Wikipedia:Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking

Versions of a right to unbundle blocking (and/or other admin-level anti-vandal tools, such as protection) have often been proposed in the past. The proposers claim that an unbundling of the block tool will reduce AIV backlogs and empower prolific counter-vandals to stop vandals in their tracks quicker. On the other hand, the opposition has various reasons to oppose such a proposal, most of them claiming that this would add unnecessary bureaucracy and that AIV backlogs are rare.

Indeed, opinion on a admin-level right for counter-vandals has been split. The latest major RfC on this took place on January 2015 at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 120. There were 49 supporters, but the 61 opposers were the majority.

Nonetheless, this proposal does still have support; thus, some sort of trial should be executed to tip the split consensus. Trials that have led to consensus in the past exist; for example, the pending changes trial.

To decrease the risk from this trial, the limited blocking right for the trial should be given to to prolific counter-vandals. If the trial succeeds and consensus is gained for the full application for such a right, then it could be extended to more counter-vandals, and a name will be given to the right ("vandal fighter" sounds suboptimal at best).

I therefore propose a eight-week trial for the ability to block IPs and users with no user rights (even including autoconfirmed) for no more than 48 hours for obvious vandalism after sufficient warning; admins or any other counter-vandals with this right can revert such blocks, provided that no wheel warring occurs. This trial right will be given to counter-vandals that have countered vandals long-term; the proposed standard is at least 18 months tenure and at least 1,000 vandal reversions. Administrators willing to grant this right should check possible candidates for the trial then contact them to request that they participate in the trial. If any participant is causing damage, then the right can be removed unilaterally by any admin. This granting process is only for the trial.

After the trial ends, the participants in the trial should give feedback on the user right then a final RfC will be started, gauging approval of the right and the consensus on the criteria, granting, and abilities of the right.

This vote should not solely focus on the suitability of the right, but should substantially focus on if this right should at least be tried. Esquivalience t 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
If the ability to make longer blocks is preferred, that can be debated later. According to most supporters, the current premise with the "short blocking" at this trial is that, for sustained vandalism, an AIV report is made, but a short block is also made to stop further damage.

As an opposer of this idea, I nonetheless believe that the AIV "backlog" rarely exists; the admins are handling the AIV backlog quickly. However, although this is often lodged as a complaint, we should still find out if the benefit is worth the cost or not - will it reduce the workload? Trying a limited version of this proposal is the only surefire way of knowing. Otherwise, this proposal will forever be perennially proposed with no sure consensus or evidence on its suitability (or lack thereof).

Support trial

 * 1) Support. I've mentioned supporting something like this on some of the other current discussions, and my position remains the same here. Having this will generally make admins' jobs easier, and Esquivalience was smart to emphasize that this would only be a trial. Their argument in this edit is particularly focused toward this end, and there is little harm in trying this for as short a period as the eight weeks for which this has been proposed. If it succeeds, then we've helped Wikipedia. If it fails, then we can study why and either move forward with a new form or leave it on the list of never-try-this-agains, and we'll have helped Wikipedia. If this does not get tried, we'll keep going around in circles. I see a trial like this as a natural extrapolation of the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw), 03:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support very careful trial this is one of those things where trying it out is the only way to know for certain if it's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  05:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support For the reverts, note that having previously obtained rollback or having enabled Twinkle for editing might be evidence.  Montanabw (talk)  08:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support whether this works or not, it is important to at least give it a go so that we know. My understanding is that less time would be spent on "chasing" a user/IP engaged in clear vandalism around the project – even after reporting them – and hence: administrators would not need to be solely relied upon for a block which ought to take a few minutes to occur, but instead there is a backlog over at AIV. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per MelbourneStar and the proposal statement. Trials have worked in the past to establish consensus for something. APerson (talk!) 12:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What trials? when? The only previous user-rights trial I can recall, the pending changes trial,l was a disaster, just so you all are aware of that. It put PC back by several years because, just like this propsal, nobody made it clear who would collect the data and analyze it in order to have some sort of concrete way of evaluating the results of said trial. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I have a bit of experience at Vandal Patrolling, with over 1800 reports to AIV. Sure I'd love to have blocking as a tool, and dammit, I have earned the right to say so, with many many hours of hard work. But unless we discount the usual admin !votes against, I ain't gonna get a tool I could really use, because the admins won't allow the Crown Jewel of their perks to be usurped. *PITCHFORK ALERT: The admin !votes against the proposal should be discounted in my view because so many of them have been been protecting their broken status quo since 2010's WP:CDA "community de-adminshp" proposal, defeated because of the admin !vote against. I challenge a 'crat to close this proposal thusly. Oh the hair-tearing from those admins who gained the flag many years ago and couldn't face an Rfa now. *AMENDED PROPOSAL: If we can't agree to toss out the opposes by admin's below as obvious conflicts of interest, then how about this amendment to the proposal: choose a strictly limited number (12-20) of regular editors with vandal-fighting credentials for this trial, with mentors if need be, and give it the eight weeks.  I predict if this is tried, it will be a spectacular success... So much so, that we will all wonder why it wasn't tried earlier. And since this is my idea, to ensure fairness, I hereby disqualify myself as a trial candidate.  Jus  da  fax   02:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of limiting the trial to 10-20 regular vandal-fighters. However, before rolling it out on a large-scale basis I would want a second trial with no numerical cap on who gets the user-right.  In other words, if it doesn't succeed with 10-20 users then at least the damage (mainly social damage/hurt feelings/etc.) will be contained.  If it succeeds with 10-20 but fails with the "normal" trial then that is okay too.  If it succeeds with both parts of the trial then that would be a successful trial and the new user-right would be considered adopted.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I like "the crown jewel of their perks". because I like over-the-top hyperbole from those who apparently imagine being an admin to be akin to some seat of awesome power, rather than the drudgework it actually is. Frankly, that is exactly the sort of person who shouldn't be blocking anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of my phrase, and your self-serving portrait of the poor overworked admins is exactly what I expected when I made my comment. And your astonishing insinuation that I want the blocking tool under the current circumstances, despite the fact that I specifically and pointedly disqualified myself, is truly mean-spirited, as I see it, and a brilliant example of the serious attitude problems rank-and-file Wikipedians face. Shame on you, Beeb. As an admin, you need to be a avatar of what's right, not a rep for the Dark Side. I've been here over eight years. Cool it, dude. Jus  da  fax   21:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Really? My favorite bit was the "obvious conflicts of interest". Who let Jusdafax know we're getting paid by the block? That's supposed to be a secret, darn it.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support carefully monitored trial with a limited number of editors who have proven their trustworthiness (no sanctions against them, user rights). Possibly selected by a number of admins? Face-smile.svg samtar { t } 19:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Carefully monitored by who exactly? Anyone? Bueller? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC).
 * 1) Weak Support of the trial after an established baseline has been established for comparisons sake. I am NOT a fan of unbundling the tools, but I'm also not afraid of testing the theory. I believe that we'll find that there will be no benefit to the project or backlog (ie time from reporting to block will generally remain the same as an average), and that the is a risk of unintended consequences from this tool (improper blocks) and essentially causing double-reporting in those cases where a true admin could have actually blocked it, versus having to report is a second time for a longer term block. Yet with that said....let's put this to the test and see where it ends up. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support Several times, people have vandalized repeatedly very quickly without being blocked immediately, so I just sit there reverting their edits. Being able to just block them, even just temporarily, before an admin reviews the AIV report, would have let me fight other vandalism instead of focusing on one person. KSF  T C 20:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose trial

 * 1) Per community's disapproval of this proposal at WT:RFA. If we don't want it, why should we trial it? Max Semenik (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because then we'll have actual data to fall back on, rather than hypotheticals. We have no idea whether this proposal will be disastrous in the long run. I'm not sure where I stand on this proposal, but I do see some merit in giving it a test run. I trust the judgment of most non-admins enough to operate this tool without going haywire. Kurtis (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We already have actual data. We already know, based on experience, that 48-hour blocks of vandalism-only accounts don't work.  And the problem isn't that this would be "disastrous"&mdash;if it were a disaster then it would be undone in relatively short order.  The problem is that it will fail in a subtly insidious way, making a little more work for the real admins, and making things a little bit worse for the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I am concerned about the attempts to circumvent the strongly expressed and well-reasoned disagreement from the community.  I should probably just create a template that I can drop into these discussions, since this is the fourth time this year someone has brought up a variation on this proposal without addressing its fatal shortcomings.
 * 2) *First, the proposal talks about "AIV backlogs", but WP:AIV really doesn't seem to be backlogged. Further, I've never seen a well-formed request for admin assistance with straightforward vandalism go unattended for more than a handful of minutes on AN/I.  In other words, the basic, putative driver for this proposal is not supported by reality.  The existing admin corps already responds rapidly to reports of vandalism.
 * 3) *Second, far from protecting the encyclopedia from vandalism, this proposal will actually aid returning vandals. One of this project's largely-unspoken open secrets is that we can't and don't scrutinize every edit that comes through recent changes. (Might have been borderline-possible ten years ago, but definitely not today.)  We don't catch every vandalism edit as it is made&mdash;and vandalism that isn't caught immediately tends to stick around for a long time.  We don't catch every vandal on his first edit, or even on his first day of vandalism.  Applying a short block to a vandalism-only account is a nearly-useless move.  Either the vandal has completed his one or two acts of vandalism for the day and won't ever come back to the same IP/acccount, or the vandal has completed his handful of acts of vandalism for the day and won't be back until a few days later (or the following weekend, or whatever&mdash;logins can persist for 30 days after all) at which point we will have an unblocked and potentially autoconfirmed vandal. This is actually a problem that some admins don't seem to be aware of; I looked at this in the thread Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 21 and found that it is serious and recurring.  Vandals wouldn't be caught on their first day, or they would be caught but given a short block.  They would come back a few days or weeks later, and engage in more vandalism, for which they would receive a short block, after which they would come back again days or weeks later.... Issuing short-duration blocks means that even the vandals that we do catch once will still get one or more chances to do damage after their blocks expire.
 * 4) *Third, this creates more work for the 'full' admins who would have to clean up after the 'kiddy' admins created by this proposal. Since the 'full' admins would have to go through and review the contributions of the vandalism-only accounts and issue indefinite reblocks anyway, no one is actually saved any effort.  The only effect is to give the 'kiddy' admins an illusory sense of usefulness.
 * 5) *Fourth, this privilege bundle isn't actually particularly useful. Looking at the list 500 blocks in the blog log (, which coincidentally works out to about 24 hours' worth of blocks) I see only a tiny fraction of blocks that would be technically possible with the proposed toolset. Most blocks of IP addresses are for two or three months as part of the housekeeping to deal with spambots and open proxies, not short blocks for vandalism.  Most of the blocks of non-autoconfirmed accounts are indefinite blocks (for vandalism or username issues).
 * 6) *Fifth, when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Having a group that can block only IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts creates (or exaggerates) a power disparity in any conflict involving new (or unregistered) editors and more established accounts.  'Kiddy' admins will try to handle disputes by themselves that they ought to seek assistance for, mistaking or misunderstanding content disputes involving new editors for vandalism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like you would be more likely to support a proposal like this if the blocking right wasn't limited (i.e. if this right included the ability to block for months, and possibly even indef) – is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be a different proposal, at least, which I would again be willing to consider on its merits. All I am saying right now is that this proposal targets imaginary problem – a nonexistent vandalism backlog – and offers tools – 48-hour blocks – which would in all likelihood worsen the non-problem it aims to solve. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) A single admin should not be able to grant this right and adhoc requests should not be permitted. Control and awareness is key and a community noticeboard should be set up to handle requests. Second, the proposal does not adequately define what editors can be blocked for. By my rough estimate, at least 25% of AIV reports are not for "obvious vandalism". Lastly, the way the wheel-warring sentence is worded means that admins cannot reverse bad blocks if made more than once. Yes, the counter-vandal will have their rights taken away but the block will remain until someone else lifts it. Also, I agree with much of what TenOfAllTrades said. --Neil N  talk to me 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I concur with TenOfAllTrades and NeilN, who have outlined the problems with the trial eloquently. Of all the backlogs on Wikipedia, the one at WP:AIV isn't the worst by a long shot. Further, I think the power to block editors—even if they are "only" IP editors (I use scare quotes because IP editing can be valuable too) or non-autoconfirmed editors—should remain solely with administrators. /wia /tlk /cntrb 14:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Per TenOfAllTrades' argument that there's little point in blocking vandalism-only accounts for <48 hours. I would potentially support a trial with an indefinite block button. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't see much use of this tool. We can get vandals blocked easily, usually within few minutes, by reporting them to AIV. As I always said, indefinite block tool is much more useful than this. I proposed similar idea on RFA talk with indefinite block tool. It lets vandal fighers to work in many more areas. I have to agree with many points raised by TenOfAllTrades. Indefinite block tool will address most of the concerns of TenOfAllTrades. Thanks -- Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) A solution in search of a problem, or a backdoor way to unbundle the admin tool kit? Either way, I think it's a terrible idea to allow non-admins to block anyone for any reason. There's too much room for problems here. RO (talk)  20:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) The added complication required for creating and then granting the right, compared with the few blocks that need to be done, and the checking for validity, I would say this is a waste of everyone's time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Blocks are really the one thing we shouldn't be unbundling, especially when it's a watered-down block that can only go up to 48 hours. (Q: How many of my VOA blocks are indef? A: Almost all.) Let's try splitting off file deletion or some other perpetually backlogged, relatively uncontroversial admin task that can't instantly turn off well-intentioned users from ever trying to edit Wikipedia again. —  Earwig   talk 01:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Police power requires an RfA. How many times do we have to say "no" to this? Townlake (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) I'm really uncomfortable at the idea of handing out the power to block without a successful RfA. I gather that each string in the admin bundle is being tugged in the hope that it can be separated, but this is not the one. I doubt there is one that should be separated out.  I feel very strongly about this. We are too quick to block, we are too quick to ban. And the Junior Admin, to show their worth, and that they are ready for prime time and the real badge is, when in doubt, or even not in doubt, going to ... block. I don't think this would improve matters any.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Abolutely not. Blocking is and should remain restricted to administrators. I've said this before, many times,but once again: blocking, protection, and deletion are part fo a set of tools. They work together, a real admin can decide which tool or combination of tools is the correct respnse to given situation. . If you only have one, one is all you will use. Also, blocking actual vandal accounts for only 48 hours is just silly, and if real admins have to come in and review those blocks to see if they need indef blocking instead, then that's just taking something simple and making it complicated for no good reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) As others have said, counter-vandalism requires many tools including deletion, protection and blocking. Creating this right would not help and moreover it would cause duplication when real admins have to impose full sanctions. BethNaught (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per TenOfAllTrades. Jonathunder (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose ability to block being granted in this way, a discussion process such as RFA is needed. Other than that, I would support, as I disagree with most of the other reasons for opposing: most blocks are performed by bots or checkusers, or otherwise require a level of knowledge (either technical, or of patterns of sockpuppetry) not expected of the majority of administrators, but all are granted the ability to block; a vandal-fighter right such as this would be effective at preventing ongoing vandalism, which is urgent, and would probably reduce the amount of work for administrators as accounts temporarily blocked would just be moved to a different section of AIV (something that is already needed); the risks are of an increase in bad blocks meaning some of those reviewed are overturned (probably no more than is currently the case, if an RFA or similar process is required, so any increase is likely to be from additional scrutiny of blocks, which would be an improvement), of discrimination against new or unregistered editors (again, probably no more than the current administrators, or the restrictions for non-autoconfirmed users), of administrators leaving AIV to the vandal fighters, and of fewer editors requesting or being granted full administrator rights (which could be difficult or impossible to measure). Peter James (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Yet another resource sink. Repeated attempts to shoe-horn this and other RfA revisions are now verging on disruptive. This is not a suitable "right" and it should not be tried. Leaky  Caldron  19:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) It's all been said above. I would just add that because this work requires volunteers, even if given a title and a specific job such as "vandal fighter", they'd still be doing this on their own free-time, whenever they feel like it. So I doubt it would make any more difference, or have any more impact on AIV. That said, I strongly feel that we need more admins and something needs to be done about that pressing problem, but I don't agree that unbundling this right is a good solution. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) (Oppose).  As I understand it, aside from the power to revert, regular editors (non-administrtors) do not currently have the authority to take any form of action against other editors.  If believe that to start expanding such powers to non-administrators is a bad idea, and just invites abuse.  Also I keep reading that WP:AIV really doesn't seem to be backlogged.  And even if they were backlogged, then having to identify all these trusted vandal fighters would probably add more to the administrtors' backlog than it removed.  And finally (to paraphrase MaxSem (Max Semenik)), if it's not a good policy to begin with, why should we even be giving it a trial run? Richard27182 (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Blocking would probably be my 2nd choice after viewdeleted for worst admin tool to unbundle. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Not again. At what point can we put this in with the other Perennial proposals and lay the dispute to rest? It's a terrible idea, and it's been debated over and over. From my experience we don't need more blockers anyway, just more recent changes patrollers. Cleaning out the AIV backlog is easy enough, but I can't sit behind Huggle all day long, and during peak hours in the US we have a hard time keeping the vandalism under control &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  05:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll add more: I oppose the trial for the same reasons stated above. Furthermore, I don't want to have to spot check these "vandal fighters" on top of responding to AIV reports and doing my own patrolling. Off the top of my head, the most qualified and seasoned patrollers I can think of (that I see AIV regularly) should easily be able to pass an RfA. Please everyone continue with the awesome counter-vandalism, and let's start giving out more barnstars for it. It is critical work and the "vandal fighters" should need nothing more than rollback to do what is the most important part of the job – removing the vandalism itself &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  05:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Userblocking is perhaps the most significant admin tool, a sign of great trust: it shouldn't be distributed to non-admins for any reason. Moreover, handing out pint-size versions of the tool (I.e. capable of blocking IPs only) is an especially bad idea: targeting IPs will only legitimize and exacerbate the exclusivist trends percolating throughout WP. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Serious question – How does one determine the "1,000 vandal reversions" thing? I don't even know how to quantify that, let alone whether 1,000 vandal revisions is a reasonable standard or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If editors use Huggle for counter-vandalism, they can see their Huggle contributions on the wmflabs edit count page. Since Huggle is essentially only used for vandalism patrolling, that would be one way. However, I agree that it would be difficult to quantify for those editors who use other software (e.g., Twinkle, which can be used for all sorts of actions, not just vandalism reversion, so the wmflabs Twinkle count wouldn't be an accurate representation of counter-vandalism reverts) or who revert manually. Having a threshold is a good idea but determining whether editors meet it will be the tricky part, I guess. /wia /tlk /cntrb 14:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Certain other admin-assigned groups such as confirmed and IP-exempt should be treated the same as autoconfirmed. Remember, TOR+IPEXEMPT+less than 100 (or is it 1000?) edits = non-autoconfirmed, but these are the same editors who, when not using TOR, are autoconfirmed.  Heck, let's just make it simple:  If you have ANY specially-granted user-right you are to be treated as autoconfirmed for the purposes of this trial.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  05:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 18 months? 6 months will be enough. It's a trial, were not permanently giving it. I would certainly encourage this type of proposal but 18 months is too much. Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 05:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 18 months is just the target for this trial; this will be a 8-week one. Esquivalience t 11:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was talking about 18 months of tenure. We might lose many vandal fighters. We should get as many experienced users as possible to make this trial successful. 6 months experience, with 1000 vandalism reverts, is enough for this. Thanks Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 14:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Before considering whether or not this is a good idea, I'd like to see assurances that the block tool can be unbundled from the admin toolkit. I also imagine that the blocking limits would have to be on the honor system? I just think that once an editor has the ability to block, it's a fuzzy line from giving temporary blocks to vandals to blocking other editors for conduct that seems merely disruptive.
 * I'm also concerned that monitoring vandal fighters and their use of the block tool will make more demands on admins' time. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 14:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Any "unbundling" proposal is probably going to require Admins' time upfront, to help "break people in" and train them in the proper use of right (esp. because, presumably, there will be an initial "burst" of editors gaining the right) – as much as anything, it's likely to come in the form of questions from new users on Admins' Talk pages. (It's actually similar to training new Admins, but there are so few new Admins these days that I'm not sure it's much of a "time sink" for the veteran Admins...) But once there's an established corps of trusted editors with those unbundled rights, they would presumably help monitor new users' progress and assist them with the right. So while the "upfront training time" should be a consideration for any of the proposals, it should not in my estimation be used as an excuse to oppose simply on that basis, because it should not be assumed to be a "permanent" time commitment on the Admin corps. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I started to write a grouchy comment about opening yet another RfC about this concept in the face of ~3:1 against at the WT:RFA thread, and multiple rejected RfCs for similar ideas in the past, without any serious attempt in the proposal description to engage with prior criticism. OK, I did just write a grouchy comment :) But I'd rather try to unpack why this is such a perennial proposal despite repeated, convincing objections.
 * This keeps getting re-proposed without any attempt at all at quantifying the existence of the putative AIV backlog. People who work at AIV often tend to report that there is no significant, sustained backlog. With the exception of WereSpielChequers' proposal, this never seems to come from or be endorsed by admins experienced with AIV.
 * Various experience thresholds are generally offered as requirements to qualify for the right, but none of the previous threads seems to use any data analysis to identify good thresholds. Admins who work at AIV often observe that there are frequent unactionable reports, even by experienced users.
 * Supporters of the idea are often experienced users who believe they would be good users of the right, but do not believe they would pass an RfA for whatever reason.
 * So: this idea seems to recur out of a sense of frustration that only admins can enact decisions that experienced users believe to be obvious but see no path to being able to do themselves, rather than as an attempt to address a known problem. That is, it's an attempt at a technical solution to a social issue. Instead of just throwing the same rehashed proposal at the wall to see if it'll stick this time, maybe we can focus those efforts on identifying current bottlenecks where experienced non-admins can actually make practical contributions, where the stakes are lower in the event of misjudgment, and where review by admins is straightforward and does not require major investments of admin time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That would definitely be a welcome thing – the Admin corps themselves looking at their own workload, and where they encounter backlogs, and identifying those tasks where the Admins themselves feel like they could maybe use some help would be a very good development indeed... But I fear this is kind of like the line of "We need to find more good candidates and get them to run in RfA's!", which I hear oft repeated, but which never seems to lead to any action (indeed, I think I've heard from a couple of Admins lately that they've even stopped doing headhunting for RfA because getting anyone through there is so difficult)... But, back to the issue – a working group of Admins to identify what you're suggesting would be a great idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is all very well to say 1000 vandalism reversions, but of course the meaning is good reversions. This will be a major effort to check. Another way to speed this up would be to have a section of the AIV board for requests that are know to be good, and do not require checking for validity by an admin.  These would get a much quicker response.  But then in order to allow the trusted people to report we would need something like template editor protection, and template protection.  Template editor was not not designed for this, and could we trust the reporters not to go off and incompetently edit a protected template? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * From the inroduction to this RFC: Trials that have led to consensus in the past exist; for example, the pending changes trial. Ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. You are making me laugh. The PC trial undeniably made it take longer, by a matter of several years to come to a consensus on the use of PC. It seems they forgot to figure out beforehand who was supposed to collect and analyze data, and so it never got done, the trial dragged on far longer than it was supposed to, and there were like four more giant, contentious RFCs beforer we finally had a consensus. I hope the architects of this idea have some plan for how the trial is to be managed and are not repeating the same error, but given the fact that they apparently believe the PC trial was a success that seems unlikely. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From the lack of reply (or any indication in the proposal or supporting comments that anyone even thought about this) I suspect that I am correct in assuming there is no framework in place for actually collecting and analyzing data from this trial in the unlikely event that it were to actually occur? So, why should anyone support this? It won't prove anything if there is no hard data. Just like the lack of hard data on these alleged backlogs at AIV has failed to prove that there is even a problem here that needs fixing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Stats question - as proposed, this seems very similar for the criteria for using the rollback tool ("obvious vandalism" and such). Do we have any stats on how often that userright is abused and/or revoked? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Many people won't complain (or even notice) that their edit has been reverted by improper use of rollback so any stats would be skewed. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but then you might say if an editor doesn't object to their edit being reverted as obvious vandalism, then it's not a problem. I'm more interested in how common it is for a user to so egregiously misuse rollback that they have it taken away. That would be suggestive of how common it would be for users to abuse this userright. Except I'm sure it would be more common for users to object to being inappropriately blocked than inappropriately reverted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)