Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Points to consider

Hammersoft put some points above, which can be a starting point that we can discuss here.

Who do we give this user right to?

Obviously, to editors who spend most of their time doing vandalism patrol. They would have rollback rights, and in addition to plain old vandal fighting, they would have demonstrated they help newcomers, assume good faith and report appropriately to AIV. In summary, as well as vandal fighting they should show there is a human there too. I'm not keen on setting time and edit count limits, but they should have at least a few months imo. It's relatively easy to get a high count with Huggle anyway. Aiken ♫ 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• And what happens when it's a controversial vandal fighter? Or somebody whom does those things, but is wholly overwhelmed when it comes to blocking? What happens if they have 1 failed RFA, 2, 3, get desysopped or have blocks? It's not as simple as you're suggesting, you seem to be looking to create what RFA should be, but it's a lot more contentious than that (and incomparable to rollback which is just a useful click-tool, not a fully-blown right to remove other editors). Esteffect (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"And what happens when it's a controversial vandal fighter?" Define "controversial". "What happens if they have 1 failed RFA, 2, 3, get desysopped or have blocks?" Good questions. My suggestion would be for whoever is reviewing to check through the RFAs for any significant problems (remembering why the user right was created - so they'd look for problems with vandalism patrol, biting etc). If they had no problems, but the issue was just with lack of writing, I don't see why they should be granted the right if they had all other necessary experience. Same if they got desysoped - it would depend on why, how and when. I can't really think of many reasons why a desysoped admin would get this right. As for blocks, it would depend on why and when again. I'm not trying to recreate RFA. This is not adminship. Aiken ♫ 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Very few RFAs fail because of a lack of content creation, though. Normally it's lack of knowledge of policies, incivility, poor CSD tagging and the like, or a lack of trust from the community. I have to say that, even if it's not adminship, it is going to end being treated as not far off it. Bringing all of the problems intertwined with that. Esteffect (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Very few RFAs fail because of a lack of content creation". No offense, but it sounds like you haven't looked at many RFAs lately. That's one of the reasons I created this proposal. Admin candidates who fail for lack of policy knowledge, lack of civility etc won't be granted this user right. If there are any issues in past RFAs for things related to vandal fighting, they wouldn't get the user right. That's probably most things actually, except for not writing enough articles. And arguably, that could be included too. We could make it so editors who have had an RFA and failed are not permitted to apply. But that's much too harsh imo, and doesn't help solve the problem this proposal is trying to solve - getting vandal fighters a limited block button without needing to go through the RFA hurdles unnecessarily. Aiken ♫ 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've probably been arguing for the lowering of RFA standards more than anybody - Culminating in this page, which references content creation as a poor reason. You very rarely see 70 opposes just because somebody hasn't created enough content, though. I may be old-fashioned, but I think RFA is the only way the scrutiny required is available for somebody to be trusted with such a feature. There's too much scrutiny now, but too little is the wrong way entirely. If this proposal gains proper weight, therefore, I'd say it has to be given by bureaucrats or by a vote. Esteffect (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA is probably the best way for admins - i.e. the full package - but for a limited block button, RFA is over the top. You don't get 70 opposes for lack of writing, but you get enough to just tip the RFA result into failed.

You say you'd want scrutiny, but you'd be happy with bureaucrats dealing with giving the right? On their own whim? I'd say at least two functionaries, be it admins or bureaucrats should be required to endorse a candidate. Aiken ♫ 16:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm against bureaucrats doing it after someone pointed out that it isn't their job to choose people, but only to gauge consensus. Bureaucrat endorsement for this could hinder their neutrality in elections for RFA and other things. Also, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare - It tipped the other way this time, despite the lack of content creation. Esteffect (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope I don't aggravate anyone, but I would support giving this user right to User:TTTSNB, User:NSD and User:Salvio giuliano for starters. Tommy! [message] 17:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• The first of those users has failed multiple Requests for Adminship, so that's instantly a concern. This is a mile away from granting to specific users, though. Esteffect (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment on "Very few RFAs fail because of a lack of content creation". It's not RfAs that fail that's the problem - it's RfAs that never even start because many people who would probably make fine admins find the whole process too intimidating, as the past few weeks of discussion appear to have shown. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Or they don't need all the tools an admin gets, but could use this privilege, if this proposal were approved (and I'm starting to lose my optimism, here...). By the way, Tommy, thank you for your kind words! Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Who do we not give this user right to?

New users who do not have a considerable amount of community trust; users who are extremely familiar with the blocking policy and rollback. Tommy! [message] 16:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• How do we evaluate if an editor has community trust? That's not a one person decision. One person doesn't speak for the community. So, from that we would have to develop something like WP:VF, sub clone to WP:RFA. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I was thinking either strong support from either arbcom, crats or AN.. but I agree with your point above. Tommy! [message] 16:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As I just noted above, it'd have to be bureaucrats or a vote. Both of which Aiken doesn't really agree with (and he seems to be driving this proposal in his vision, although I think it's a little misguided as to what the end result would be). Esteffect (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • If it's going to be bureaucrats, then people will throw a fit since bureaucrats were not elected to decide who is trustworthy, but to evaluate consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Exactly, which is why I am against bureaucrats doing the job. However, admins do take on similar roles. Even though I created this proposal, I'm happy to go with the flow if I'm the only one against an idea. Aiken ♫ 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't trust administrators to give out this right. Can't really say more than that. We have administrators whom fully trust and propose for adminship individuals whom are frequently referred to as "good content creators, but not suitable for adminship", and if you give administrators the powers, those people will end up with these tools. Unless others don't trust, and then you get arguments over the powers and further conflict, except without bureaucrats to make a final decision. Administrators are not appointers of light-administrators, which is partially what this proposal is (especially if protection comes back in to the equation). Esteffect (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't trust admins to give out the right, either. What about a form of old-school RfA ("RfA-lite"), where an editor requests, other editors comment/!vote, then a 'crat assesses the consensus and doles out the right if appropriate? That avoids having 'crats doing anything un-'cratlike, keeps the community in the loop, and avoid the dramah of a full-blown RfA? TFOWR 16:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
              • That's better, but it'd still turn into that in a lot of cases, hence why RFA changed in the end. It'd probably only be simple for people who'd be able to pass RFA anyway, and you'd still get people with their subpages detailing edit counts and other criteria. Esteffect (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Would something along the lines of BAG (not them specifically) be more palatable? Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Good idea. Aiken ♫ 16:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
              • A board, instead of community, to promote administrators has been proposed before (and failed). I don't see how this would be any different. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you mistype the last bit? :-) There's an issue with measuring "considerable amount of community trust". The only way we can really do that is... RFA. So, instead we look at this particular point at a different angle. Obviously, new users don't get this. But also, editors with edit warring history, incivility, biting, lack of policy knowledge, bad AIV reports etc. Also, those who simply don't have much experience with vandalism patrol. The right would be designed to be given out on a strict basis. Aiken ♫ 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• If it's going to be so strict, what makes it different than sending them through RfA? The reality is if we create a process like RfA, the proposal is dead in the water. It has to be lighter than that to survive. The problem is it can't be light if we're asserting that we must give this right based on community trust. No one person can speak for the community. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it wouldn't demand things unnecessary to the task, like article writing. Aiken ♫ 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a gripe with an RFA failure along the way for a lack of content creation, if that's the reason you proposed this, then it's being proposed for all the wrong reasons. Esteffect (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Aiken ♫ 16:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Same point as the protest section further down. Esteffect (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What will the granting process be?

Users will post a request in a similar fashion to rollback. The request will be evaluated in detail by two bureaucrats, who will either endorse or deny the request. Other editors may wish to comment and the bureaucrats will consider the points. The request will be open for a minimum of 24 hours and extended at bureaucrats' discretion if there could be any potential issues. Aiken ♫ 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bureaucrats have not been elected to determine community trust of candidates, only to evaluate consensus of RfAs. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Then they can get a new responsibility. Just like admins were given a new responsibility of giving out rollback, despite not being elected to do so. Aiken ♫ 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not a crat, but I really belive that crats would NOT want this role. You need consensus, and it's hard to evaluate on an arbitrary basis. It seems like many crats would be hurt by this. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I admire your passion for this Aiken, but just handing bureaucrats and admins and users such powers isn't as easy as you perhaps think. I can't see consensus being reached on the permissions anyway, nevermind whom grants them. Esteffect (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'll let the bureaucrats speak on that one, but I can't see why they would be decapitated by it. Aiken ♫ 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• How on earth can you see into the future? :-) Seriously, you're against the idea and I'm for it, I get that. It's not helpful to keep claiming there'll be no consensus when you really have no idea. Aiken ♫ 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the fact that nothing similar exists for non-admins?

It is true that nothing similar exists. However, at one time people were horrified at the idea of non-admins having rollback, and yet that was eventually made a reality. True, rollback isn't as powerful as blocking, but it was two years ago that was granted. Wikipedia has moved on, and we'll never really know how things will pan out unless we try them. A limited blocking tool, while potentially problematic, can be used very well by an active vandal patroller, who is uninterested in full-blown adminship. Aiken ♫ 17:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Will this create drama?

• Yes. Permissions wars, arguments over the "easy" revoking that Aiken proposes, and arguments over whom gets it. We have controversial editors whom wouldn't be able to handle blocking responsibilities, but whom are good at CSD tagging and so forth, and it's easy to say that the powers are easily removed now, but in practice it would need discussion and would cause a lot of conflict when powers are removed. This isn't to mention the problems when mistakes are made, which they are, and when contentious decisions are made by users whom are still not administrators. Vandalism to one person is not vandalism to another - A new user putting across their point of view heavily on an article on a conflicted country, for example, might lead said "vandal fighters" to block and call them vandals, thus biting them, when they may just need to know WP:NPOV policy. To allow users to block other users, and to allow administrators to appoint that power to users that they trust, would be a source of more drama than good. RFA is flawed, but it's still a test of whether somebody can handle these powers, and we don't need permissions/class wars. Esteffect (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Permission wars? That's as bad as wheelwarring if I'm understanding what permission wars are correctly. It's not going to happen, or if it does, it'll be extremely rare and probably result in desysoping. You say there will be arguments, but I would refer to them as "discussions". We can easily work out a compromise without arguing. You say we have controversial editors "whom wouldn't be able to handle blocking responsibilities, but whom are good at CSD tagging and so forth". I don't see how this is at all relevant to this proposal. Such editors wouldn't be given this user right. You say "This isn't to mention the problems when mistakes are made, which they are, and when contentious decisions are made by users whom are still not administrators". So are you suggesting when an admin makes a mistake it's ok? I'd say the opposite actually. An admin, confirmed by probably 50 people or more over a week period, should not be making any mistakes. It's part of human nature to make mistakes, and any genuine mistake would be met by any reasonable editor on the receiving end as forgivable. You say "Vandalism to one person is not vandalism to another - A new user putting across their point of view heavily on an article on a conflicted country, for example, might lead said "vandal fighters" to block and call them vandals, thus biting them, when they may just need to know WP:NPOV policy". Nope, this tool is for dealing with WP:VANDALISM (that's a policy - we don't need to argue on what is or isn't vandalism, it's right there). Nothing else. NPOV issues are not vandalism, so wouldn't be dealt with, at least with blocking. A "vandal fighter" would be very welcome, of course, to educate the editor on the policy, but wouldn't be allowed to block. Aiken ♫ 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your vision for the position is not necessarily how it would develop, though. It would end up dealing with contentious issues from new users, and it's quite easy to say "it'll be extremely rare" and that controversial editors "wouldn't get this user right", but in reality you'd not be pulling the puppet strings to say that. One of your last comments that I just replied to (about patrol just being reverting and blocking), for example, would give some picky users reservations as to your suitability for the block button, and that brings us straight into RFA territory again. What is and isn't vandalism is contended time and time again, even if we have a page on it - I've seen "experienced vandal fighters" leaving "This is your final warning" on user pages time and time again because of one article about someone's best friend or some similar shenanigans, and it's all drama that would be created. Esteffect (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no drama if you don't talk about it. It kind of annoys me how some people immediately go here. Worry about "drama" when it actually occurs.. until then I like to be positive. Tommy! [message] 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would love to be positive. Unfortunately, Wikipedia beats all optimism of drama avoidance out of you. The proposal must deal with this issue head on. How can drama be fomented by this idea in practice? How can we reduce such drama? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, most RFAs, most RFA closings and even some reasonable blocks create drama; it's unavoidable. I'm all for facing problems head on but let's not create them beforehand. Tommy! [message] 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I get it. So, since we know there's going to be drama no matter what we do, don't worry about it. Don't try to craft a proposal with efforts to reduce the amount of drama it would create, since it will create it anyway. <cough> --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't to mention that this proposal is meant to make us administrator's life easier, when it will most likely make it harder due to said drama. Esteffect (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that way, sorry. Tommy! [message] 16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's why it's a discussion after all. Myself and Hammersoft will never agree with Aiken and other supporters of the proposal, it's down to others to cause a consensus. Esteffect (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we need more people commenting, hence the advertising at village pumps. Otherwise we'll just go round in circles :-) Aiken ♫ 17:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I MIGHT agree with a proposal. But, the inception of this proposal was done backwards. It's lacking evidence, analysis, work group discussion, and more. It's just another idea. Ideas are great. Everyone's got them. Very few ideas actually work in practice. A more reasoned approached to development would be considerably more successful at addressing real as opposed to perceived problems. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You just wrote off the idea while saying it might work... that doesn't make any sense to me.. For the record, I wouldn't say I'm a "strong" supporter of this idea, but I strongly believe it's an idea worth considering. Tommy! [message] 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of imagining how ths would pan out, how about a trial period (say two to three months) to see if this helps or only makes things worse? Just like what's happening now with the reviewer privilege... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

completely agree. Tommy! [message] 17:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This idea isn't even 10% baked. Hell *()#*@$()@# no. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My idea was to ask the community if it would approve a trial not to go for it... Sorry if I misstated that. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I got that, and my answer is still the same. There's a considerable amount of harm that can come from this proposal. As I noted in the false positives section below, we're already making a number of false positive reports that could easily turn into blocks. New editors are the lifeblood of this project. Without them, we might as well close up shop and call it a day. If this tool is used wrong (and there's reason to believe it will be) we will be directly harming the very population of editors we desperately need. Bad, bad idea. No trial until this idea is thoroughly worked out. It's nowhere...nowhere...near that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, ya, ya, you've made your point clear, we get it. Tommy! [message] 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What problem is this solving?

See History on the Project page. Tommy! [message] 16:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The problems outlined there are apparently:

1. A need to reduce the amount of 'cop' work that current administrators do.
2. Assist administrators with WP:AIV and WP:UAA.
3. Fighting obvious vandalism.
4. Avoid harshness of RFA while obtaining tools.

This proposal fails all of those problems identified. Reasons:

1. Has anybody identified the amount of 'cop' work administrators need to do as a detriment to their efforts? Has anyone even asked administrators if this is a problem much less analyzed responses, say from a focus group? Answer: No.
2. Are administrators in need of help at AIV and UAA? Has there been any data collection to support that? Answer: No.
3. Is there any data to suggest fighting vandalism is a problem for the project not successfully managed at this time? Answer: No.
4. Will this proposal avoid the harshness of RfA? Apparently not, as some comments in other sections apparently head in the direction that this right will be granted by community trust, not by a single individual. Involve the community in granting, and it will eventually (if not right off) become harsh.

That's what I see. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. As an administrator, I never think to myself, "I really wish I had someone else to do those easy blocks for me". We need help with the contentious stuff, which needs administrators, not vandal fighters. Esteffect (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, only the last point is the problem trying to be solved. The others are all separate. And the single problem will be solved, because it won't be as harsh as RFA, won't require a week-long torture process and grilling of hundreds of pointless questions, and can be taken away easily if misused. Esteffect, it's not really up to you as an admin to decide if you need help. This role is not an assistant role, or a kind of lower admin. It's a particular kind of task with no place in hierarchy, and if vandal fighters feel they could use a block button, they should feel welcome to apply. Aiken ♫ 16:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So the position itself isn't indeed, by the admission that there's no backlog or need for help blocking. We need more administrators, if anything this could worsen the problem because people might not apply for adminship and remain content with their "vandal fighter" status. Esteffect (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• @Esteffect: Indeed. Unintended effects. Rollback caused them. What will this one cause? @Aiken: But the problem remains, how do we grant the permission? If we grant based on community trust, you have to involve the community. If you involve the community, you just cloned RFA. If you don't involve the community, how do you manage granting of rights? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, there are backlogs frequently. Not that it has anything to do with why this was proposed. So what if they are content with their vandal fighter right? The reason they would have got it is because they wouldn't be able to pass RFA anyway, so why would they even want to be an admin?

That's what this talk page is for. We can discuss that in the section above. Aiken ♫ 16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• If there are frequent backlogs at UAA and AIV, then please provide evidence of this. I just provided evidence which indicates the exact opposite. I can run the numbers for six months or a year if you like. But, the last month strongly indicates no backlog; instead both averaged less than 5 unresolved reports at any given time. What's your evidence? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, 5 is too many. 4, 3, 2... too many. And how long are those staying up there? A minute? 5? Over 9000? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider anything above zero to be a backlog :-) But we've digressed. The purpose of this proposal was not to eliminate backlogs. Aiken ♫ 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Then remove it from the history section, and re-focus your proposal on the problem you expect to solve with this proposal. If you can't identify a problem to be solved by this, you're going to have a very, very hard time getting consensus. Most people don't like process for process' sake. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, I see you have removed it. But, still no focus. You identified a need to reduce the amount of 'cop' work administrators need to perform. Evidence? None so far. How does promoting people to vandal fighter who couldn't pass RfA help the project? As I noted elsewhere, less than 20% of the block work is in vandal fighting, and even there the data is not fully developed. You haven't identified a problem yet. Just that RfA is broke, and this somehow (how we don't know) fixes RfA. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at it in a different way. How does it not help the project having extra people on board? Aiken ♫ 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can think of LOTS of ideas that would meet that criteria. How about sub-administrators who are enabled to deleted obvious copyright violations? I can hear the screaming now... --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In my original proposal I mentioned speedy deleters, but most were fixed on a vandal patroller user right - probably better to concentrate on one thing at a time. If it helps the project, what on earth's the deal? Aiken ♫ 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Because you don't know that it will help. Look at the false positive section below. There's a very good chance it will HURT. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• As I explained there, you've posted people who won't be given the right. So I'm not seeing how it will "HURT". Aiken ♫ 18:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• And as I explained there, it's not the specific people but the type. False reports turned into bad blocks WILL hurt. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not understanding. Users will be given the right based on solid experience, not whether they are a particular "type" of user. Bear in mind how easy it is to misreport on Huggle, it's not so easy to misblock. Only the most seasoned experienced vandalism patrollers will be anywhere near this right. Aiken ♫ 18:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It is easy to misreport someone, because Huggle does it automatically; if an inexperienced vandal fighter has issued a level 4im warning before me and I revert another edit, the user will be automatically reported; but noone would automatically block another editor (or, better, those who would shan't be allowed to touch the block button with a bargepole)... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, I ran the numbers for the last month on WP:AIV status. On average, there were 4.8 reports at any given time. 2/3rds of the time, there were less than 10 reports. Based on that data, WP:AIV isn't backlogged. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We aren't trying to solve that problem... Aiken ♫ 16:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• That's not what you said at Wikipedia:Vandal_fighters#History. You said this proposal would aid in helping out at those areas. I also just ran the numbers for WP:UAA for the last month. Virtually identical to WP:AIV, 4.7 reports on average, 2/3rds less than 10. So, neither AIV or UAA are routinely backlogged. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I said nothing. I've only made two edits to the page. My motivation for creating this proposal was to allow good vandal fighters a block button without having to suffer an RFA which would fail for lack of article work. Aiken ♫ 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The original prob originated from the RFA process... just because AIV isn't always backlogged nor UAA doesn't mean trusted users cannot help out; administrators are not a different class of users. Tommy! [message] 16:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Aiken proposed this process as a means, in part, to help out at UAA and AIV. But, easy research has shown those areas to not be routinely backlogged. This is what I was getting at in the ideological opposition section above. Basic research is shredding the proposal. This research should have been done long before anyone thought of solutions to detected problems. There is no problem with UAA or AIV, yet your proposal identifies those areas as in need of more support. So, apparently now the problem being identified is with the RfA process itself? How does this solve what ails RfA? Going back further, what ails RfA? Going back further, what research has been done to support conclusions that RfA is ailing? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with UAA. It also has nothing to do with backlogs. It has everything to do with vandal fighters being penalized at RFA for lack of article work. That's what it all boils down to. Aiken ♫ 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because the block right would be granted based on much less than an RFA and simple history of vandal fighting efforts, as opposed to a 7 day long RFA. Tommy! [message] 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• If it has nothing to do with UAA or backlogs, then remove that from the 'history' section. Focus this proposal on what it's really intended to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, you can contribute to the ideas and edit out what you don't like on the project page. Tommy! [message] 16:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm well aware, thanks :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

False positive reports turned into bad blocks

I'm just casually reviewing, but just looking at today's history of WP:AIV, I see four different editors who very well could qualify for this right who made false positive reports to WP:AIV. They are: User:CliffC, User:Tinz, User:Jeff G. and User:Ocean Shores. That's from a cursory spot check, which showed these versions with false positives: [1][2][3]. You might protest Tinz, but across all projects he has been around for years and many edits. The others in the false reporter list are all rollbackers, all with thousands of edits. Casually assigning rights here will NOT work. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about casual? And these are the people who would not qualify obviously. If you can find errors in the past day, there's a problem. This is not going to be given out liberally, as I'm sure I've mentioned. Aiken ♫ 18:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) We are not casually assigning this right. We are only assigning this right to experienced users. Any use of this tool would probably come under great scrutiny for the first few weeks. We wouldn't give this out just like we do rollback at all. Because this is a much more powerful tool, we would only be giving it to much more experienced users. We would have to look carefully at every recent edit of a vandal before we issue a block, just as an administrator would do. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• And, by the way, in Jeff G.'s case, I think the error was not his, but actually Minna Sora no Shita's... Huggle automatically reported a user who had receive two (wrongly issued, no objections there) level 4im warnings. I'm sure he wouldn't have blocked the user without firsat checking their 'tribs and their talk page... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fine. So what process do you propose to grant it? Apparently two bureaucrats who weren't elected to do this? My point with the above is these people are the types of people whom we would give the right to. Maybe not the specific people, but they probably pass the minimum criteria. Yet, they made false reports. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Their reports would be checked. Perhaps, a bot can be set up to generate a report of the editor's reports to AIV, and note if the account got blocked? Aiken ♫ 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I saw my name. Please don't count my case to prove anything, I know the rules as they are written, I was just trying to find out whether the long BLP discussions that enwiki had in the past has led to a change in the blocking practice, which is - in my opinion - the reason why this wiki has a much bigger problem with undetected BLP vandalism than my home wiki. In dewiki, it is consensus that new accounts who perform defaming edits to BLPs like this one, are blocked on the spot, without a single warning. Moreover, the proportion of good edits to bad edits counts, not the time interval between bad edits.
Obviously, if you gave me the "Vandal fighter" rights you are discussing here, I would never use them to block a user in a way that is against the consensus of this project, even if I didn't share it. But then again, I would have no interest at all in getting these rights to begin with, because I don't volunteer to enforce policies that I don't agree with. --Tinz (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

A thought: perhaps it would be better, as a first proposal along these lines, to still make it about helping to control vandalism, but to drop the aspect of giving users the ability to issue blocks, and, instead, give them the ability to enact semi-protection for very limited periods of time, perhaps 24 hours or so. Blocking users, any user, is obviously a significant power, one that can cause considerable harm if misused, and I find it understandable that editors in this talk have expressed so many worries about it. On the other hand, semi-protection is comparatively mild so long as it is only for limited periods of time. I think there is actually consensus of a sort that any proposal here should be kept simple, dealing only with one kind of "power", and that we should start with something where there is the least likelihood of community resistance. Perhaps semi-protection would fit that bill better than blocking would. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep waiting to see if something develops here. If it doesn't, does anyone object to my making a post at AIV asking them to look at what's going on at WT:UAA and see if they think the same model would be useful? - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. Whatever works! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, maybe a simple page protection right would work - I think that would be as good a start point as a simple vandal blocking right, and it would get my support. (All I really object to is approaches along the lines of "You can't possibly do X without Y, and that needs Z, because otherwise it wouldn't be as good as W, and we can't even do anything without a thorough examination of a candidate just like at RfA"). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As you know, I'd prefer vandal fighters to have discretion to choose either short blocks or short semi's, but if you don't want to grant two powers you'd need to do some serious stats-gathering to prove that semi's on their own would be sufficient. Yesterday you were saying that "most repeated vandalism seems to be addressed by short blocks on IPs or by indefinite blocks on new vandal-only usernames". - Pointillist (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need to *prove* anything, we just need to be prepared to try out new ideas - Columbus didn't find the American continent by proving it was there before he set out. And I never said I don't want to grant two individual rights - I just don't want to see rights having to be tied together from the start, and us ending up with people insisting that we have to have almost the whole damn admin thing bundled together or nothing. My favoured first step (and it's only a first step), based on my own experience, is indeed blocking - but maybe that's because the nature of what I do leads me to see more of the kind of vandalism that is best treated that way? And it doesn't lead me to close my mind to other people's experiences or ideas, so if other people think protection rights would be worth a go first, I'm open to that too - they might be on to something! I just don't want to see *nothing* happen because everyone insists on only their own favoured solution -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Could the (eventual) RFC on this proposal to offer the community a choice between X; Y; X,Y; Y,X? Or should the final version of the proposal be unpolluted by alternatives and open issues of that sort? Either way, I think there's a good story to tell about how few "powers" are being proposed and how narrowly they can be used by what are basically first aiders. - Pointillist (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless we end up doing it Dank's way (a la just do it), I would offer two suggestions about that, based on my own lessons learned during CDA. First, yes, we would need to show data "proving" the usefulness of any such proposal, simply because the professional naysayers will always say that we need to or the proposal is no good. (That's the potential beauty of what Dank is trying: it bypasses that by having the proposal essentially already in effect.) But that should not be too difficult. Just collect some examples of pages where semi was requested at RFPP and there was further vandalism after the RFPP request was made but before the semi was issued. Second, don't do a poll amongst multiple not-quite-finished proposals, because that was how CDA was "crafted" (and I use the word loosely!) from the various earlier proposals. Figure out the best version to propose (and I say keep it simple), and present that in ready-for-prime-time form. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Giving limited semi-protection rights in addition to blocking rights would be OK. But if you only give protection rights and not blocking you're surely encouraging excessive use of semi-protection, which is both bad in itself and likely to cause VFs trouble if they go to RFA. (Part of the merit for the proposal for me is to make it easier for people to demonstrate responsibility with tools, thus enabling later RFA.) I do see merit in the argument that splitting off tasks from adminship can be helpful, but this is qualitatively different from things like checkuser, which are different tools. FWIW I'm not entirely convinced, but I think it's worth exploring, and if pushed to decide now, I'd probably support it. Rd232 ^talk 23:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy that argument at all. "But if you only give protection rights and not blocking you're surely encouraging excessive use of semi-protection": so, if you also give blocking rights, but still not make them administrators, that will somehow affect how freely or not they issue semi-protections? As for "surely" increasing use of semi, please remember that we are only considering semi for brief periods of time, and we would also have the kinds of limits on getting the rights, and the plans for being able to revoke the rights, that have been in the early stages of discussion here. And, of course, any plan to make it harder to vandalize, will make it harder to vandalize, and that means something changes from the status quo. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

um, think about it. If an article is under attack and you can't block, you're going to be tempted to semi instead of going to AIV [and waiting for a response during which further vandalism may well occur], aren't you? But vice versa, if you can't protect but can block, you can deal with most disruption by blocking, and go to WP:RPP if necessary due to excessive socking. That's asymmetric because blocking is the first option. Rd232 ^talk 15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking carefully about it, really. If an article is under attack, and semi-ing it quickly will stop it for the moment, that's a good thing for the project, period. It's important in this regard that, as we currently are contemplating, the ability to semi would only be for short periods of time. In instances where the vandal is so determined that they keep coming back, then brief semi-ing will be ineffective, and the vandal will be reported to AIV. If the "vandal fighter" or whatever is so "tempted" to over-use the right that it becomes disruptive, then they shouldn't be given the right, or should have it revoked. I don't seriously think that this scenario of the user who is so free-wheeling with issuing semis that vandals never get to AIV to be blocked is a realistic one. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

D-67 and another user raised the point previously that the ability to semi-protect could be used in edit wars, so the problems posed by blocking would still be there. It's really not hard to get page protection right now, there's no need for an extra class to help out with it - It's not like we have a protection backlog, and the original argument for this role was that it would deal with obvious vandalism, where I don't see the need for a protection-based power. Core vandal targets are already extentually protected, and those that aren't can easily be done so. As someone has noted, this is heading toward creating admins bit-by-bit, without an RFA. That's dangerous. Esteffect (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: whatever the eventual 'Vandal fighter' right looks like, it should be granted by an RFA-like process.

It seems to me that some of the opposition to this proposal comes not from the idea itself, but from how it was initially proposed to be handed out: by bureaucrats or admins at their discretion. I think these opposes are obscuring the question of whether 'Vandal Fighters' are actually a good idea or not. Therefore: I suggest that whatever the 'Vandal Fighter' tools look like, they should be granted through an RFA-like process, by the consent of the community.

The obvious response is, 'but how is it then any different from RFA?'. Simply, because it's not RFA. After all, adminship and bureaucratship are given out by similar processes, yet are very different sets of rights, and candidates for them are judged on different criteria; it remains much harder to become a crat than an admin. Likewise, although given out by a similar process, this right would be easier to gain than adminship, because it's not adminship, so users would be willing to grant it to those they might not grant full adminship rights to.

...In theory, anyway. If, in practice, 'RFVF' turned out to be as hard to pass as RFA, it would be a failure, as potential Vandal Fighters would just put themselves forward for RFA instead. But in that case, no harm done; we're no worse off than we started. But if, as I expect, it was easier to achieve than adminship, it would be a valuable addition to the set of user groups, while still being given out with due oversight and approval by the community.

In short: I support this proposal, but if you want more people to support it, make it contingent on passing an RFA-like process. Robofish (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then the user might as open an RFA then. No reason to go through an "RFA" for less tools.. makes no sense. Tommy! [message] 00:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree . This tool was meant a way to overcome the reservations many people have about RFAs and RFA-!voters' criteria... This proposal kinda defeats that premise... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tommy about that. I'd rather it be treated sort of like rollback, albeit with appropriately higher standards, as well as greater ease of revocation. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that most users do not want one admin being able to unilaterally grant this permission. In my eyes it's either this (overkill), strictly defined criteria (hard to define and open to gaming), or bureaucrats only (if they take vetting seriously they will not be able to cope with the initial rush). My opinion is that we should start this off as an RfA-like process, with admins able to close. I would then suggest that we consider handing the power over to bureaucrats once the number of applicants falls and the expected standard is well established, and give them the power to transfer it back to an elected process run by admins if they feel that it's too much of a job for so few people to keep on top of. --WFC-- 03:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If RfA isn't working, what makes you think RfVF would work? What we need is to get the vandalfighting candidates to pass their RfAs. Kingturtle (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of the candidates suitable to vandalfighter are unsuitable for adminship; that, to me, is the primary rationale for this initiative. Skomorokh 04:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Those suitable for vandalfighting are suitable for adminship. This is where we differ. Kingturtle (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would put it to you that the skillsets required for rapidly identifying and rectifying blatant vandalism on the one hand and parsing consensus in difficult discussions/telling wikilawyers and POV pushers from sincere encyclopaedians/telling the difference between tendentious editing and a legitimate content dispute/knowing when to block an established editor and when to try to discuss/understanding the distinction between assertions of significance and notability et cetera are completely different. It's like suggesting people who are good at Space Invaders should become football referees. Skomorokh 04:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So the vandal fighters are just going to be space invader minions? That's a great selling point for recruitment. ;) But back to the topic at hand, there is nothing that says an admin has to use all their tools or authority. Plenty of admins focus on particular kinds of tasks and never venture into other sorts of responsibilities. Kingturtle (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's very true, but speaking as part of the "Oppose - limited content contributions" brigade I would claim that enough admins with a background in fighting vandals use their tools outside their area of competence to make it a major problem for the project. You might disagree with this claim, but the important thing is that enough editors agree with it that passing RfA as a vandal fighter is extremely difficult and has been for a while, meaning these editor's skills are going to waste, vandalism is not combated as hard as it ought to be, admins are distracted from other tasks and the project is suffering unnecessarily as a result. Skomorokh 04:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy that my suggestion (to mention clerking at AIV) didn't get opposition, but OTOH, reading over the entire page, I don't see any support for what we're doing at UAA, and KT's position sounds like an intent to oppose it if it picks up steam (out of a fear that it would be seen as a substitute for RfA) ... which is a shame, I was hoping people would be willing to just leave the processes that are working alone and let them be whatever they are. I'll leave it to others to pursue something similar at AIV if there's interest. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's a novel suggestion. This is how we run RfB on simple, and on a few other wikis- a person gets nominated/self-noms as per RfA, then if two crats endorse and there are no crats objecting within 48 hours, the person's promoted. Other members of the community are welcome to comment, of course, but it comes down to the crats. Since we trust our crats to have good judgement, I think this would work- it would be less unilateral than one-crat/admin promotion, with more wiggle room for community input, but much less of a "big deal" than RfA. Opinions? The proposal can be easily modified to change crats to admins, or 48 hours to 24, or the number of endorsements needed, but I think it's a good structure to work from. sonia♫ 04:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought the whole proposal was founded on the fact that theses bits, (what ever they turn out to be) were requested like Rollback, Autorewiewer and Account Creator. If we are going to require a RfA type process then what are doing here ? Mlpearc powwow 13:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So basically, we're moving toward giving out the bits, bit by bit, without any community process. One could eventually become an admin by circumventing the RfA process and getting each bit, one by one, through a less formal process. Kingturtle (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this isn't the admin blocking bit; it can be used to block non-autoconfirmed editors and IPs (and these only for a short period of time; 31 hours?) and only for vandalism... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a bureaucrats job on the English Wikipedia to make decisions as to whom is and isn't suitable for a position. They aren't elected to perform that role here. Esteffect (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Really necessary?

The talk page is terribly lengthly, so I didn't bother to read any of it, but my general feeling about this proposal is that it's pretty unnecessary. Not a lot of super vandal-fighters are non-admins (and not a lot of non-admins are super vandal-fighters.) Once in a while we have really good fighters like The Thing, but it's not very often. Since the admin package already includes everything in 'vandal fighter', that means people who are eligible for admin don't need the vandal fighter flag. So I suspect that the vandal fighter userright will end up with fewer members than the admin flag. BTW, vandal fighter is a bit of a mouthful for a userright, so I think it should be trimmed a bit. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just First aid, not Admin Lite

It would help to think of these rights-holders as being like first aiders—they get to the scene quickly and stabilize the situation using a narrow range of very short-term remedies (e.g. a one-hour block and/or a semi of three hours). If the problem is severe, then more experienced medics (i.e. admins) take over. The theoretical benefit is that a shorter interval between vandalism and prevention will discourage vandals, and that a reduction in admin workload can be achieved in line with the higher standards that have evolved at RFA over the past two years. - Pointillist (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Pointillist wrote, but I would challenge the thrust of your inquiry. Like "is this a problem in search of a solution?", "is this really necessary?" seems on the face of it a reasonable question, but it misses the point. The question is "is this likely to improve the project?" Skomorokh 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time, a high school had a high jump competition, and the parents were all very excited as the competition drew near. "Set the bar very high", one said, "so that only the very best jumpers represent us at the next level!" Another said, "No no, every year we get fewer athletes who jump at all, set it lower!" Another chimed in: "Okay, but not so low, keep it high enough to motivate them!" But it turned out the students were jumping for the fun of it and to compete with each other, and anyway, they knew the adults were all too busy arguing among themselves to notice how high the students could jump, so they all set the bar as they liked and had a good time jumping over the bar. This angered the parents: "What do they know about setting the bar? If we let every athlete do this, just think of the chaos we'll get! Pretty soon, everyone will be playing their own game, and not paying attention to us at all!" Next year, after much discussion and consensus-building, the parents nailed the bar at what they considered the proper height. And all the athletes started going to another school, because it wasn't fun any more. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:-) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to make a less pointy post on the same subject at WT:UAA. Hopefully in English this time :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin's helper

I have a new twist to this proposal for your consideration. What if Admins are given the ability to grant "Vandal fighter" status to others, and allowed to do so without any RfA-like process for the nominee. However, the admin becomes responsible for any actions taken by their "helpers". Thus there would be a particular admin tied to each vandal fighter, and that admin would be a natural choice for following up on the "first aid" actions done by that vandal fighter. Perhaps multiple admins can volunteer to be responsible for the same vandal fighter. Or should. We could make it a minimum of 3 responsible admins per helper or something.

I fear that adding another RfA-like process to wiki-lawyer-land will meet great opposition; hence this idea. The Vandal Fighter proposal does add another tier to the wikitocracy, but if that eases the pressure on admins, then I'd say that's a good thing. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's another idea. As I noted elsewhere on this page, an idea is meaningless without context, development, analysis, etc. Do the admins need this help? I showed above that WP:AIV is not generally backlogged. I also showed that the number of vandalism blocks is not a large portion of the overall blocks being done. Would this ease pressure on the administrators? Demonstrate there is significant pressure first, and identify the source(s) of that pressure. From what I've been able to see in the logs, vandal fighting isn't it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• FWIW, I'm switching my vote, with a sigh. One reason is that I haven't gotten a response yet from User:MGodwin on his legal opinion about letting non-admins see the deleted contribs just for new accounts and just when they've done something blockable. I also didn't get much support for letting non-admins see even these few deleted contribs at RFA or here. As anyone who hangs around UAA knows, you can't make the call on a promotional name unless you've got a link between their username and what they're supposedly promoting, and the articles that provide the evidence you need are often deleted, so I think we're stuck with no possible userrights for UAA clerks. If you hand out userrights that let non-admins handle it themselves if they consider it vandalism, but not if they consider it promotional, then they're going to stop reporting things to UAA that need to be reported to UAA, and treat it as vandalism instead. Telling them they're not supposed to do this won't fix the problem; to guys with only hammers, every problem looks like a nail. Also, non-admin patrollers will gravitate toward just those noticeboards where they are permitted to use their shiny new tools. That doesn't help Wikipedia; reports belong at the appropriate boards. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Junior Administrator"

Okay, I've been thinking over this for the past few days, and I feel that "Junior Administrator" would be a better name than "Vandal Fighter" for this proposed user right. Not only does "Junior Administrator" clearly seem to be a more friendly title, but I feel that potential candidates for this user right should be required to go through a process similar to, but certainly less harsh than, RfA. Candidates for junior adminship would only need to demonstrate a high level of competency in vandal fighting, as well as a good understanding of Wikipedia's important policies; lack of FA or GA creation would not be held against such candidates.

In addition to being able to block anonymous IPs or unconfirmed users, or semiprotect pages for short periods of time, a skilled vandal fighter who qualifies for this user right should be allowed to use RevDel on grossly offensive or defamatory edit summaries, view deleted contributions for the purpose of processing AIV reports, view details of private edit filters, and perhaps review unblock requests from users who are blocked for vandalism or for a username violation. Also, a junior administrator should be able to apply for an upgrade to regular adminship at RfA after gaining significant experience in various areas of Wikipedia unrelated to vandal-fighting, including FA and GA creation.

As is the case with regular adminships, the ability to grant junior adminships should be limited to bureaucrats; however, unlike a regular adminship, a junior adminship should be revocable by a regular administrator or bureaucrat due to blatant misuse. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Um... you just completely changed the proposal. As the rest of this page and WT:RFA shows, "junior administrators" are an additional group that is not wanted due to excess bureaucracy. People who are capable and trusted to do all that you have listed should be administrators anyway, in my opinion. This proposal garnered as much support as it did because it was narrow and specific in scope; every attempt to widen it will make it even more unsuccessful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonia (talk • contribs)

I agree with Sonia; your proposal, in my opinion, adds to the flaws highlighted here previously the drama of an RFA... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, since it's become evident that my proposal is badly flawed, I'm going to withdraw it. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad idea. Too many people already make too many mistaken reverts, roll backs, and other disruptions of good faith editing by anons and even established editors. I think problem editors should be dealt with more with communication and tact, less with special permissions. 66.167.45.150 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"This is clearly going to fail"

I've been away for the afternoon, and I come back to see this has developed exactly as I feared it would - argued into a grinding halt with no chance of success. And that's not the fault of any individuals, it's the fault of the process. In the real world, change happens by empowered individuals taking risks and making radical changes - but community consensus for radical change is nigh on impossible to achieve, and the community will not empower any individuals to take any decision-making process away from the community. Wikipedia started out radical, and new, and fresh, with individuals not afraid to dispense with the box altogether, never mind stepping outside of it. But it has stagnated, because there are now far too many people with a say in the decision-making process but with insufficient vision and balls to take a risk on anything. Maybe this idea would work, and maybe it wouldn't, but the community has grown so impotent and so negative that it won't even risk having a go, and we'll never know. And so management-by-community will achieve exactly the same as it usually does - absolutely fuck all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds suspiciously like "this won't work because we won't give it a chance, and if it's not going to work, then there's no point in giving it a chance." This proposal, among dozens, made it off WT:RFA because oddly, it wasn't immediately buried by negativity and obstructionism by those vested in the status quo. If anything is going to change, we all have to drop this sort of self-defeatism and self-sabotage.

By opening discussions predicting inevitable failure, you are embodying the very negativity and impotence you object to. Let's try a more supportive and hopeful tack please. Skomorokh 21:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia may have started out "radical, and new, and fresh", but it also started out with community consensus as an essential element. Kingturtle (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly... this seemingly persistent policy of "It might not work" when it comes towards new ideas needs to be quashed, urgently. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all three of you. And it appears to me that Boing! was not saying this proposal should fail, but was decrying the way its failure was prematurely and inappropriately proclaimed by some. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that was exactly my point, that too many people just trash the idea without even giving it a chance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome! And correct in the point you made! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"By opening discussions predicting inevitable failure, you are embodying the very negativity and impotence you object to.": If you check my contributions to the whole discussion, you'll see I've been very positive and very supportive - it's the mass of "It might not work", "It's not perfect, so we can't even try it", and "We're can't let admins or crats decide - we need to recreate exactly the same problems that beset RfA" reactions that are killing it and which I'm railing against. Is my reaction to the progress of the last 6 or 7 hours negative and defeatist? Well, prove me wrong! Come on, I'd genuinely be delighted if you did so, and if my attack on management-by-community makes just one died-in-the-wool naysayer stop and think about where we are heading, then it might have achieved something. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not calling into question your contributions outside this particular thread, Zebedee, which I am very happy to believe are productive and positive; I am questioning the helpfulness of lamenting the dysfunction of our decision-making processes right when other editors are trying to get such a process to function healthily. I think you've made cogent and compelling points about what is amiss, but doing so is counterproductive when what the authors of the proposal need is encouragement and constructive criticism. Best, Skomorokh 21:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"I am questioning the helpfulness of lamenting the dysfunction of our decision-making processes right when other editors are trying to get such a process to function healthily". You may indeed be right, and I might have misjudged my comments, but on the other hand - maybe I'll annoy enough management-by-consensus supporters to make a difference? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I know what I'm about to say sounds strange, but perhaps we need to drop the notion that in order to make a change at Wikipedia we need consensus to back the change first. Perhaps we need a way to protect new ideas and allow them to be implemented before they can be struck down. I don't know how to pull that off without having chaos as the result, but it's getting harder and harder for new ideas to fly at Wikipedia. Indeed, if we are to get ideas like this one implemented, then perhaps we should first address the mechanism that prevents them from coming to fruition. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a strange and interesting idea, B; it would be a hugely significant shift in our institutional culture but I think you could be on to something. Skomorokh 21:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't sound strange to me, at all. I certainly agree with your description of the problem. However, as I see it, we (WP) work on the basis that discussion is what gives rise to consensus, and when you have open discussion, you can't really preempt the ability of people to say that they object. But one can respond to them, and tell them they are wrong. I think we have to do it that way, and I think that's what's happening here, even though it looks like sausage-making. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"I know what I'm about to say sounds strange, but perhaps we need to drop the notion that in order to make a change at Wikipedia we need consensus to back the change first". Yep, that's exactly my point, that consensus doesn't work for management decisions beyond very small and simple communities - management is an individual specialization that requires its own vision and its own skills, and Wikipedia actually started out that way with a small number of such people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, another perspective: User:TenOfAllTrades/Policy reform treadmill. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

First, I want to say that this idea of Vandal Fighter rights is very interesting. Aiken drum, you've really made me think hard about this. Well done. But in the end, I am not swayed. The last thing we need is another layer of bureaucracy. All this is, really, is a way to skirt around the RfA process. Eventually, if we continue down this road, all the different admin tools will be separated into different user rights groups: Page Protectors, Speedy Deletors, Image Deletors, Vandal Fighters, Edit Warriors, Article Movers, etc. And for each platoon, there will need to be procedures for granting rights, procedures for removing, and people to oversee it all. And it won't be long before the Edit Warriors get pissed off at the Vandal Fighters because they aren't pulling their weight; and the Image Deletors will develop a superiority complex over the Speedy Deletors; and the Page Protectors won't allow any Article Movers to become Page Protectors because "that would be amassing too much power"; and no one will have any hope of becoming an administrator at all. With all these different platoons, we're suddenly an army of ants, each of us with finely assigned roles. The picture I paint is extreme, but it's the only way I can think of to explain why it is so important to have as few different levels of Wikipedians as possible. If someone is good enough to be a "vandalfighter", then they should be an administrator. !vote as a block in RfAs and get these vandalfighter the complete set of admin tools. Kingturtle (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea of people amassing a lot of "little bits" as a run-around of RfA is, come to think of it, one to take seriously. Here, of course, we are only considering one such bit, so, in the immediate term, there would be no others to amass. However, it is clear that anxiety over the issue will be yet another reason for those who are so inclined to oppose. We should probably think about language to the effect that, if any future proposals for other, similar rights eventually emerge, there needs to be careful scrutiny of any user who seeks more than one, or even limits to having multiples without actually being an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. However, proposers should emphasize that the proposed "blocking bit" isn't the same as the corresponding "bit" for admins (see below). - Pointillist (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

	This proposal	Admin
Purpose	Prevent vandalism	Prevent vandalism, gross incivility, harassment, spamming, edit warring, sock puppetry, rogue bots, public accounts
Scope	Only unconfirmed users and IP addresses	All users and IP addresses
Duration	A few hours at most	Any period including indefinite

Another problem makes itself known - If it's only for a few hours, vandal-only accounts will come back and create more work for us administrators when the time expires. Putting it in a table really does show how unnecessary these powers are - I'm sorry that some "vandal fighters" can't pass RFA, and I'd like to see that change, but this position isn't the way to go about it. It's more work, drama, stress for all of us, and it'll deter administrative candidates from going for RFA as they'll be happy with limited powers. That's not good. Esteffect (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm having trouble following your thinking here, Esteffect:

• "If it's only for a few hours, vandal-only accounts will come back and create more work for us administrators when the time expires." How will that create more work? The first short block didn't require administrator intervention. A second short block could also be done by these new rights holders. By the time a third block is required, the position will be clearer and therefore need less work by admins, rather than more.
• "I'm sorry that some "vandal fighters" can't pass RFA, and I'd like to see that change." But that just begs the question: why not have a distinct role that doesn't need to prove such broad competence?
• "It's more work, drama, stress for all of us" Where's the extra drama? Because there less risk of the new rights being abused, acquiring them will be less dramatic and stressful than RFA. Anyway RFA doesn't create work for existing admins, unless they are unhealthily addicted to !voting.
• "it'll deter administrative candidates from going for RFA as they'll be happy with limited powers." What's wrong with that? Vandal fighters who don't wish to get involved in heavy content-sources-BLP/NPOV arguments can still make an important contribution.

Are you just ranting at my idiocy, or would you like to clarify? - Pointillist (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A different name

I apologize if this already came up, but one thing to consider is the name. Consider the other administrative duties on Wikipedia: administrator, bureaucrat, steward, CheckUser, Oversight, Rollbacker. Those are fairly docile names, whereas "vandal fighter" is a pretty provocative title. It also harks back to the days of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, back when they were more of a Wikipedia homage to the Counter-Terrorism Unit from 24. harej 03:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how there is very much to consider right now. I think that the survey above showed pretty conclusively that this process is not presently desired by the community. The sticking point, as far as I can see is that it allows significant portions of adminly powers to be exercised by a person who has not gone through a community vetting process. Let me throw this out as a possibility: what if this right were available with less than a full community process to most, but could only be gotten with community consensus if a) the user has failed an RFA, including NOTNOW, or b) the user has been blocked twice. They could still get the minibits by asking for community consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into that "survey": it was closed as premature after running for only 68 minutes (20:09 to 21:17). The proposal obviously needs more work, including the name, but it should have a chance to be incubated by people who broadly welcome it. After all, if a prolific vandal-fighter like The Thing That Should Not Be supports the idea, it can't be all bad. - Pointillist (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I do support what the original proposal was, granting a limited group of people limited blocking abilities. I'll take any sort of granting process that comes up, just as long as the proposal stays with the basics... no extra rights to make it so bulky and impossibly complicated that it's akin to trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt that the name is the least of our worries and with Pointillist that the survey is not really that conclusive... We should get back to the drawing board, but the fiasco of that survey has somewhat chilled many enthusiasms... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. There were several editors who saw only support for this proposal in the mound of text it created. Easy to do; who's going to read 193kb of text? I don't like polls very much, but for the people who aren't willing/able to digest such a voluminous pile of text, it is useful for dispelling certain notions. In this case, such notion being that this proposal enjoyed unanimous, or nearly so, support. It obviously doesn't right now. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling for a vote at that point can only be called reckless. If it was an admin, (s)he should be demoted and lose the privilege for action like that. It only showed a complete lack of this experience that is often expected even of RFA candidates, on a lesser level, it wasted a lot of well-meaning people's time. If anything, it was a fail safe approach to kill the proposal. There wasn't much of substance to vote on. A proposal needs to start with a problem statement, addressing the current state of affairs and define the problem to be addressed. No problem, no solution needed, as some made such comments. People don't just come and read pages and pages of discussion that is hard to follow. Further, the aborted vote should have been deleted as soon as recognized to be nonsense, as now it is being used as the visible decision against this proposal. People don't read details anymore. Kbrose (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Calling for an administrator to be demoted for starting a poll is rather extreme. (and yes, the person who started it is an administrator) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Desysopping for something where none of the tools were actually used? I agree with Hammersoft, that's quite an extreme and unnecessary proposal... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to start getting hypothetical about people's motives, I'm sure everyone on this page wants the best for en.wikipedia. I think we just have to find a forum where the basic concept can be improved on a more positive basis, addressing the potential problems but not being overwhelmed by them. Any ideas how we can do this? Fortunately RFA has suddenly attracted a lot of more-experienced candidates, so there's plenty of time to get this right before offering it to the community as a proposal. - Pointillist (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We might archive a large chunk of this page and start over or we might start a subpage in somebody's userspace... Either way, I think this proposal has potential and can still be salvaged... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the first step is to see which editors would like to help incubate the idea further, accepting the desirability of having some sort of rapid response model but with all the details still being up for (positive) debate? Ideally it needs people who the community recognises have lots of vandal-management experience and "clue" about how this place works. - Pointillist (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As to a different title for this new proposed position, I've been kicking around this in my head for a couple days now so I'll just through it out there, "Cutoff" editor, what this proposal is trying to work out is someone to Cutoff disruptive activity, edits and vandals that would end up being brought to an Admin at some point. This title does not infer any authority, or some evil thing that wikipedia has employed and such. Just a thought. Mlpearc powwow 16:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be a good idea to see if there's any wider consensus or internet in this before the logistics of a name is considered. Esteffect (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant "interest", not "internet", but that's an intriguing typo. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion

is that just another level in the MMORPG that Wikipedia has become. The amount of users vying for this right, versus the amount of users who actually need it, doesn't balance out at all. If someone is so active in vandal fighting that they would need to block users regularly, then they should RfA. (Yes, The Thing should have passed by now. Why not? Various reasons, some of which were related to RfA standards.) Everyone wants rollback and it's like 5¢ candy. If we add new rights, it'll inevitably appear to many users like steps to getting to level 70 be an administrator and the good that will come out if it is little, I would argue. Is AIV always really that bad? If we do allow a new such right, what would we do, have any crat give it out like rollback candy? This is dangerous, easily abused, and generally not useful for most users.

"VF was designed to assist vandal patrollers, who do not want or probably would not be able to obtain, admin rights." If they don't want +sysop, then I wonder why they choose that line of work. Blocking is an essential part of being an admin; giving someone blocking ability is like half-admin (which is why it will be so desirable for the less mature and considerate rollbackers so rampant these days). If they probably couldn't pass an RfA, I would ask how someone would assess the user and give them a blocking right, and why they should be given such access if they couldn't pass an RfA.

"This allows administrators to focus on continue writing articles and helping Wikipedia in other ways instead of being the "cop" while systematically granting trusted users a version of the tools to fight obvious vandalism." Seriously, being an admin is being a janitor: you are signing up to block vandals and not write. It's not like a rollbacker couldn't, you know, write an article once in a while, and, you know, help Wikipedia in other ways rather than sit there clicking buttons and issuing warnings all day?

"The VF user right is also intended, in accordance with WP:DEAL, to lower the often characterized harsh RfA process while still unbundling some of the admin tools to be given out to established users, similar to rollback's unbundling." Erm, RfA can be reformed separately (there's been a steady stream of good candidates for about two weeks now, actually). Rollback? Established? Lolwut? Rollback is being given out to users with 200 edits now. I don't trust any user who has shown poor judgment in reverting good-faith edits to blocking, either. Although they may be established users, a single crat's evaluation is not enough in many cases, unless they spend about 30 minutes looking over contribs.

"The VF right therefore allows users to block IPs in accordance with the blocking policy, Vandalism-only accounts indefinitely and indefinitely block obvious user name violations." How do we figure this out, test every requester on the policies? Also, I've seen quite a few bad-faith UAA reports, and this won't help. The obvious (User:Fuckyouall) ones are already quickly dealt with.

"This right would be granted only to editors who have a clearly established, good reputation as a vandal fighter, have not abused their rollback ability, have a good history of assuming good faith, and have not evidenced any reason why the community should not have a high level of trust in them." Again, you can't tell the last part with an actual community commenting like RfA. The first part requires a lot of digging through contribs and talk page histories, and crats are busy, too.

"By restricting this user class to blocking non-autoconfirmed accounts, there should be no accidental disruption of Wikipedia, nor hasty blocking in edit conflicts." Uh, all the more BITEy blocks wrongfully issued, which are generally hasty and sometimes because the blocker is too lazy to discuss the issue with a new user. New users are often in editing conflicts (trying to add a new sentence or external link without understanding policy) and blocking them without them understanding the policy is extremely BITEy.

"Many will have little content experience, and not much outside of vandal fighting." Oh, heavens, not understanding content issues means biting good-faith new users.

"rollback, ip block exemption, account creation etc" Rollback and accountcreator were made due to unmanageable amounts of vandalism and avoiding backlogs, respectively. IPBE is common sense with getting around collateral damage. There's no backlog in users needing to be blocked. There's not a neverending queue of users waiting to be blocked. There's no real problem right now; no need for this right. It might be very useful to a few people, but for the rest, it's a status symbol.

"This is because the candidate, still wishing to become an admin (just to fight vandals, mind), is trying to please the RFA crowd." Again, RfA issue, should certainly be solved, but not by adding more ways for people to satisfy their desires for userrights.

"For example, speedy deleters could have the ability to delete new pages, and that's it." I did not just read that. (Athough it's unrelated to blocking, it's a good reason showing why this is easily abused. Many new page taggers don't learn for months what it means to slow down.)

Is there a widespread need for this tool? How active should a vandal fighter be? 2,000 total edits (uh, waaayyyyyy too low)? 10,000 (uh, maybe try RfA instead)?

"I'm sure most will agree that a role like "vandal fighter" with limited abilities shouldn't pose much of a problem." Ah, well, I'd disagree, but you just read why.

I will support this if there are strict requirements that must be met (such as passing some test on the blocking policy and other experience-based things), and if the bureaucrat is not the only one assessing the candidate and making the decision. —fetch·comms 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if this is long. —fetch·comms 02:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, have you read the above discussions? Skomorokh 02:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Skimmed, and unconvinced. —fetch·comms 02:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-read, and even more unconvinced. Even ignoring my rationale for opposing the concept, no one even agrees on what to do and people are arguing on silly little bits and we keep having to refocus on the proposal. Much of it is "my way no mine no yours sucks" and if people can't agree on the basics, there is no chance of consensus anyway. —fetch·comms 02:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

R.I.P. VF; he was so young

Looks like discussion has died down (no pun intended), and all people interested in trying to push this idea forward have been sufficiently smothered by the status quo. At the funeral of this proposal, I wish to speak a few words concerning its virtues.

VF was a good proposal. He died while still in puberty: an awkward and painful phase of growing and maturing where everyone treats you like a kid but expects you to act like an adult. It is said that he aspired to reduce vandalism, and to ease the burden on admins. He certainly did, but in my eyes, he aspired to much more. He dared to place a stepping stone in the vast, deep gap between 'autoconfirmed editor' and 'admin', a gap which has previously been passable only by way of the ever-thickening beaurocracy and drama of the process known as RfA. He dared to place more trust in the hands of the average wikipedian, in the community, rather than the elite few. He dared to try something new.

Alas, this was his downfall. Noble aspirations notwithstanding, VF died a quick and painless death. He was deemed 'unneeded', 'unsafe'; he was predicted to create more beaurocracy, drama, and difficulty than he would prevent. The status quo was good enough, and VF wasn't. And so he fell.

It is a shame that we killed VF before he had really matured. It is a shame that this community will continue to clip the wings of new ideas before they even learn to fly. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sad, but well said. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have said before the merits of ideas cannot be decided by discussion alone. 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 even Google.[4] If we do not have any failures it means we are not attempting to be innovative enough.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And as I've suggested, management by community consensus becomes less and less effective as the community grows, and it's especially ineffective at solving problems in the community itself. The whole RfA situation is itself caused by the community (perhaps rightfully - I'm not judging the community as being right or wrong here), and if it needs to be changed, the chances of the community itself changing it are probably slim. If the falling number of admins does become a crisis (and this month is probably not of long-term significance), I expect the Foundation will have to step in and dictate some change. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dearly beloved, all three of you are to be commended on your eloquence. :-) But no need for grieving. Perhaps we should look again at Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters/Archive 2#Reboot, which was sent to an early demise by the bot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Gone but not forgotten. I've placed a modest requiem on the current RFA talk page in case you would like to pay tribute there. - Pointillist (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said, B Fizz; your words left a bitter smile on my face... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I don't think it's so much the discussion dying than the consensus just not being there. Sorta like pending changes, to me. Some will like and some will hate. Others won't care. —fetch·comms 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's cold! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Per my earlier comment, perhaps it would be sensible to wait until the discussions about pending changes are sorted out, and then explore a variation on this theme, based on semi-protection (or pending changes, if we still have it), along the lines of Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters/Archive 2#Reboot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to draw interested editors' attention to User talk:Falcon8765#RE: Semi-retirement. Seems to me to be relevant here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like Falcon8765 would have been a very strong candidate for the VF/first aid/whatever right. The recent VF discussion moved on to the downsides too quickly, but if results like Falcon8765's start happening frequently, it will help focus everyone on the possible benefits of a VF-ish role as an alternative to admin. That would be a good starting point for fresh discussion. - Pointillist (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Although, come to think of it, this isn't like some sort of first-time occurrence, in terms of how the RfA went. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea

I, for one, think this is a great idea. I have two foci: vandal fighting and copyediting. I'm not a content creator; I don't have expertise in any one subject area and I'm not that good at writing articles anyway. This proposed user rights group would give me and other people who fit that general description access to the only admin tools we would likely use on a regular basis (well, that and I'm interested in helping out with speedy deletion, but that's beside the point). Like someone said in an earlier discussion, many good vandal fighters who run for adminship get struck down simply because they lack the content creation (etc.) experience, which is really unfortunate. I think someone earlier also brought up a possible user rights group called "speedy deleters," and I think that's another great idea. A possible requirement for entry into that group could be something like "demonstrates a good knowledge of the CSD and has a past history of properly tagging pages for speedy deletion." --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bump....

No one's even commented here for a week. Either we get this show on the road somehow or it will fail and die like past discussions. This is a good idea, let's strike while the iron is hot people. Don't let this opportunity go to waste.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 03:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm receptive. There may be too much opposition to letting users be able to issue blocks. I was waiting to see what happened with Pending Changes, but what happened now appears to be undetermined. Would it make sense to explore, instead, giving the ability to issue semi-protection for short periods of time? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to continue discussing this, as I think it was a good proposal, but I fear it definitely has failed... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 02:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I was going through Wikien-l's archives from 2005 and came across two possible related posts about splitting up user rights from admins. They are here (see the first paragraph response) and also here (see the last paragraph). --Bsadowski1 21:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and marked this as failed. Per Salvio over a month ago, it appears to have 'definitely failed', and as discussion has ceased it is incorrect to marked it as an ongoing proposal. Esteffect (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)