Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 204

There's no honour in bamboozling a bot. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for hacking it. I looked at one of the other RfA's and just saw a simple time there, so presumed that the result of the substing would be to replace the template with the actual start time. I would guess that the subst'ing was done incorrectly, but the template syntax is so obscure that it's really hard to figure out what it was supposed to be doing. Looie496 (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Either someone fixed it, or you did it right by accident (something I often do). Thanks for the help - that template is really hard to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't even been 36 hours and there are already 20+ questions on The Thing's RfA. Many of these are almost exactly the same. We really need to do something about this- it's becoming way too common.

To be honest I think this is the type of candidate where it's not suprising to see a lot of extra questions. With a substantial numbers of edits that are mainly automated, and with a paucity of article work, it's tricky to tease out some of the finer points on how they will use the tools. Looking at some of the questions;

1. AFD closing - seems a sensible question to ask
2. Question on warnings - seems sensible as self professed vandal fighters with the block button may have their own view on wether or not to warn and how many times
3. Question asking for evidence on consensus building - very pertinent
4. Question on article building - relevant
5. Question on Huggle - not sure what this is meant to tease out but seems valid enough
6. Question on thought process re: articles - sensible
7. IAR question - seems fine
8. Multiple accounts - seems fair enough
9. Question on speed of editing - seems fine
10. Question on approach to CSD - very relevant
11. Question on recall - perfectly fine
12. Question on real life interests that is angled to enquire about content - again seems fine

So, yes there are a lot of questions but they're not frivolous and the responses will add value to the discussion. If it's a pile on it really is only because the candidate is somewhat restricted to vandal fighting and username concerns. Pedro :  Chat  08:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't mind all of the questions. Ask as many as you feel are necessary.

Talk // Contribs

12:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sort of confused by many opposers at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2, starting with Courcelles: "the same problems (no content work) that got him rejected three prior times is a major "I didn't hear that"". Many editors concurred with the latter statement, not mentioning Courcelles' opening words ("returning here for a fourth time" [3] - I voted neutral for precisely this reason).

Would the opposers change their minds if the candidate simply faked "content work" for a few weeks? What's the point? Does anyone really believe that The Thing can morph into the new Ottave Rima? Opposes for "no content work, period" are fine with me, but opposing for not dancing to anyone's tune? Or is it just the need to say something apart from "I don't like you?" East of Borschov 12:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Three RfAs, quite some time apart, told TTTSNB that he needs to get involved in developing content. This doesn't mean reams of FAs, it just means improving articles. He elected not to do that. Fine, that's his choice. For me personally the concern is not lack of content development--specialization is good; to borrow a theatre analogy, not everyone can be an actor. We need stagehands and lighting designers too--it is the inability to listen to what others have said. Repeatedly, both in his RfAs and in private discussion. → ROUX ₪ 12:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps to make my point clearer: had TTTNSB never had a prior RfA, and this were his first, I would have almost certainly supported. → ROUX ₪ 12:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would venture that one reason I look for content contribution is that it is harder to fake as a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. One good content addition, like finding and properly formatting and adding a citation, can take ten times as long as a good content deletion. Even the process of "faking it" will give some much needed experience from a content contributor's perspective. Lambanog (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) I don't think it's fair to say this is a case of
  Ling.Nut
  12:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There are persistent rumours on this website that admins are supposed to understand (and act on) consensus. If three previous attempts failed due to many opposes on a particular subject, and the candidate didn't substantially address (or pretend to address) that subject before their fourth attempt, there might be some merit in an argument that the candidate isn't entirely in touch with the community's collective position on certain subjects even when it's rubbed in their face.

Personally, I don't think that extensive content work should be a requirement for getting the mop. But, hey, if many other people think otherwise... consensus is king.

bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, since it is my oppose at the top, let me elaborate. I don't actually care about content work much, if at all. If you go through my history of voting on RFA's, I'm sure you'd find me supporting candidates with the same level of content work as the current candidate. But not on their fourth trip to RFA. Not when every time prior has had a substantial voice of "Go and do X, then come back". What is meant by "faking it"? If you mean doing something you don't really enjoy to check a box and have something to show at the next RFA, just the experience of defending a piece of work at GAN/FLC/FAC is enlightening. If you mean a total fabrication... any editor caught at that is unlikely to ever have need of any further RFA's, for an entirely different reason. Bottom line, when 30-odd people tell you something three different times, it says a lot about someone how they react to that voice, maybe even more than what the original objection was. (I don't think I would ever oppose a first RFA for a lack of content work. Maybe not even a second.) Courcelles 15:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of faking or checking boxes, but A) getting the breadth of knowledge the community expects and B) showing that you can listen to what others say. Thing has failed to do both. To put it into real life examples, if you want a job, and the job has certain job expectations, then you have to meet those expectations. If you don't meet them, then you don't get the job. If you meet with your boss asking for a raise/promostion, and your boss says to do something, you do it before you ask your boss for a raise/promotion again. If you don't guess what the first thing your boss will ask when you meet? Did you do what I told you to do? If you didn't, then you won't get the raise/job. Sometimes the activity the boss asks for is something you don't think is necessary or will help you get where you want to be. How many hs/college courses did you have to get to get your degree that have little to no bearing on your major? But they are expected to have a well rounded character. It's no different here, we want to know that people have the ability to understand both sides and the ability to listen. Thing's actions say that he either thinks he is better than the community or that he is incapable of listening. Now, I don't know if either of those is really true, but that is what his actions say.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• He did do some content by looking at the talk page of his RFA to be fair, it's very little but still content. Secret ^account 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • But if the candidate does fake article work for two weeks, it's the same reason to oppose, unless the candidate writes an FA out of the blue. Secret ^account 19:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • My opposes on content lines is that administrators not aware of audited content processes are far more likely to make bad judgements that inhibit quality content building, which is ostensibly the reason we're all supposed to be here. We have enough people who are policy wonks without regard to their actual application. I'm hardly a "big content contributors get a pass" kind of guy, but it's still important for admins to be jacks of most trades. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"administrators not aware of audited content processes are far more likely to make bad judgements" - any diffs to support your stance David or just the usual

WP:OR?Pedro :  Chat 

07:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It means the bot has detected someone voting twice. sonia♫ 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, unrelated: 7 RfA's at once???

[FATAL ERROR]

00:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

omg that needs its own thread see below /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There are seven RfAs up at once! Is that a new record? ~

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Until it's that time again.... But to be serious, what does everyone think? Not all of them are going to pass, and there have been varied reactions on all the candidates. Do users who would be usually reluctant to go up at RfA choose to stand when there are more open candidacies? Does this result in "stricter" or "laxer" !votes? I'm curious to what everyone thinks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did the opposite. I intentionally timed my RfA at a time when (a) there was only one other RfA and it was clearly failing; and (b) there was a massive discussion on this page on what to do about the lack of candidates.--

Mkativerata (talk

) 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's that the candidates feel they're not in the spotlight as much. With only one RFA, a lot of attention will obviously go to that one candidate, but with seven as we have now attention will be spread over the separate candidates. Derild4921☼ 00:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, from two hours ago. sonia♫ 00:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was there when there was 30 candidates at one time (back in late 2005 early 2006). So this is nothing. But I think more people would nominate themselves when RFA is empty because of the lack of quality adminstrators, and they think they have their best shot at passing. Secret ^account 00:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

For me it was just a matter of when I felt the time was right. I don't know why Chaser removed the earlier version of this thread, I see nothing wrong with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored those comments. ~

NerdyScienceDude

13:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Stochastic, perhaps? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And we have none over at

WP:BRFA. MBisanz ^talk

14:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

From

early 2005 to early 2008 we were typically appointing an admin a day, so as it is a 7 day process, the norm when RFA was functioning well was for 7 ultimately successful RFAs at any one time. Plus some that didn't succeed (I'm not convinced that all of the 6 now running will or should succeed). Our number of active admins is falling and ultimately if we don't fix RFA then the foundation will doubtless step in and appoint some, as I believe they've done on other projects that failed to run themselves. But if we want to show that consensus can be made to work longterm on a site like this, then we do need to make sure we can recruit enough admins to do the various admin chores. I'm hoping that eventually we can get consensus to address the issue of standards inflation at RFA, and fix RFA before the falling number of active admins shifts from an impending problem to a current one. But I'm not as optimistic as I once was, on current trends the number of active admins will drop below 750 early next year, and I fear that by the time it does we will have begun to have incidents where the site is impacted by our lack of active admins. ϢereSpiel

Chequers 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not active admins, it's active users in general, there was plenty of people who I think deserved to be an admin became inactive later. Also RFA has become tougher, more harsher that some people (including myself) will resist going to RFA or going back to RFA again. Secret ^account 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not just RfA that has become tougher and harsher. The entire editing environment has too. The culture appears to have changed. A year ago I saw warnings of instruction creep mentioned. Not these days. The can-do laissez faire thinking of the early Wikipedia has been replaced by a bureaucratic follow the rules mindset. Wikipedia has become too strict in general and the projections one is seeing is the result. Lambanog (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea I'm seeing that in RFA, only two out of the seven appears it's going to pass. I opposed one, and I protest voted support on another one, but all of them, with the exception of two of them would have passed RFA if it was several years ago. And Addihockey likely would have passed RFA if it was 2005, when nothing really mattered. Secret ^account 20:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My (successful) RfA was part of the original seven. Hence, three out of seven… :-) --Leyo 20:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a typical snapshot of what things looked like around the peak. Just reading RFA was a totally different experience (and yes, naturally it meant that the level of scrutiny for each candidate was less, as you can see clearly at

Chick Bowen

01:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stats on that old page. Of 19 requests, 15 succeeded and 4 failed. Of the 15 admins, 2 resigned as admins and 2 are no longer active as editors (haven't edited for a year or more). Of the 11 remaining, 5 have not edited since the summer. Of the 6 still currently editing, only 1 is has made at least one action requiring the tools in the last 4 months. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation, do you have any way of working out how many of the 796 admins who are currently active editors have used the tools in the last four months? Or indeed how many "inactive admins" are actually active as admins... ϢereSpielChequers 13:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I could do it manually (gibber! squeak!). I've never particularly looked at how the tools in the toolserver work, to see if one could be finangled into doing it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe could ask Rick Block (talk · contribs) or JamesR (talk · contribs) about that. –xeno^talk 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a new suggestion, but has come up again at TTTSNB's RfA. We are now seeing admins from other projects applying for adminship here to work on one highly specific area (eg to do with moving images between en.wiki and Commons), who are actually agreeing as a criterion for acceptance that they will not undertake any other admin tasks.

Given that, is there any scope for looking again at an 'anti-vandal admin role' - full suite of tools, but can only block vandals, delete nonsense pages and attack pages, and protect articles that are experiencing vandalism. If they are the only one around in an emergency (not connected to a 4chan attack), they can do what they think fit, but must report their action at AN for evaluation and feedback (not punishment). It could be a 'first stage role' for those admins that the community feels don't have enough experience, enough content building, or that are young. Anti-vandal admins could either stay in that job, or at a later stage seek to move on to a wider role, either through a 'second stage RfA' or by a community discussion in some other forum (eg if they wanted to move into image work, I'd really want to check out that they have developed the relevant knowledge and competency, which could be a discussion in that community, whereas if they want to move into the dispute resolution type area, a wider discussion on temperament, maturity etc would be relevant).

I know it's been discussed before, but we are seeing a lot of RfAs now where a keen (I suspect often young) editor is being challenged over their content creation, when all they are asking is the tools to protect the 'pedia from the vandals. Vandal fighters burn out. Why not find a way of harnessing that enthusiasm? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea - a lot. However, IIRC, similar things have been proposed before and floundered - it might be worth browsing through some old discussions and mulling over objections raised at the time; that could greatly increase the chances of putting together a tweaked/compromise plan that everyone would be happy with. So: where are the old threads? My search-fu is failing me today, sorry. bobrayner (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

iridescent

11:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a smart, logical, productive idea. Ergo, it will never happen. → ROUX ₪ 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose giving admin powers to people without an RfA. Period. There are people who could not pass an RfA due to their own fault; they seek a back door to adminship. No.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Elen's proposal seems to suggest they would still go through an RFA (but a 'functional' RFA) and "second-stage" RFA if they wanted to become full patch. –xeno^talk 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler just to ask all new admins to only use the tools they know how to use? I'd guess that many admins wouldn't feel comfortable editing complex, parser function-heavy, high-visibility templates, yet they're allowed to, since we assume they have the sense not to go mucking around in areas they don't understand. 28bytes (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is already assumed. –xeno^talk 13:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that as in TTTSNB's RfA, similar issues would come up, and the results would be the same at the jr grade RfA. So I am guessing either we are talking about an easier process or else wasting our time. Possibly both. :)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In theory, it would be an 'easier' (more lightweight) process because people wouldn't need to worry (as much) about whether granting tools to someone who has little or no substantive content work would put them in a position to make high-level judgments about content (for which they might not be qualified). The truth is, there's nothing stopping someone from putting forth an RFA with a pledge to only use the tools in a vandal-fighting nature as described by Elen; but there is little in the policies/guidelines to enforce such pledges, so people treat them like regular RFAs all the same. –xeno^talk 13:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Making pledges at RfA is like piecrusts--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they're flaky? –xeno^talk 13:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That too, but the expression is "Promises are like pie crusts, easily made, easily broken." Attributed to Lenin, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we've certainly seen RFA pledges dishonoured in the past. I believe Elen's thoughts are that if it's written into policy, there would be a mechanism for removal if the pledge made at the the functional RFA were broken. –xeno^talk 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though I can't imagine it ever getting that far. Though-- I would limit pledges in time, too, you can't have people desysoped on the basis of what they said in a RfA five years ago.--Wehwalt (talk)

One difficulty is that we need admins who are willing to move around a bit and get involved in areas where there is a need, another is that there are some things that are probably best done by experienced admins. I'd be happy to see some sort of training per tool so that admins couldn't say appoint

WP:Rollbackers until they'd passed the relevant training module. I'm loathe to see more limited admins who can only do a subset of admin functions, but I can see a couple of exceptions where unbundling would help. The Block button is really useful for vandal fighters, and I suspect a lot of the "needs more contributions" opposes would be more relaxed about some very experienced dedicated vandalfighters being allowed to block IPs and editors who are not yet autoconfirmed. Equally the spam filter is currently an admin tool, I've never used it myself and would have no objection to it being unbundled, or moved to meta where it probably really belongs. ϢereSpiel

Chequers 13:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In some recent RfAs, admin-candidates promising to stick to one area have met with distrust and sometimes extra opposes. That seems a little perverse to me and encouraging some kind of admin-lite through the current RfA process may well set up a series of enthusiastic vandalfighters for a dispiriting "Oppose: How can we take this person's word that they won't stray outside the area of their expertise?". bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on this idea. I know one editor who could most certainly be an asset to the admin corp and the Project if only for his image work, and we desperately need more qualified admins to handle that kind of work, and he is an admin on Commons; but on the other hand, he would easily pass RFA on every other measure (trust, knowledge, content work, etc) if he would only submit to RFA. If we could unbundle admin work, he could be put to good use and needs to be able to see deleted revisions on images, but there are are perennial problems with unbundling ... so, I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree, I think in most cases, three months and a little content work would take care of the candidate's difficulties, most rejected on that ground take the community's advice, go spend some time on articles while keeping up their valuable work, and that solves the problem far better than unbundling.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Although, having read Sandy's post a second time, I think she is also referring to the reluctance of some to submit themselves to Hell Week, as we veterans fondly call RfA. However, my position stands, anyone given admin powers must go through it (I make an exception for a non-admin elected to ArbCom, I think that person should get admin powers for their term, and perhaps permanently, simply because they will not be effective without it).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't really referring to "hell week"-- he'd sail through if he chose to submit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. When I ask someone to run, I usually find objections are: I won't have the time for writing if I pass, and also RfA itself is no fun. I do not, I think, stand in the position of the old frat brother who insists that new pledges be hazed, even though times have changed. I simply think that no one should exercise powers over community members without community approval.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You may not insist on the hazing, but I believe that a great many others do.

Fatuorum

23:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What Roux said. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, as I see the thread has generated a number of comments. Yes, I was suggesting adding more bureaucratonium to the project by having a policy rather than pledges (I do agree with whoever said that the pledges are dubious in terms of enforcement), with clear criteria for what the person can and can't do, and what happens if they do what they're not supposed to (like we have for people under a 1RR restriction for example). In time, the person could apply for full adminship via RfA. I like the idea of a mentoring or training programme in technical things, copyrights and other knowledge areas, to assist full admins in helping out in all areas. Also for a full RfA, I imagine the community would expect content creation, experience in dispute resolution, and all that good stuff.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! But wouldn't a ban instead of a "block" from using the other admin tools suffice? Personally, I'd be willing to be banned from deleting from AfD, doing UAA requests, doing RFPERM requests if it meant I could have the tools to further deal with vandals by blocking. --

hockey10^e-mail

15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding to that, if a limited admin was to make a single admin action outside of their permitted actions, they would be indefinitely blocked - even if the "action" was properly done. --

hockey10^e-mail

15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a new (at least to me!) way of going about it, and it strikes me as a very interesting variation, one worth examining further. Perhaps there could be a way, added to the existing RfA process, whereby a candidate could "pass subject to restrictions", subject to that kind of ban. I could imagine certain candidates electing to present themselves only as subject to restrictions, and passing that way. Such persons would have to undergo a new RfA in order for the restrictions to be lifted. Is this worth pursuing? I think it might be. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think so :) You know, what if there was an editor that had so much experience in

hockey10^e-mail

19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So the watchmen will have to be watched? openstrings 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not, we shouldn't be appointing people who we can't trust to adminship anyways. Maybe there would be some kind of flag that when an admin goes out of their approved tools that they'll get reported and blocked? --

hockey10^e-mail

20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If we don't trust them with the full package... I don't think it's technically possible for "some kind of flag" to happen- like topic bans, it'd have to be enforced manually. As things stand, when I need something done I just go to the nearest online admin, via my watchlist or something. It would be an immense pain to find an admin that's online and ask them to G6 a page for me, and get "sorry, I'm not trusted to do speedy deletes". If I need a BLP vandal blocked asap, and ask on IRC, I don't want to be met with "oh, I'm not a vandal fighter". Admins are given a full set of tools that do require judgement calls to use in some cases- it's not just like an editor with a topic ban, because they have not been given that trust by the community. Also, if I were an admin on such terms, I wouldn't want to be indeffed and desysopped for revdeling something that clearly needed to be done asap, only because it was outside my restrictions. openstrings 22:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the suggestion at the top was for an admin lite - only vandal fighting function. Admin can block vandals, delete vandalism pages, revdelete BLP vandalism, and protect vandalised pages, because vandalism is nice and clear, the penalties are nice and clear, and if they can't tell if it's vandalism or not (eg someone changing a small piece of info without a source), then they let it alone. If they are the only one in the shop when there's any other kind of emergency, they do the best they can and report it to AN for feedback. If people find them doing other stuff routinely, then they either have to pack it in or go for a full RfA, or get the tools taken off them.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This exact topic was just brought up a while ago at Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters (check the archives there for more information). I think someone has already pointed this out, but there's no harm in doing so again (pointing it out). That idea lost momentum. Netalarm^talk 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandal fighters was a bit different. This is a policy-based rather than technical restriction on using the tools. Elen: thanks for the clarification. openstrings 23:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It is policy based, and relies on the fact that anti vandal admins would still have to demonstrate that they are trustworthy. What they wouldn't have to do is demonstrate huge amounts of content creation. You don't have to have written the article to recognise when it's been vandalised. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm. He's stating that this new "subadmin" would be able to block/project/etc. (essentially deal with vandalism), while adding on that more pressing issues be directed to AN. How is this different from the vandal fighter discussion that closed a while ago? Netalarm^talk 23:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oi! He??? :) It probably is similar to previous suggestions, but you can see from the latest batch of AfD's why it keeps getting raised. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean RfA? :P Netalarm^talk 23:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(

hockey10^e-mail

23:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Addihockey, it is analogous to a ban. Previously, others have argued that there is no technical way of preventing an admin from using the tools in a non-authorised way. But as we can manage to enforce bans, we could enforce this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a couple of paragraphs that took me 20 minutes to write about this, but then Wikipedia went down for a second and I lost the paragraphs. In general I think it's a bad idea. Secret ^account 23:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would work personally, there are alot of great users out there that are fully capable and able to use the anti-vandal tools properly and because they don't do much content work, they are not passed in a regular RfA. In this "new semi-RfA", you won't have to have content work, you just need a good record of dealing with vandalism properly and no serious conflicts with other users. My two cents. --

hockey10^e-mail

00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and made a page at

hockey10^e-mail

00:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? This discussion has come up at least twice over the past few months. It's not happening, and probably will not happen in the near future, so go write some articles or improve your own chances at passing another one. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it won't happen in the near future, but it probably will (some day) end up happening. I didn't mean to make it look like it was for me - I was actually thinking of TTTSNB to be honest. If it's not going to happen in the near future - why? Are there potential problems that I've overlooked? (excluding the admins going out of their "approved" actions) I'd really like to hear them - honestly. If this thing is going to move forward we need all the potential issues and to sort this out. --

hockey10^e-mail

04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not happening because there is simply no consensus on this issue. I have listed some of my own thoughts on problems with the vandal fighters proposal at Wikipedia talk:Vandal fighters#My opinion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

#rfa_group_editnotice,
{
    display: none;
}