Whilst any editor can tag an attack page for deletion or revert a vandalism, at present you need an admin to block a vandal or delete an attack page.
When a vandal is on a spree it is very frustrating for the vandalfighters and disruptive for readers if there isn't an admin available to intervene quickly once a vandal has gone through the four stage warning process. Blocking vandals and deleting pages are two parts of the admin mop that the community is loathe to unbundle, not least because if you trust someone to do either why would you not trust them to be an admin? I agree with you that "If you spread the powers out over more people then this issue is largely or completely avoided." But my response to that is that the solution is to appoint more admins - if all longterm, clueful, civil editors are admins then the increasingly unhealthy concentration of power on a dwindling number of active admins is dissipated. To my mind an increasingly picky environment at RFA is the cause of the problem not a solution to it. I appreciate there are those who argue that being more picky as to who else has the mop is a logical response to the diminishing number of active admins gaining in de facto status due to their relative scarcity. However I'm not one of those who sees the logic in such a counterintuitive response. Personally I think that the best way to "spread the powers out over more people" is to persuade more well qualified candidates to become admins. Regards WereSpielChequers. On 20 August 2010 19:37, Ian Woollard <[email protected]> wrote: > I still don't think that they're required for that. The fact is that > most vandalism and attack page detection and fixing is done by non > admins, so it's just a question of giving users appropriate powers to > deal with those (and making sure that those powers can't be used > maliciously). Having them concentrated in the hands of admins is not a > logical necessity. > > The problem with the idea of administrators is that they have too much > power (or are perceived as having too much power) and thus the RFA > process becomes unduly picky. If you spread the powers out over more > people then this issue is largely or completely avoided. > > But I'm not saying that bureaucrats type roles aren't needed, there > are things that cannot be done by users, but things like decision > making in AFDs isn't one of them, nor is vandalism fighting. > > On 20/08/2010, WereSpielChequers <[email protected]> wrote: >> Two advantages of our current system over juries are efficiency and >> speed. This is particularly useful re blocking of vandals and speedy >> deletion of attack pages - in both cases the first admin to pass by >> will do the appropriate block or deletion. If you want a slower less >> efficient system you don't just need to show that the much larger >> number of jury members would be available, you also need to identify a >> benefit for this proposal, and that benefit would need to be more than >> commensurate with the disbenefits that I've identified. >> >> >> WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
