Wikipedia talk:Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking

This is the fourth time in a year

Is this really necessary? We haven't addressed the specific problems (particularly the lack of real backlogs and the fact that short blocks for vandalism-only accounts are infrequently used and actually counterproductive) identified in the last three discussions. I've summarized the major problems in my oppose vote, but for reference here are the last three discussions.

1. Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15#New "vandal stopper" user group (November 2014)
2. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 120#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter (February/March 2015)
3. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Alternative vandal blocker proposal (created October 2015, still open)

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and further question why we should have a trial implementation of a solution to a problem that most users don't believe actually exists. If you want to lay the groundwork for such an unbindling, , do so by researching our vandalism response, length of backlogs, response times, etc, and present a convinving argument that this would actually be helpful. Don't just keep presenting different versions of the same idea wihtout proving there is an actual problem that needs solving. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Move for an early close

We're a little over a week into this, and opposition is running a little stronger that 2:1 against, and nobody seems willing or able to answer the question of who would actually be collecting the data, how they would obtain said data, and what they would do with it then. To me this indicates that:

• The persons proposing and supporting this did not think of these matters at all before proposing this
• They still have no idea what the answer is
• They wrongly believed when setting this up the pending changes trial, which had the exact same flaw was a great success when it was actually a dismal failure that caused years of problems
• They apparently now realize it is a fatal flaw
• Due to the lack of any idea of how this would be done combined with the strong opposition, they have bascially walked away, given that there has been no response whatsoever to queries about these important issues

I would therefore propose an early close as there seems to be a consensus not to do this, and it would be a pointless mess anyway since there is no framework in place, even in the vaguest way, for collecting and analyzing the data this trial was supposed to generate. Keeping it open another few weeks is unlikely to change any of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)