Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Two cent advice ... add yours!

Advice based on our experience at UAA: once it becomes clear that we've got the votes for something, then stop arguing for or against it and just do it (to the extent that people can "just do it" before they get any new userrights). That's what we did recently at UAA, and that's why it's working: lots of work is getting done (especially, the valuable training) that didn't get done before, and regardless of where you are on the issues, you can't argue with the results. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the granting process: I'm really torn. I thought the great thing about the UAA clerks proposal was that clerks wouldn't have any powers, so there would never be a need to take the clerkship away; removing rights is the main downfall of any proposed process. If someone can block then, yeah, you probably need to take that away if it turns out they're screwing it up. It sure would be nice to figure out how to minimize the drama with that. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why admins couldn't do it, like rollback. That's the least dramatic way. Afterall, it's not as if the user has full-blown block rights. There's only so many they would be able to block. Aiken ♫ 22:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think an appeal to the community... via WP:PERM, but allow only crats to approve/deny. Tommy! [message] 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please god let it be removable by crats also, just as admins remove the WP:PERM rights at present. And WP:BITE and failing to observe WP:AGF would need to be hanging offences. Skomorokh 23:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both Tommy and Skomorokh. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It should definitely be removable, but why by bureaucrats? Wouldn't that make their workload increase quite a bit? Why can't normal admins do it? It works for rollback. Aiken ♫ 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think these tools are a bit powerful to allow any admin to grant/revoke... but I'm open to hearing more opinions. Tommy! [message] 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One nice thing about this new userright is, it's specifically about the kinds of blocks that are decided at WP:UAA and WP:AIV, and there's relevant discussion at WP:RfPP ... so if you had a discussion at those noticeboards, or at least notified those discussion boards when there's a vote, you'd probably get voters saying intelligent things about the candidate's suitability. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Kaizen process

Wikipedia needs a sort of Kaizen process of improvement. We should expect to fail some of the time as is the expectation of great companies like Google.[1] If we do not have any failures it means we are not attempting to be innovative enough. So yes lets try this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Proven vs unproven contributors

The proposal talks about "new accounts" and "accounts less than 5 days old", and we already a definition of "autoconfirmed". I suggest that the scope of vandal fighters' action be restricted to "unproven contributors" and for the time being we assume this is the same as unconfirmed. Personally I'd be inclined to raise the bar a little higher than four days and ten edits, but that's another discussion. - Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that vandal fighters should be allowed to block non autoconfirmed users; however, I wouldn't raise the bar: most of the vandalism I see comes from IPs and newly-created accounts. It's extremely rare to have autoconfirmed users who vandalise (although it's happened before)... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - the key point is that five days isn't sufficient if they haven't done any article edits. - Pointillist (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed to non-autoconfirmed. Tommy! [message] 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Concern

I am a bit concerned about this narrow view approach of initially focusing on blocking people, which is the most controversial aspect of maintaining WE integrity. The focus should be on protecting content, not blocking users. Vandals won't vandalize as much, if the content were better protected and if more trusted editors had more meaningful tools to protect content, such as imposing short term page protection, quarantining unproven user's initial contribution if dubious in quality, and other methods. I have no interest or any urge to block anyone, even if they vandalize, but I like to see better tools to main content integrity. This blocking business by IP addresses is highly dubious anyways, and it will get a lot more complicated when WP transitions to IPv6, which has to happen within the next year or so. Kbrose (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Addendum: Blocking is an act of exercising power over another user and does not actually further the goals of the encyclopedia, it is reactionary. This power advantage of an admin, however, IMHO, is a reason why some (or many?) seek adminship. This idea of vandal fighting appeals because of the association to exercising power, a legal way of exercising it. The first stance to protecting WP, should be better content protection. You don't leave your house open in a bad neighborhood, and then run around shooting people who do bad things in your living room. That said, there are many who have a genuine interest in policing, like there are people that become police officers, prison guards, without psychological issues. And indeed those should be given an opportunity to contribute, and it is a wise idea to separate that function out from administrators and give them the tools to perform efficiently. In that regard, this proposal is a good idea. I just think it's a controversial first step. Kbrose (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should all IPs/new users be put out by a single disruptive user? It's generally simpler to block one user rather than block everyone, which is what protection does. Aiken ♫ 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

While protected a page could easily be put into quarantine mode, and changes by 'good' new users can be accepted anytime by a reviewer, this is already a functional feature. Kbrose (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your metaphor, your house is your property; it belongs to you and you can legally prevent someone else from entering it. Wikipedia, on the contrary, is everybody's property (sorta like the res communes omnium) and it thrives on IPs' contributions. To lock down an article just because one vandal has been vandalising is, in my opinion, the wrong way to tackle the problem. And, by the way, many vandals do not concentrate only on one article, so, again, in my opinion, this would also be pointless... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate (for now)

Right now, there is work in progress with WP:ABUSE, WP:LTA, and WP:CVU to help improve and streamline the abuse response process. I agree that abuse response personnel should have some of the rights discussed, but right now, with the current state of the above listed projects, creating this right now, it just a bad idea. ANowlin ^talk 03:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerns regarding this proposal

While I do believe that this proposal has its merits, I am opposed to its implementation. For me, the ability to block and protect pages is very much different to 'convenience' permissions such as rollback. There's too much room for abuse, and for me, somebody whom is trusted to block and protect is somebody whom should be trusted to pass a Request for Adminship. I don't personally feel that mass-specialisation of permissions is the answer to any existing problems, and I don't think that administrators should be able to pass on privledges that allow for the removal of rights from other users. Rollback and the existing permissions should, for me, be as for as non-administrator powers go with regard to vandal fighting. Appointment is a further issue - An RFA-like process would undermine RFA applications itself, would result in a "You've never been a vandal fighter" type of argument (furthering the issue of a lack of promotions in 2010), and would lead to the same form of pickyness already existing through that process. Bureaucrat appointment would be better, but it would lend itself to arguments about who is and isn't an appropriate individual for the position. We have controversial users often rejected for adminship despite their good work, and this could allow them to have the power to be potentially disruptive. I think the idea is good-natured, but not good for Wikipedia. Esteffect (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the above, though I would point out that there are quite a few people that I can think of that would be highly suitable candidates for such a right if it were created, but will not pass RFA. That, however, is because many of us have lost the "adminship is no big deal" mentality, and is off-topic for here. However, what I'm trying to point out is that anyone that I think should have this right I would also support for adminship. Whether that means I have very high standards for such a right or very low adminship standards is up to you. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My adminship standards are not high, but we have candidates whom are not perhaps suitable for adminship that have permissions already, and I'd be considered for them to receive further permissions. Typically good content creators with a hot head or rash attitude, a lack of civility, or a particularly stubborn stance on notability and deletion policy. Adminship standards should be lower, but we shouldn't create permissions that allow for permissions to be given to editors in order to compensate for that - I'm not at all confident with users whom are established, but not administrators to able to block, protect, and view deleted content. We have established editors with issues raised time and time again at RFA, or raised to the result of their not attempting to gain such powers. Esteffect (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection

I don't really like the idea of vandal fighters being able to semiprotect pages; at the very least, lower the maximum to a few hours. And, furthermore, my fear is that if we keep adding features, it'll be harder and harder to pull this through. We should concentrate on what's really needed and keep it simple, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the more we make it sound like "admin lite" the less chance of success it has, in my opinion. —Soap— 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

All good editors should be able to protect pages, and yes, it should be a very short time, 2, 4, 8 hours, no more is necessary to kill a huge amount of vandalism. Content protect is what is really needed and this is way simpler to implement and administer than blocking users as a first step. Kbrose (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I added it because there are times when there is so much vandalism it's hard to even use TW to revert to a revision. Tommy! [message] 00:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand it and I sympathyse (this wasn't fun ); however, it's a gut feeling that makes me feel uncomfortable (and, as said before, I fear it would be perceived as too much)... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You do see situations where two or three IPs are messing around simultaneously (e.g. kids teasing one another by inserting insults). I wouldn't want to see vandal fighters having the ability to range-block, so I wouldn't object to including temporary semi-protection (max three or four hours) in their toolkit. Semi-protection is sometimes a better approach than blocking, after all. I'd certainly give it a higher priority than undoing page moves. - Pointillist (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How about PC1 protection? MER-C 05:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be far happier with a user right that permitted applying PC1, than I would be with a right that permitted applying semi. Semi locks out editors: PC1 doesn't do that to nearly the same extent. That said, I believe we should focus on keeping this proposal(s) limited, ideally to just blocking IPs/non-autoconfirmed editors. TFOWR 10:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

View deletions

I don't think the new user right should include the ability to view deletions, for a couple of reasons...

• I think it should be only for tackling blatant vandalism which is reverted, rather than new articles that have been deleted - I see lots of blatant vandalism and report plenty of it without ever thinking I'd need to see any deletions.
• For legal reasons, viewing deleted material has been restricted to admins, and there may well be a legal problem if this ability is extended to users with the new right, who will presumably have acquired it a lot easier than RfA.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Protection is also redundant. I'm a bit wary of this whole thing... NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there shouldn't be anybody but admins and Reasearchers to be able to view deleted material. --Bsadowski1 01:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is my most fundemental concern (followed by blocking rights). Esteffect (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if you've seen these arguments already. Personally, I'm totally okay with a version of clerkship that has no rights at all, if that's what people want ... but if it includes blocking, then seeing deleted contribs has to be included, so the the blocker can see if there have been any useful edits to deleted articles. (If only blocking of 5-day-old accounts is allowed, perhaps they could only see deleted contribs of these accounts.) It seems to be the majority opinion at UAA that being able to see deleted contribs would make clerks more useful (although it's not necessary). As for the Foundation's position: see this for what it used to take to become an admin. If they didn't destroy the wiki by looking at deleted contribs, then no one who goes through a community-wide election today is going to destroy the wiki, either. I think this will be the community's decision, not the Foundation's. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for a (partial) return to those old RFA standards (see my user page on the issue on the excessive scrutiny given today), however I'm not confident with users unable to pass RFA being able to gain powers such as blocking, even on new users. Esteffect (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I really don't see that viewing deleted edits is needed at all. I watch recent changes by newbies, and there are two classes of blatant vandals that anyone with eyes can see. You get IPs on a drive-by vandalism spree, who should just be blocked - there's no need to see what else might have deleted from the same IP address (which was probably a different person anyway). The other thing I see a lot is a new registration creating vandal pages - again, it's blatantly obvious its vandalism, and if they persist they can be blocked without any need to search for other deleted edits. If there are any cases in which there is uncertainty and viewing deleted edits is needed - just leave it for a admin to deal with. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Unrestricted ability to view deleted material is a big deal, and possibly a deal-breaker. Maybe someone can give a good example of someone who is vandalizing enough to deserve block consideration, but a deleted edit changes the picture. Sounds rare. --SPhilbrickT 12:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100% that vandal fighters shouldn't be able to view deleted material. In fact VFs shouldn't be able to do anything that could affect auto-confirmed users in any way. This isn't admin lite! - Pointillist (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to the basics...

Ok, I personally think that the only way this is going to go through is if we go back to the original proposal: Being able to block IP's and accounts younger than 5 days who vandalize persistently. Adding new features is just making everything more complicated than it needs to be, and makes it harder to get anything through at all. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here here. --WFC-- 01:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. sonia♫ 07:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree . TFOWR 10:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree , but I'd like to see vandal fighters able to block non autoconfirmed editors. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the current thinking is that the phrase "accounts younger than 5 days" has been deprecated in favour of "non-autoconfirmed editors". But if not, then yes: I agree. TFOWR 11:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking in terms of non-confirmed makes sense - as the identification already exists. Its four days versus five - no substantive difference.--SPhilbrickT 12:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See "Keep it simple!" below for why I'm against that.. in a nutshell, I have a problem granting only block rights. Tommy! [message] 12:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY?

My only (current) problem with this is that it brings attention to the fact that there are significant resources being spent to ward off vandals. While this is fairly obvious, it is also something that is one of those things that happens very much behind-the-scenes right now and only people in-the-know are actually aware of its goings-on. If we start giving out a "vandal fighters" right, especially with that terminology, it will serve to actually encourage vandalism, in my opinion, as it becomes a sort of "game" that we are fighting against. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• It will also act to stigmatise new users whom are not here to vandalise, as they are left under a cloud of, "Well, your contemporaries can get rid of you". Esteffect (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a really good argument. In that respect, admins can get rid of anyone they like. Do I feel that I'm left under a cloud? No.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 02:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

@Shirik's original post. WP:DENY? You should take a look at WP:LTA xP. The fact that we have an entire project dedicated to long-term abuse shows that vandalism is, well, a major problem. I know I'm revamping it, but that doesn't mean I agree with LTA. It's just that LTA would be more useful if it was easier to find information. + The userright shouldn't be named "vandalfighter" or anything IMO. It's immature and... unprofessional. I like the basic concept, but not the name. Netalarm^talk 03:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's a problem, but that doesn't mean we have to deal with it in this manner. I mean, many of the tools admins have at their disposal are designed for anti-vandalism. Why aren't these people just admins? That being said, WP:DENY does have a section about where WP:LTA fits in. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I'd tend to agree. I like the concept of tool-unbundling in general, but I'm not convinced by the name "vandal fighter". I'd like to see something positive: "article restorer", maybe? I'm sure the community can come up with something better, however - I'd like anything, just so long as it focusses on the positive aspects of the role. TFOWR 10:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How about "Protector of the Sanctity of the Prose" :)--SPhilbrickT 12:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, not bad! "Article restorer" is probably more appropriate for a right with more tools; "prose protector" is snappier... any objections to that? (though I'm certainly not averse to more "flowery" names for rights). TFOWR 12:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a protection right that's being proposed, it's a blocking right. (A protection right is also being argued for by some, sure, but the core proposal is for blocking vandals). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm just struggling to come up with a good name that avoids "blocker" or "fighter". I do agree in hindsight that "protector" should probably be avoided as confusing. TFOWR 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Bobby?

Seriously, how about something along the lines of "assistants", as they actively assist admins to get rid of certain backlogs? Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong with vandal fighter. It's what the right is... no need to pretend it's something else. Aiken ♫ 13:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It has negative connotations. Say a new user is warned by a "vandal fighter", we're insinuating that they're a vandal, even if they might just need a little guidance. It bites the newcomers. Esteffect (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just a name. The new user won't even see the name, only that they were blocked for vandalising. Aiken ♫ 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you just neglected to read my message when you typed that, if they just need a little guidance I don't think just seeing that they were blocked for vandalising is very good at all. Esteffect (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I read it. You seem to think this tool will be granted to just anybody and will be used to block willy-nilly. Not so. It would be strictly vandal only. Much like rollback it would have strict usage. If a mistake is made (and even *gasp* admins make mistakes), we'll have to forgive and forget and move on. The people who will be granted this right will be able to tell the different between malicious vandalism and genuine cluelessness. Aiken ♫ 15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What about article patroller? Aiken ♫ 15:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Too similar to New Page Patrol. Esteffect (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. New page patroller deals with new pages. Article patroller deals with articles. Recent change patroller is an option but a little too long for my liking. Do you have any good ideas, Esteffect? Aiken ♫ 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Granting process

The point of this new userright is to empower some users with the tools needed to prevent/deal with vandalism, yet avoid the need for a full blown RfA since the user only wants to use some specific tools. Right now, userrights such as rollback, reviewer, ipblockexempt, accountcreator, autopatrolled, etc are given by administrators if the user has demonstrated trust and an understanding of how to use the tool. Since this proposed right is a but more advanced than any of the others listed above, I think if we left if up to bureaucrats to assign it based on trust it would be best. Of course, there would be a request for permissions page where someone could request it like rollback, and a simple discussion can follow, but I think we should leave bureaucrats the ability to add it (just like sysops can add rollback by personal request). I'm sure our bureaucrats will know what they're doing if it is decided that we do this. Netalarm^talk 03:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree. Bureaucrats do the full adminship thing. I don't see why admins can't do it. It's not difficult to see if someone has a good history of vandal fighting. Aiken ♫ 13:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Allowing administrators to grant powers to protect and block is too much. It's different to rollback, that's just a convenience tool (you can reverse changes the hard way without it). Creating accounts and being exempt to IP blocks isn't controversial either. I don't trust the judgement of many administrators in deciding whom can perform such actions (although, of course, I'm still opposed to this idea no matter whom grants it). Esteffect (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it too much? This is all just your opinion with no basis in fact. The facts are, admins do a good job giving out other rights, and so there is no harm in allowing them to do this one. Aiken ♫ 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all rights are given out by admins (the bot flag is given out by crats, for instance); I concur that this is a very powerful privilege and that it should be granted by crats only. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You say "for instance", but admin and bot are the only ones they grant. Admins grant many more than bureaucrats do. It's not "very powerful", it's extremely limited power to block only certain accounts/IPs. Aiken ♫ 15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot more power than administrators can currently give other users. Esteffect (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Surprised at the ideological opposition

Clearly the proposal is in its infancy, and there are hurdles that need to be gone through, not least how the permission would be assigned.

But I'm surprised by the level of ideological opposition to this, on the whole from editors with quite lax RfA standards. If there is a "crisis" in the number of admins, surely it's a good idea to allow proven vandal fighters to do the part of the job they are qualified for, rather than waive the requirement for would-be admins to show a history of good judgement. If people's "RfA standards are too high", surely it isn't such a bad idea to give out-and-out wikignomes a more established route to adminship, rather than forcing them to write an FA or endure a stressful, close-run candidacy that still might not succeed. If "no big deal" is out of date, but adminship hasn't changed, it follows that "adminship" might be out of date. --WFC-- 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's no proof that providing this level will lead to an easier path for administrators. In fact, there's evidence to suggest otherwise. I'll wait and see how this proposal develops, but as for now, it suffers a number of serious failings. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• My proposal was not to create a path to adminship. Some people only want to do vandal fighting, and don't need the whole admin package. They would get this user right, and that's it. They wouldn't want power to close AFDs, block edit warrers, edit the interface etc. Those who want the full thing can just continue going to RFA as usual. Number of admins is not a problem, backlogs are, and people often say vandal fighting is one of the easiest admin-related tasks on Wikipedia so it's an ideal choice for a new user right imo. Aiken ♫ 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• And it sounds nice. But, there's serious issues with the proposal as it stands. Regardless, I'll wait to see how it develops, but frankly I don't see it overcoming a number of serious obstacles. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Would you please name a few of these issues? Since we're still hammering out the details, constructive criticism is what we need! Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• The last time around this happened, I was roundly attacked. Thanks, I'll pass for now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Would you be willing to write on my talk page or to send me an e-mail? I'm genuinely interested and I promise I shan't badger you. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already listed some problems [2]. Let's start with those. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So, instead of an experienced administrator who can handle doing a good job with incomers, we instead pass off the blocking to someone who does not have sufficient experience to handle being given a global block button? That's backwards, to say the least.

Well, all editors who would be granted this tool would be very experienced vandal fighters who already can tell when an edit is vandalism; it's not like rollback that can granted after some fifty reverts with Twinkle with warning. This privilege would be granted to those who are highly trusted, but who don't want to try an RFA because they don't want or don't need the other tools or because they know they wouldn't pass, because RFA-!voters want to see an all-round experience before supporting a candidate.

If this proposal passes, this userright would not be given liberally. And would certainly be revoked if an editor bites a newcomer.

And I agree that newbies and IPs are extremely valued (and, after all, we've all been newbies at one time or the other), but we have to acknowledge that most cases of vandalism comes from them... So, in my opinion, it's only reasonable that a vandal fighter can only block them. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"This privilege would be granted to those who are highly trusted, but who don't want to try an RFA ... because they know they wouldn't pass". While some users can't pass a Request for Adminship because of the ridiculous standards for it at times, some can't pass it because of real concerns about their suitability with the kind of responsibility that this position would bring. It's only a case of looking up the users that have 5 or more failed RFA attempts to see that, and it's also possible to see that administrators often support such candidates, so they are highly trusted by someone. After that, the revoking of this power would create drama, even if done after one case of biting (and many 'experienced' vandal fighters do bite on a regular basis, throwing "final warning" templates around because somebody didn't assert the notability of the subject), and you could end up with "permissions wars". It wouldn't be healthy at all. Esteffect (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding this user right. It's not a complete set of tools. It's not even a full version of any individual. As I proposed, it's very limited blocking rights. That's the minimum it would be. We're not going to give this out to every Tom and Dick that show up. If a candidate has had an RFA, they would be required to mention it and if any concerns regarding vandal fighting had been brought up, they wouldn't get the bit (unless it was years ago or whatever). Rollback is granted easily and taken easily with little drama, so I don't see why this right will be any different. Users who are granted it will be warned of its strict usage and any inappropriate use would mean immediate revokal. Aiken ♫ 14:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand the proposal, and I don't agree that's it a good idea despite that. While RFA isn't right at the moment, for me it should be necessary to go through that before you can block (or other such powers to remove users, even new ones, from the site). Rollback is totally different - Anyone can roll back by editing an old revision, it's a button for convenience. There's no drama because, quite frankly, rollback doesn't really mean much. Revokal would be a lot more complicated than you perhaps think for something like this. Esteffect (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In just a few short paragraphs we've already highlighted serious shortcomings:

• Problems in defining who is and who is not a 'trusted' vandal fighter.
• Potential problems with permission wars.
• Potential drama creation.
• The fact that this right isn't extant in the tool set of editors, as opposed to rollback effectively being so (comparison thus fails). If you have some review process for granting it, then it won't be so easy to remove it.
• If the tool isn't given liberally, what criteria would there be for granting it? How to evaluate it? One person? Many? A special WP:VF process? One person's trust is another person's misguided optimism.
• How many failed RfAs is sufficient justification to deny VF?

And I'll throw another one on to the pyre;

• What backlog does this new bureaucracy serve to address?

Blocking is a serious power. It is one of the chief drama creation mechanisms on the project. Blocking someone is tantamount to telling them to ****off. It isn't something that should be treated lightly. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

These are all good points, and they can be discussed. I think we have to accept the inevitable that there will be a bit of drama, as is always the case when something new is proposed on Wikipedia. I don't think it's a problem when we have something useful in the end. Aiken ♫ 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it would be useful in an ideal world, but then there'd be no vandalism in an ideal world. There's lots of useful proposals that, in action, would cause more drama, conflict and logistic issues than good, from Quickpolls to De-adminship. Esteffect (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

But there is vandalism, and a simple way to help tackle it. It's interesting you mention deadminship as an issue, because it works well on numerous other projects. As for Hammersoft's points, I think they are a good place to start on discussion, which I'll put below. This page also needs advertising. Aiken ♫ 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and my view is that the existing ways to tackle it are enough. I'm opposed to the proposal; I don't think it's the answer, and the hassle/conflict it will create will outweigh the minor benefit of slightly quicker blocking (and more blocks in error, probably). Esteffect (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• AAiieeee!!! No, it doesn't need advertising. It needs a small work group environment to develop this nascent idea. If you advertise it, it will go up in flames. When the idea has been properly developed, then advertise it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Define 'useful'? An issue I seem to always be raising in suggestions for new processes that always receives flak (and here I'll open myself up to attack, rather than repeating others) is that virtually all of these proposals put the cart in front of the horse. "HEY! I GOT A GREAT IDEA!" followed by "oh darn, let me see if I can figure out why it's good idea". Proposals are put forward with little research, effort, or discussion on what the extant problems are, followed by a discussion of alternatives, followed by some agreement on a direction to take. Result? In this case, a talk page less than a day old with already 65k worth of pure text, a seriously muddled picture, and an already ripe "no consensus" view. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree that was the case here. I had specific criteria for the role: that is, ability to block new accounts/IPs only, for vandalism only. That's it. Others suggested protection rights, ability to view deleted edits etc. I'm pretty sure it's obvious how this is a good idea, and I explained it at length on RFA talk. We have many editors who are dedicated vandal patrollers, who would make themselves useful in that area with admin rights. But RFA demands things like article writing, FAs, DYKs etc which are not at all necessary to the task of blocking vandals. Instead of telling the editor "Aw, shucks, you don't write articles so even though you're great at what you do and would be even better with a block button, you can't be an admin", we can say "You can have this other right instead, which allows you to get on with what you do best, without needing other admins to intervene. I consider the issue of good vandal patrollers failing RFA a problem, if they are good at what they do. Aiken ♫ 15:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely on their failing RFA being a problem (and DYK isn't an achievement, contrary to most 'medal'-hungry editors), but the permission for me is not the answer. Esteffect (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It could help, while we try to overhaul RFA, however... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, you have an idea; create a vandal fighter tool set to block new accounts/IPs only, for vandalism only. But the creation of that idea is backwards. Solutions shouldn't be generated as a first or even intermediary step. You suggested this as a solution based on the presumed problem that people aren't passing RfA because they aren't globally experienced enough, and really they just want the tools to fight vandalism. Yet, there's no discussion leading up to that as being a problem, no analysis underpinning it as a problem. No inception to focus on more global issues and identifying what analysis directions to take before identifying problems. It's just an idea, in a vacuum. Here's what usually happens in such process development schemes; (1) someone creates a "great" idea, and posts it somewhere. (2) enough people think it has merit that a special work area is made for it. (3) Some preliminary discussion happens, and some problems are raised. (4) the discussion gets advertised somewhere as more people become interested and link it. (5) the 'room' of dozens of editors (we've already had 27 unique editors here) erupts in back and forth debate on all manner of issues regarding the debate. (6) the concept fails to achieve consensus, and 30-60 days later is marked as failed, historical, etc. The concept is then linked from WP:PEREN as an example of a proposal that failed. See the problem? The issue here is very likely not the idea itself. It's how it comes about, how it is developed, how it is honed. As is now, it's a LEGO model thrown from a 17 story tower, hitting a cement deck, and people going "wow, that made a mess!". I don't mean to deride your efforts. Rather, to point out the effort is doomed to fail. The process to get here was totally ignored. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I know I've given you crap in the past, Hammer, but that's brilliant and right on point. If it turns out that this fails, the question that I most want to ask the opposition isn't why they're opposed, but why do they think that clerking got something like 95% support at UAA while this proposal failed? The easy and quick answer is that this involves userrights and the UAA thing doesn't ... but I don't think that's the answer, actually. I think it's because at UAA, we drew on the daily conversations we had with people who were already acting like clerks, to let them act a little more like clerks. It was by the workers, for the workers; no one else's opinion mattered. That's important, because looking at a process from the outside, there are lots of intelligent things you could say about where to set the bar ... the problem is where you're setting the bar may be wrong for the people who are actually doing the work. You have to let them set their own bar, do their own work, and make their own case for what tools they do or don't need to get the job done. The more people get involved who aren't part of that community, the less that community trusts the result. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hammersoft, while there wasn't much initial discussion, it's a well-known problem RFA has become really tough lately. I'm sure you don't disagree. I don't see the point in going over the same old issues which have been done time and time again on RFA talk, when a simple solution, to a problem that everyone knows about, works much better. Not every idea needs to solve something. But the fact of the matter is, there is a problem, and this is a solution, at least it's on the way. There doesn't need to be a process to have a good idea. I'm pretty sure most people want editors on this site working at their best, and in the case of good vandal fighters best is with a block button. Aiken ♫ 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hammer's position is going to be well-represented in any community vote, so at some point, we need to work out some kind of compromise between Hammer's and Aiken's position, or at least get the two sides to acknowledge the opposing point. We can do that now (or not). Aiken, do you agree that we need to be dealing more closely the communities that are doing the work to get better data before proceeding? Hammer, do you agree that it's at least possible (not sure that I believe this) that the process you'd like to see won't even get started until there's at least one inoffensive user-right that's been approved and ready to go, in order to motivate the people already doing vandalism work to step it up a notch and work together on all the issues you mentioned? - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dank, I'm actually quite pessimistic the community can follow a rational development process. I have rarely seen it here (in fact can't think of one off the top of my head). That doesn't stop me from suggesting it needs to be done. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Aiken, there's several problems with your stance there. I agree there are problems at RfA. We don't agree on what those problems are. For my part, I don't agree because there's been no effort to ascertain whether the problem you propose to solve is in fact THE (or even A) problem. You're saying RfA is harsh and not permitting vandal fighters only to get promoted. That's a presumption. Back it up with some evidence. Something. ANYthing. If you're going to implement a level of bureaucracy, then yeah I do insist that it actually solve an identified problem. I also strongly dispute that a good vandal fighter is at their best with a block button at their disposal. Blocking takes a different mental toolset than identifying vandalism. One of the ways you can evaluate that (and this too hasn't been done by you or anyone else) is how many AIV reports get rejected because the requests by well intentioned vandal fighters were not appropriate for blocking. You just don't know. You don't know. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with that last point, and I'd like to see some hard evidence on the subject. I'm certainly aware of some competent VOAs (vandal-only-admins) passing RfA recently, and not too aware of any competent ones failing for lack of content creation. Accuracy in reporting would be a key metric in anyone's application for these extra rights. I have taken to looking closely at AIV whenever someone posts at ANI that it's backlogged. I've usually observed 40% of the users listed at AIV being thrown off the board without action. Anecdotally I think this is typical of AIV most of the time when there are users sitting there, and I consider these the main reason for the appearance of any apparent backlogs. What is often needed most is less trigger-reporting and blocking, and more competent editors knowing when not to block. Not adequately demonstrating this quality is why many VOAs fail at RfA, IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a presumption, I've seen it. One only needs to look at the list of unsuccessful RFAs to find them. Just an example, of a user who has been mentioned here as a potential candidate for this user right, The Thing That Should Not Be failed, the majority of reasons along the lines of "good vandal fighter, not enough writing". I think it's problematic that vandal fighters (good ones) are turned away when they could do a good job with a limited toolset. There's more out there, that's just an example. Dealing with vandalism involves blocking. It's one process. Good vandal fighters won't post inappropriate reports to AIV. Ones that do, won't get the user right. Aiken ♫ 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• And your good candidate made a false report [3]. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And you seriously believe that I would block someone in that same manner? I would go to the vandals contributions page to block, not a diff page, which is where I made that particular report from. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Do you seriously consider that good evidence? The user reported, an admin, was clearly in error. An error caused by the use of an automatic program. Are you implying that simply by making an obviously erroneous report caused by Huggle, that TTTSNB would then go and block the user without doing any checking of contribs? Aiken ♫ 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And even if that was an actual, genuinely reported editor who hadn't had enough warnings or whatever, we have to consider the fact the nobody is perfect and looking into a user's history you're going to find mistakes. Admins make mistakes, before and after their RFAs, and yet we trust them with much more. Aiken ♫ 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As I had feared, this discussion has gone from principles to the current proposal. Hammersmith makes a good point that blocking is a serious power, to which I respond that we would therefore have to think very seriously about who allocates this, and what scrutiny it requires. Other than that, I haven't seen any opposition to the concept of people who can be trusted with the block button in isolation, in certain circumstances, being given those powers. --WFC-- 01:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point?

I wonder if we're missing the point by appointing a bunch of technicians to do this work, simply because there isn't much more productive work they can do here. We're an encyclopedia; I feel very strongly that every user should be an editor first - producing and improving content. Not all content work requires specialist knowledge. Any editor can help by rewriting poorly written prose, formatting and tidying articles, finding and adding references, etc.

With regard to the perennial problem of vandalism: As an editor, if you stumble upon some crazy IP/user on a vandalism spree, you check his/her contribs, and put an end to it via persuasion, or technical means like blocking (by yourself, or by requesting for help). And you fix the mess by rollbacks or whatever.

If we need more people with the mop, then we should give more people the mop. It seems that becoming an admin has become much more difficult over time. Adminship isn't a big deal, so let's not make it a big deal. Candidates will never be perfect, let's not expect perfection. So long as they have integrity, and they have been around awhile and are aware of community expectations, let's give them the mop. Assign them a mentor or two, and let them feel their way into the role. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. As an analogy, if everyone were content writers and nobody did copyediting, Wikipedia would be far worse off. Wikipedia thrives on the fact that everyone enjoys doing something a little bit different, and that all of those things are very necessary for the encyclopedia. Nobody does everything, but everybody does something, and it's the collection of all of those little things that people do well that make the encyclopedia stronger. I believe I remember seeing a quote from someone at one point that went something like "if all the content writers went away for a week, the content would stick around, but if all of the vandalism fighters went away for a week, the encyclopedia would be trashed in days." This isn't to say vandalism fighting is more important than content writing, but it is most certainly important. There are many roles to fill, and all of them are important. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

By editing, that includes formatting, copyediting, etc. I would be bothered if we have a class of anti-vandal experts who are very good at what they do, yet are clueless about about our core business of being an encyclopedia. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would explain why. These people are quite valuable, as I already explained. And there are plenty of content editors that don't have a clue about how to keep up with vandalism. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Though I reiterate my point (which agrees with yours) that we should be giving more people mops. I say again, the people that I would agree with having this prospective right should be admins anyway. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more admins would be the best answer, but as a community we don't have a clue how to achieve that. People are simply not running for admin (for reasons that we have explored in some detail), so it achieves nothing by just repeating that there should be more admins. And it achieves nothing by just repeating that the admin process should be easier, without coming up with some kind of concrete proposal that would make it easier and would stand a chance of actually succeeding. Until someone comes up with something like that, at least this current proposal is a concrete idea that might actually work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer, therefore, is to amend Requests for Adminship. There may be no workable proposal to do that yet, but I'm uncomfortable that this proposal could give extra rights to users whom can't pass an RFA not because of the system's failure, but because of their only issues with heavy-handed patrol work, or deletionism, or biting, or incivility. We have users with 7 or 8 failed RFAs whom could end up with blocking ability. RFA has its flaws, but some people are not good with the responsibility of blocking and so forth - Removing elements of adminship doesn't change this, and to give other administrators the ability to elect their peers without bureaucrat intervention makes it all the more alarming. Esteffect (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

People fail RFA for all sorts of silly reasons. Often opposers acknowledge the candidate's good work as a vandal fighter, but oppose because of other reasons. This is not admin lite, or a run-up to becoming a full admin. It's a new role entirely. If they aren't responsible with blocking, they won't get the user right, it's as simple as that. And the beauty of it is it'll be removable in an instant. Plus I don't see how it's "alarming", considering admins give out every other unbundled user right. Aiken ♫ 14:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out in reply to Salvio, it's probably not removable in an instant. It could easily lead to permissions wars, or the revoking of powers after one mistake seen as heavy-handed. I'm with you on the silly reasons, but the answer to that is to make RFA easier again (I don't think the bar should be as high as it is, or anywhere near it), not to create new positions and permissions that I think are a little too much. Individuals whom aren't administrators for good reason would be able to perform administrator roles such as blocking, which even restricted to new users, is somewhat dangerous to me. Especially when it's handed out freely by existing admins. I think that the idea is proposed in good will, but the "beauty of it" would not be realised quite as you envision, it'd create a lot more headaches in place of the slightly lighter backlog. Esteffect (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Individuals whom aren't administrators for good reason would be able to perform administrator roles such as blocking". No, they wouldn't. As I mentioned, this isn't going to be given out to any old person who asks. People with past RFAs would be scrutinised. Perhaps two admins would have to agree to granting, or maybe a period of 24 hours should be in place to allow concerns to be raised. There's all sorts that can be done. Just to reiterate, we're not going to be giving this right to editors who have had problems with biting newcomers, misreports at AIV, misusing rollback etc. It'll go to only the best and dedicated vandalism patrollers (a better name?) Aiken ♫ 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep it simple!

Reading through this (and the earlier talk on the parent page), I fear it might be going the way of all community discussion - the more people who join in, the more complicated it gets, the more different ideas get thrown into the pot, and the more people start pulling in all directions. If we want this to have any chance of flying, we need to keep it simple. Now, this is all repetition from different places and I'm not saying anything new, but I make no apologies, because sometimes the "bleedin' obvious" does need some repetition. I think we should fix the proposal on the following, and see how far it gets...

• Ability to block IPs and non-autoconfirmed usernames (for periods tbd) for blatant vandalism only.
• Relatively easily granted, and easily removed if abused.
• That's all.
• No ability to view deletions - it's just not needed for blocking blatant vandals.
• No ability to protect pages.
• No RfA-style voting.

I watch recent changes by newbies and I see a lot of vandalism that could be dealt with very effectively by such a system, and if we just had that, then we'd have a new set of people able to take some work off the shoulders of admins. Sure, some vandalism would be better dealt with by protecting pages, but when cases like that happen just leave them to admins - we're not trying to solve everything, we're just exploring one route that might help to lessen one part of the admin workload. (And should a similar idea be thought worthwhile, we could think about "limited page protection ability" later). The simpler we keep this, the more realistic it will be to actually trial it, and the more chance we'll have of achieving something. But by complicating it, by adding bells and whistles that are not absolutely necessary, and by making it more and more like "admin lite", the more we'd be guaranteeing management-by-community failure yet again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. I think there's a case to be made - if the community decides to keep pending changes - for a new right that can apply PC1. But I don't believe that should "muddy the waters" here. Let's focus on a right that can block IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors, and worry about further rights if this one gains acceptance. TFOWR 10:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. Agree . Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

comments Agree- no RfA style voting. Semi-protection is important. First, it's just semi-protection and may be a limited time of it. Other wikis have "block-only" rights but what scares me is that these wikis way too often abuse it and bite just about anyone who does not meet what they want and I fear that could happen if we grant block ability only. Second, very often our little friends attempt to attack pages and harass users. Those with the VF rights would be able to protect the attack target before the attack (big or small, doesn't really matter) even occurs. Thus, I strongly support some sort of protection ability. The deleted contribs right is designed for users to make informed and good blocks, not hasty ones (originally said by User:Dank). Tommy! [message] 12:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is no "RFA style voting", by which means do you believe consensus should be gathered? The willingness of 4 or 5 users to put this through does not represent any form of consensus, and it will eventually need to come down to a case of support or oppose. That's assuming that the powers that be want to hand this kind of power to users. Esteffect (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And the delete button would be useful rid us of spammy userpages or attack pages; and what we obtain is a light version of an admin that will never be accepted, I fear... If we want to get something, we ought to aim for the bare necessities and accept that for something we'll still need admins... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont think a delete button is necessary.. blocking vandals is what takes the longest for admins and if vandal fighters could block more directly from huggle and help at the UAA backlog, CSD pages will more quickly be deleted. Tommy! [message] 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocking does not take very long for an administrator, it really is a case of two clicks to perform the logistics of putting it through in the MediaWiki hardware. It's as quick as a page deletion in that respect. Esteffect (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Tommy was referring more to the AIV side-of-things, the thought processes that we go through before the blocking. AIV is frequently back-logged, despite the ease and swiftness with which the actual block can be applied. Tommy will see the backlogs and appreciate that more people able to consider cases and perform blocks will be a good thing. (Apologies, Tommy, if I'm misunderstanding you). TFOWR 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Esteffect (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I do agree that some kind of protection ability might be a good idea too. I just think that as this is a fairly revolutionary step, and as we don't want to alienate people who might see it as "creeping admin", we should stick to just one thing at a time. The two are not interdependent, so we can keep them separate. I think the bundling of new rights into "admin lite" would kill the idea, as there would be too much opposition - we need to show that a single limited right can work first. (And if we went for a protection right too, I think PC1 would probably be better than semi-protection, so we'd need to wait a while to see how PC goes first, and I think we'd need a separate discussion - if PC goes ahead, I think we'd probably be better off leaving it for maybe six months and coming back to talk about a new protection right then). As for abusing the right, we have a pretty firm definition of what constitutes vandalism, and if anyone uses it for anything else, they quickly lose the right. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize that we're making this too complicated, and I agree that it's likely to be a mistake to throw in anything else ... other than deleted contribs. I've asked over at X!'s user page if it would be possible to craft a userright that only lets you see deleted edits from accounts no more than 5 days (or 14 or 21 days, to mesh better with UAA) old. If so, I doubt people would see this userright as inappropriate or a threat.

I hear sometimes that you don't need to see deleted contribs to block, but there's been a consensus in the discussions up to now that it would be helpful, and I think when people actually start doing it they're going to see it's essential. Since banning certain limited kinds of vandalism is the only thing you'd want to do without being able to see any deleted contribs, not seeing deleted contribs would pull people away from dealing with the other urgent problems presented by new users (UAA/promotionalism, BLP vios, and copyright vios come to mind). That doesn't help Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be offended, but that sounds to me a bit like "We shouldn't add extra complication to this, except for the one thing that I want" - and then others have the "one thing" that they want too. If someone repeatedly adds "is a penis" to a BLP, why would you need to see their deleted contributions to work out that that's blockable? If someone registers an account and creates a number of attack pages (possibly aimed at their schoolmates), why would you need to look for deleted contributions to tell that's blockable? I think the key thing here is that this new right is for blatant vandalism only, and I really don't see how that needs the ability to view deleted contributions - if you can't tell that calling someone a penis (etc) is vandalism, you shouldn't get the right. And if repeat vandalism is genuinely not obvious, you just report it and leave it to an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree; in my opinion, we should try to get this new userright first with as few features as we can; then, if it works, we can try and create new userrights or add new features to the ones we have... But since this will be perceived as somewhat revolutionary, we really should try not to fly low, for the moment. Needless to say, this is just IMHO. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the argument for how prohibiting someone from seeing a user's deleted contribs helps them do a better job making the blocking call. I'd also like to hear if there is actually anyone who's in favor of letting clerks block accounts up to 5 days, but who feel that the "deal is off" if we let clerks see the deleted contribs of just these users. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dank, Mike Godwin has said no to non-admins viewing deleted contribs. It's not going to happen. Aiken ♫ 13:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's Mike Godwin's post FYI - Pointillist (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Another layer of opposition for this proposal, then - A user whom can't view deleted contributions is in a weaker position to perform a block. Without the same tools, the same quality of blocking can't be performed. Esteffect (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So if you tell its obviously blockable vandalism without seeing deleted contributions (see "penis"), then block 'em, and if it isn't, leave it for an admin - what's so unworkable about that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody was arguing that not viewing deleted content would make it better - the argument is that it is a further right that would likely cause more opposition, and that it really isn't necessary to risk losing the whole thing by adding unnecessary rights. I don't know how many people would go against the whole idea if such viewing rights were added, and it would be good to know, but surely every additional right would be likely to increase the opposition vote, and so we have to prioritise - one person wants "only" viewing deleted material to be added, another wants "only" page protection to be added, and where do we end? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely we end there? Temporary semi-protection and temporary blocking are two sides of the same coin, so it is legitimate to consider bundling them together (though I respect your POV too). The other possible rights (viewing deleted contributions, deleting pages, undoing moves, closing AfDs etc) are a completely different ball game. - Pointillist (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's certainly legitimate to consider them - but just as you are of the opinion that viewing deleted contributions is a different ballgame, so others think it's an essential part of making block decisions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I know what Mike Godwin has said, and I'm pretty sure it's not a problem if the techs have the solution that I think they have; I'm waiting on an answer. I was asked if I was offended; the only thing that's going to piss me off is if any of this has the effect of eroding the clerking experiment at UAA (which is working really well, right now, unlike anything that's being discussed here), by giving the impression that you're worthy of some kind of promotion if you deal with "penis" vandalism but not if you deal with usernames that are vandalistic or promotional. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a good proposal. The comments and concerns of all so far are encouraging. I would like to commend Aiken for keeping this on target. I think that Page Protection is a key component to this proposal. I agree it should be no more than the 8 hrs. mentioned by Kbrose. I'm leaning towards admin's giving out the rights and we should come up with a different title. The ability to view deletions (IMO) is not needed, if there's is a reason for this I'm missing it. and yes no RfA type request. Just my 2 cents, so far. Mlpearc powwow 16:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reaction

If this sort of feature creep is implemented, there will be huge problems. Not "could" -- will. People of good faith can disagree, VERY strongly, about what counts as 'vandalism' (I'm thinking particularly of the people who edit contentious ethnic articles about things like "Macedonia"). Not to mention what can happen if someone with actual malice gets these additional user privileges. DS (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't happen with rollback, account creators, or anything else. We have a policy on what vandalism is and isn't: WP:VANDALISM. There's not much to argue about. As for malicious people getting the right, that's always a risk, but bear in mind that this right is fairly limited and easily removable. Aiken ♫ 15:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback and account creation is far less contentious than blocking. It's somewhat naive to think this is as simple a proposal as a button to reverse edits that can be reversed by anyone. Esteffect (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet such a simple proposal to grant non-admins rollback took years to work out. Blocking is certainly more powerful, but consider how many blocks are made a day. Hundreds? Thousands? And how many are of ordinary vandals, that nobody has any issue with? I'd guess the majority. This proposal isn't asking for full-blown blocking rights, and even then, the tool would only be able to be used in specific circumstances. Aiken ♫ 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Aiken, apropos to the discussion above at ideological opposition, I'll note here that you have created this idea without knowing how many people are blocked per day for vandalism. That's basic research that should have been done long before this idea was event dreamt of. It points to the backwards approach with which this idea was developed. Going over the last 7 days, on average 108 vandalism blocks were made. Of those, 78 per day were IPs. This is out of 508 blocks per day, or about 15% of our blocking traffic for the IPs, 21% for IPs and registered together. Now, before latching onto this data as evidence your idea is good, understand this is just one piece of data in a whole spectrum of data that needs to be developed before you come to an idea for a solution. There's lots more that would need to be done. How many of these were reported to WP:AIV? How many were given multiple level warnings? How many were school blocks? How many were pure mischief and how many were misguided editors struggling to understand? Data is a four letter word. Information is useful. You have neither of those yet with which to underpin your idea. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No. I created this proposal to deal with the issue of vandal fighters not passing RFA. Not because there was a high amount of vandalism or whatever. I don't need data to show that RFA is a problem, it's a well known fact for anyone who regularly posts there. Aiken ♫ 16:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As with any power and tool, the issue is the contentious minority. Esteffect (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DS and Esteffect. By considering only the clear-cut cases, you can also support a proposal that every crat should simply give out adminship to everyone they see fit, because "mostly it won't be a problem". And it might not be a problem in most cases - but it's those few cases where it will be that we have created a process to screen candidates for. The same applies here. Many rights were unbundled, yes, for good reasons but for equally good reasons, block, delete and protect were not. Those rights are interlinked (delete a vandalism page and block the creator, protect a page and block socks or delete and salt a page for example) and should not be split up. Anyone trustworthy enough to warrant this new userright should be trustworthy enough to be an admin anyway, so it's also unnecessary. Last but not least it would create a class-system of editors: Those who could be targeted by this admin-light group and those who can't. Yes, they are currently discriminated against already by the software but automatically without any user making a decision to do so. It's something else to allow a certain group of users to discriminate a certain other group. Regards SoWhy 15:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

These are excellent points too. It's hard to be make an effective block when you're unable to use the tools that an administrator needs to make such decisions, and this tool wouldn't end up just being used for "penis spam" where they're not needed. Esteffect (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, most blocks don't require all that. They require one thing only - the block button. Aiken ♫ 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Full admin rights is very different to this extremely limited blocking role. I would not support bureaucrats granting just like that, and I don't know if I support a single admin doing it for this. I have suggested that 2 or more should agree on it too. It's already been explained that in most cases, RC patrol simply involves reverting and blocking. Protection and deletion are done too, but not as often and they can be left to admins. You say "anyone trustworthy enough to warrant this new userright should be trustworthy enough to be an admin anyway, so it's also unnecessary". This isn't so at all - admin requires solid article work, policy discussion, votes at XFDs, FAs, DYKs, knowledge of 3RR and much, much more. This is primarily for vandal fighters who wouldn't pass adminship, not because they are untrustworthy, but because they don't have experience in all the required areas for such a big responsibility. Vandal fighter, or whatever it'll be called, is a responsibility, but only a fraction of the admin role. As for class-system, I don't agree that'll happen, or even if it did, that it would be a problem. It's just a toolset to help maintain the encyclopedia. Aiken ♫ 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"In most cases, RC patrol simply involves reverting and blocking". This, and suggesting that the ability to block doesn't require knowledge of the three-revert rule makes me concerned about your own understanding of what goes into a block. You've got to give the user a chance and assume good faith, and users with these powers would stray into the 3RR type of vandalism that often isn't vandalism at all. I think this demonstrates pretty much why I don't think non-administrators should have the block button. Esteffect (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandal fighters will be dealing with vandalism. That's it. They won't be dealing with edit warring. We'll only be giving this to users who have demonstrated their understanding of that. And furthermore, I'm quite aware of what goes into making a block. The kind of blocks that vandal fighters will be making will be the simplest kind - they will not a be a difficult, slow moving edit war, or inserting POV into an article. They will be blocking for vandalism as is defined by our policy. Aiken ♫ 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the backlog really in need of help in dealing with penis jokes and so on, though? Whether you claim that they wouldn't be dealing in it, it would probably go that way, and the power would be there - That's the inherent problem. Esteffect (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• (or rather, one of the inherent problems). This too points to the backwards approach to the proposal. What problem does this solve? Is this 'problem' in fact a problem? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Esteffect remember they are only able to block new and IP users. That cuts down their blocking abililty for a start. As for blocking for non-vandalism reasons, well, there's nothing anyone can do to stop that (though they can have the right taken after the event). What we can do is have strict requirements for getting the right in the first place.

Hammersoft, yes, I do believe vandalism is an ongoing problem. The issue that this proposal is attempting to solve is the perceived unfairness of good vandal fighters failing at RFA for reasons unrelated to the task they want to do - deal with vandals. I think that it's a problem, and so do many others as was seen on RFA talk. I wouldn't have created this page if I thought there had been little support for the initial idea. Aiken ♫ 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit of an RFA protest proposal?

I also think, further to my previous comments, that parts of this proposal are a form of "RFA standards protest", as clear from the hate of an 'RFA type request' further up (likely to be the case unless bureaucrats grant this - this proposal is too big a permission to just leave to one or two administrators), and the discussion of content creation as preventing vandal fighters from becoming administrators ("This proposal is attempting to solve is the perceived unfairness of good vandal fighters failing at RFA for reasons unrelated to the task they want to do - deal with vandals. I think that it's a problem, and so do many others as was seen on RFA talk"). If RFA is the problem, let's solve that, not create new permissions. We also probably need a Support/Oppose tally on the main page of this, where support and oppose can be gauged - Although once this is advertised, this is probably going to go down the route of no consensus, unless a higher power drops in and decides we should have it. Esteffect (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is, in a way, yes. I don't believe good vandal fighters should lack blocking rights because they don't have n FAs or whatever. So instead of going to RFA for the full package, they can get a much more limited blocking tool, which is ideal for the work they want to do. Why should we try to solve RFA (which, by the way, has been tried for at least the past 5 years) when we can just make a new user right?

You say "once this is advertised, this is probably going to go down the route of no consensus". What makes you so sure? Your own feeling? It was met with overwhelming support on the RFA talk page. Aiken ♫ 16:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA has only recently became exceedingly picky, vandal fighters were passing two or three years ago. Early plans to change it were often for other reasons, such as recall. Also, it may have been met with overwhelming support there (amongst a community of people most disillusioned with RFA practices), but the consensus hasn't crossed over to here. Esteffect (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've kept fairly quiet so far, but I strongly agree with Esteffect. Also, knowing wikipedia every darned time we unbundle a right it gets harder to be an admin. And as an admin there are tons of times where you need to utilize many administrative tools, all to solve one problem. And AIV normally isn't that backlogged: sure it takes admins time, but it's not a huge problem. Deletion backlog is worse. But speedy deletion as a right? What happens if it's a serial attack page, and you need to block the user. You report to aiv. It bureaucratizes things. Plus, a compendium of difficulties come with adding another semi level. The only people I trust on this level should already be admins, but aren't because of the system. I think this is moving in the wrong direction NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"every darned time we unbundle a right it gets harder to be an admin" Really? Just how many times do we unbundle tools? "as an admin there are tons of times where you need to utilize many administrative tools, all to solve one problem". This user right is not adminship. They will only require the block button. If they want or need more, they can apply for adminship. "And AIV normally isn't that backlogged: sure it takes admins time, but it's not a huge problem". It's a problem all the same, small or big. You talk about speedy deletion, but we're not even discussing that. "Plus, a compendium of difficulties come with adding another semi level". It's not a semi-level. It's a separate user right from adminship, not part of a hierarchy. Even so, you've not given any examples of "difficulties". "The only people I trust on this level should already be admins". But they aren't are they, and won't ever be, particularly if they don't/can't write. Aiken ♫ 18:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacker. Ip block exempt. Autoreviewer. Researcher... (Unbundling) You create the vandal fighting group and what happens if they block somebody that isn't gross fighting. TTTSNB should be an admin. Period. But the fact of the matter is I'll take a Malleus-esque view here taht this will encourage 13 year olds with an ego getting tools to thwack vandals without really working on an encyclopedia. In some cases, it's obvious people should be given teh admin right despite such deficiencies (if they are to be called that) Also, no matter how you say it it IS a sub semi level. Although this probably isn't politically correct, in practice in terms of power of technical tools this group would be limited admins, hence a part (or semi) of a full admin. And maybe I'm blind, but a lot of the time at AIV there is a problem of socking, inappropriate page creation and whatnot, and you end up cleaning that up as well. Plus this set of tools could easily be seen as an axe rather than a mop by critics. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, fewer than half a dozen, less than one a year in Wikipedia's existence. I've explained all the whatifs above, but I'll do so again: if they block someone who is not vandalising, they would be treated the same as if an admin had done, and probably worse because the rights can be removed.

Though I don't want to speak for Malleus, surely it's better to get younger editors to help out in their own way, without being given the whole toolset? I think people like Malleus are concerned at the idea of non-writers being granted power over writers. This user right ends all that.

As I already explained, there is often more than just blocking, but if I were to argue for more tools, even more people would be against it, so why would I? Blocking is adequate, and if they can't deal with the issue, they can let an admin do it. Aiken ♫ 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Essentially you are dodging the bigger issue which is RfA standards. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And how would you deal with that issue? I'm not going to force people to change their standards. We can, however, change the processes. Aiken ♫ 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA is going to stay "picky" at least to the extent that candidates must expect to be asked about their content skills. Aiken drum's proposal is useful because it gives a way for people who don't have those skills to make an important contribution. This proposal shouldn't be abandoned yet. The amount of admin bandwidth needed for fixing anonymous/unconfirmed vandalism is going to remain an issue in any case. - Pointillist (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Stage 1 Consensus Gauging

Survey (closed early)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I'm going to be bold here, as I know there are people viewing this talk page whom don't have anything to add, but want to show their opposition or support to this proposal. So, now is a good time perhaps to run an initial Support/Oppose tally, just to see if this is heavily supported (as Aiken alluded to from RFA talk), heavily opposed (as I think it could be if this was more widely publicised), or lacking a real consensus. If it's not got the support at this stage, I'm not sure where it can go. Please, therefore, add and number your name under your view. Make a brief comment, but try not to discuss here, let's leave it clean enough to see what people are thinking on this. We'll need to run this initial poll for a day or so in order to allow others to review the proposal and the debate surrounding it. Esteffect (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Have you advertised this? Fewer than 30 people are watching. Also, I think it's premature to do this. We haven't even worked out the specifics yet. Aiken ♫ 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC) It's alright- we'll get an idea where it's heading. Besides the below should be open for a long time to get a good idea (ie- a week or so). Tommy! [message] 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I haven't advertised it; I'm probably not the person to do so, as I can't argue for it due to my opposition. We need to make sure it's not just advertised to RFA talk and so on, though, as RFA talk is probably going to be biased in favour, just as other groups will have a bias against. It's necessary to have this, as we can't talk about "well received" and "consensus" if there isn't any. Esteffect (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC) As you set up the poll (too early imo) it's your responsibility to advertise it. You don't argue for it in a post, you simply say it's happening. Aiken ♫ 19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC) This isn't an "implement it" poll, it's more of a, "Is there enough support for this to consider?" type of poll. Hence the 'Phase 1' name. We were already starting to go round in circles, with 100K+ of debate, with no real indication as to whether this has much support beyond the circle that proposed it. The poll's necessary, or we're wasting our time. Esteffect (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Also, is this poll for the general idea, or for the more specific things? It's not really very clear, and if we must have a poll at this early stage, it needs to be open much longer than a day. It also must be publicised in a neutral way at RFA talk, village pumps etc. Aiken ♫ 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I've advertised at RFA talk. Aiken ♫ 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC) It's for the proposal in general - The specifics of how to be awarded and to whom are far away, if consensus on its implementation is reached. Esteffect (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Support Strong Support I believe this would be a great tool for users who clearly have the particular experience necessary but can't pass an RfA because they only have that particular experience. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Support- Worth giving a shot. Tommy! [message] 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Support, because I don't like the typical Wikipedian reflex of oh no, don't move my cheese (aka motion to close). I want to see this proposal worked on and improved some more, although I think it needs improvement and looks destined to fail in its present form. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Strong support. I think this idea has great potential! Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Cautious Support. This is a great idea, but we must keep every facet of it dead simple or it will fail. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Support. I'm !voting a second time, since others saw fit to !vote oppose after the section was closed, so hey, why not, and it's not a vote anyway! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I voted a first time because I was edit conflicted. Geez. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Moratorium, anyone? Do check your humor detector. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I threw it out the window with the babelfish and all other kinds of fish. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC) "Other kinds of fish"? Ouch! Me, I'm a red herring. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Idealogical support This poll was a terrible idea, as votes are always black-and-white (with those in the "grey" or "neutral" area generally being ignored). A clear majority of people below are opposing based on the current wording. If the current wording were the final wording, I would also oppose. But the idea has mileage, and we should work on it in the medium term. --WFC-- 01:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose Strong oppose, as per my comment above. DS (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Opposed per my many comments throughout the talk page, with regard to the problems and conflict that this would create. Esteffect (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I fail to see how this improves anything. Just go for adminship itself. harej 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC) This is for people who have the experience necessary for this specific tool, but who can't pass an RfA because their experience is so narrow. I myself am a living example of this... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Let's try to keep the discussion to the various discussion sections, if we can - It stops clutter in this section. Esteffect (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I was just reminding him of the specific purpose of the proposal, not discussing it. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Take the strongest oppose possible, and go a step beyond. This is a BAD idea on so many levels. Giving non-admins, who are not part of a coordinated abuse response effort the authorities and rights listed on the proposal is just going to cause a big, BIG headache. I see no safeguards, coordination, etc. I BEG that this proposal not go through until we have improved the abuse response system, which WP:ABUSE and WP:LTA persons are beginning to discuss. I see potential in the future, but NOT NOW. ANowlin talk 19:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Oppose We have sysops for this reason; it is a bad idea, in my opinion, to start down the path that will end up turning each user right into a user group. -- Avi (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Per avi. We need help at An3, not AIV. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Then support the idea so that admins who deal with AIV can move over to AN3... Aiken ♫ 20:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Will add to the bureaucracy, and add tiers to wikisociety. Kingturtle (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC) (ec)Oppose: Far too many unaddressed flaws, and the development process for this was done backwards. With respect, go back to the drawing board. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Neutral I will probably support in the future, because I don't see how anyone can be anything but optimistic about what's happening at UAA (read WT:UAA and watch WP:UAA); surely, if we can increase the amount of high-quality clerking without even offering a new userright, we can figure out some way to support the AIV admins, too. I oppose at this time, however, because I think the discussion above suggests that we're going about this the wrong way, and if we just dumped this at WP:VPP right now, we'd get yet another shoutfest followed by another round of "I told you so, it never works". I'd like to suggest we put the brakes on this. Maybe we could go over to WT:AIV and suggest there that they consider whether what's going on at UAA would be useful at AIV? That means: we make no promises about a userright, just talk with the community about the concept of "clerks", about how useful it is to get non-admins helping out with separating good reports from bad reports. Many people active at UAA are active at AIV; they'll know what we're talking about. Over time, we will be able to identify the non-admins who know what they're doing, just as is happening now at UAA. When we've got a set of people that everyone trusts to do good work, when they've been "clerking" for a while ... then put the question of an extra userright on the table. And if the userright fails ... we've got a big pile of great clerks with no extra userrights, is that bad? - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stop

The reason this was moved from WT:RFA was to stem the inane and premature boldvoting on this barely-formed proto-proposal. Let it incubate, let the interested editors discuss and refine it, and stick it up on WP:CENT to gauge consensus when it's actually ready. This charade above, however well-intentioned, serves only to muddy the waters and prevent a viable proposal from being formed.

Wikipedia:Don't object to proposals. Thank you. Skomorokh 20:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's already apparent from above that multiple editors - from a small sample - are opposed to the idea. I think that's enough of a gauge (although it had mayswell have been allowed to run) for me to predict that, in its current form, this won't gain consensus. It's too contentious and has many flaws. Esteffect (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "small sample" is from editors that are already involved in the process and who have already made their opinions known i.e. they are the most vocal about the possible right. That's nothing of a gauge. As Smkomorkh said, "let it incubate". --Izno (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am not already involved in this process. Kingturtle (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Skomorokh has it exactly right. Thank you for that. Alternatively, let's just declare that Wikipedia is perfect in every way Wikipedia was perfect in the good old days and is a little less so now, and have a moratorium on discussing new ideas. There are editors in this talk who, predictably, defaulted to spamming up this talk with how Aiken is supposedly doing everything wrong and how any proposal remotely resembling this one could never succeed, but on the other hand, they think that something sort of like this, only different, might be good, but who show no interest in improving the proposal, instead of carping about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just about fed up w/ this... we can't even get a goddamn consensus for more than 3 hours 1 hour without someone helping themselves by closing it. Ugh Tommy! [message] 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Voting on a half-baked proposal is never going to end well. It's not even clear what's being voted on. Consensus forms through discussion and addressing concerns. The rest of the page is still open for that purpose. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I'm passing on it for now. There's not much point. It's obvious the proposal in its current form is dead on delivery. Back to the drawing board. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth this pain. I guess it's just RfA or nothing. Tommy! [message] 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Check the history of the page to see how much the details have fluctuated and how unestablished the "current form" is – this is the drawing board, and it would be courteous of us all to let the draughtsmen get on with it in peace. Skomorokh 21:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)