Forum:Anti-Vandals and RFAs

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Anti-Vandals and RFAs
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 November 2009 by Degenret01.

I noticed that we make a big deal out of anti-Vandal work during RFAs. While that is all well and good, people can only be anti-vandals if they see a fair amount of vandals. I read a lot of articles, and I have only seen vandalism once (that I did revert). I know anti-Vandalism is important, but I do not see why we make it such a big part of RFAs. (This thread has no proposal)

Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - Most anti-vandal work is done by looking at Special:RecentChanges for vandal edits. The importance of the anti-vandal work is that only admins can ban the vandals, which if they cannot Assume good faith or tell vandalism from incorrect edits might end up banning a user that just made a mistake. Being an admin is like Anti-vandal+, you can block the user vandalizing rather than just warning and reporting, but that is a large responsibility and a big part of being an admin. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It's people's opinion on whether anti-vandal work is important. Making a yew grove topic just to change peoples' opinions won't help. Butterman62 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just asking a question. No attempts to change opinions. Gaz has already changed mine =/ Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I believe anti-vandalism is a very important part of becoming a sysop. Most of the actual tools are for combating vandalism (blocking offenders, deleting spam pages, protecting vandalised pages, rollbacking vandalising edits). If there were no vandalism at all, there would be pretty much no need for admins (and by extension b'crats to make the admins) at all. (Off the top of my head, the only non-vandalism thing is closing discussions (not a 'tool' as such) and VfDs (since they are for pages which are not vandalism pages, where speedy deletion criteria apply.) Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There is no way to make a "proposal" since each user supports/opposes an RfA based on their own opinion. I personally think that anti-vandal work is extremely important because sysop tools are basically centered around it. There are exceptions, such as closing archiving discussions and deleting unused images, but for the most part we block users/IPs that violate our policies, revert vandalism, protect pages that are vandalized too much, and delete inappropriate pages/images. If someone has no experience dealing with vandalism then how can they possibly hope to prove they will know how to use their new sysop tools? Andrew talk 23:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We will trust them, based on their other actions, to think carefully and observe what others have done. If they make a mistake we fix it and explain it to them. They will not destroy the wiki with a couple of errors, but I doubt they will make many anyhow.And really,.....it is very very easy to be an antivandal. Its not rocket science.--Degenret01 05:28, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that admins or sysops (system operators) are granted tools for combating vandalism. However, there are other tools as well. (To say that there is no need for admins if there is no vandalism is just wrong, IMO.) Users (and sysops) seem to forget that there are other sysop tools that is used for janitorial and maintenance purposes...

Here is some of the things not related to vandalism:

  • delete/undelete articles/images
  • view the history of deleted pages/images
  • manage the layout/settings of the wiki (MediaWiki namespace)
  • install JavaScript codes and CSS stylesheets
  • not create a redirect from the old name when moving a page [suppress redirect]
  • automatically move sub-pages along with a page
  • move images/files

And the more obscure perks:

  • request API queries in batches of 5,000 (rather than 500)
  • be unaffected by IP blocks and range blocks
  • view a list of pages which are not on anyone's watchlist (Special:UnwatchedPages)

All of these "tools" are definitely not for vandalism... Wink

As a sysop, I am still learning the full capabilities of a wiki, the tools, the extensions, etc. If you ask me, although anti-vandalism is important, we shouldn't limit the role of sysops to pure anti-vandal work. This is generally what I see in RfAs. IMHO, the wiki lacks the janitorial-type or maintanence-type admins.

For example, visit RuneScape:Community Portal. Normal editors may not be not aware of Special pages that exist for maintenance purposes, but admins should be well aware of these pages and use it regularly. Even though we have many active admins, we still have 2,815 stubs, 1,833 pages needing information, and 424 pages that need images. Ever since I joined back in April 2008, the number of stubs still remains high. OMG!

Why can't these issues be included in RfAs? We could encourage potential admins to organise maintenance projects in Wiki, and help clear up these pages. Being a sysop is no big deal... but "with great tools, comes great responsibility." Smile   az talk   10:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's the ones I was missing! Though some of them are still indirectly related to vandalism prevention, or at least I think so. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 11:51, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
I happen to agree with AZ and and steler on this one. We definitely put way too much emphasis on anti-vandal work for a sysop. Seeing some of the past RFA's I don't doubt that a very experienced editor with zero (or very little) anti-vandal work would get unanimously rejected by the community. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:11, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
I would have to say I completely agree with you, Az. I became an admin here in part because I started to request a bunch of protected pages have some edits on them, and that the community felt that I could be trusted enough to be able to make those changes without having to constantly pester an administrator to keep making those kind of changes. There are a great many roles that an administrator can take upon himself, and being an anti-vandal protector of the innocent does not have to be the only one. Well said! --Robert Horning 22:58, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes, too many of us are just unaware of all the extra things that syops can do. Would you have a community full of policemen but no fire fighters, paramedics, public works department, or town council (just to name a very very few)? They are all needed and play an important part. Sorry if my analogy is a bit too off, but I think it gets a point across.--Degenret01 13:09, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

What if those policemen are volunteer firefighters or involved in the community in some way? It's anti vandalism combined with community participation that makes a great sysop candidate in my book. Anti vandalism is an important part. Andrew talk 15:48, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
What? I said all, that includes the policemen. Stop misreading me.--Degenret01 05:16, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being human and making a mistake.. Andrew talk 20:26, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
I think I've had a bit of a change of heart. It's time to go right a few wrongs. Andrew talk 03:49, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Closed No proposal put forth, discussion has ended.--Degenret01 23:41, November 7, 2009 (UTC)