I approach Uncyclopedia more like masturbation than drinking. I come here and do it when I have the time and the urge. If I approached it like I do drinking, I'd do it nightly and in large amounts. For I work with the youth of america, and if there is anything that encourages drinking, that is it. So unless your rotation is organized around "when you have the time and urge", I'd have to vote "not gonna work". Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)