Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tohcc (talk | contribs) at 08:55, 27 January 2006 (→Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

This page is to poll consensus for whether the proposed procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges should be adopted. Please place your vote in the appropriate section. If you are opposing, to aid the people who created this proposal to improve it, please provide reasons for your opposition.

Before voting, please:

The current vote count is 105 in favor/65 opposed.

Support

  1. Yes, I support this. :P Tohcc (t | e | c) 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Naturally I support this! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As do I. Essjay talk 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Having worked significantly on the drafting of the proposal, of course. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. sure -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support - Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Alr 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Emersoni 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support. The Wookieepedian 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --Rob 23:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support —Philip N.✉ 23:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No Guru 23:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Such mechanisms need to be in place as W grows. Elijahmeeks 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support --Z.Spy 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support.--Kf4bdy 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Make that Strong Support. Heck, make that couldn't have any stronger support. For anybody who does vandal fighting but doesn't feel a need for full admin this is very useful. The scripts out there are nice but they don't always work pefectly. --StuffOfInterest 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. weak support sold on technical/load benefits Pete.Hurd 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support.-- I want that one! Mercurius 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support. It is a good idea. --Bduke 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Seems almost purely a technical issue from where I'm standing. I don't see why adminship has to be enmeshed with janitorial tasks like vandal fighting. --Malthusian (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support This is a huge money saver for Wikipedia. Jtrost 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, and I plan to apply for it when it's available.-Mr Adequate 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support Before I was an admin, I always longed for something like this to simplify RC patrol. This must be the only time ever I wish I wasn't an admin. --M@thwiz2020 00:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support this will make it very easy for all the good vandal fighters. This should also mean that regular adminship standards are higher. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I've changed my mind under the condition that we mark the difference between admin rollbacks and RPU (Rollback Privileged User) rollbacks. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. As Wikipedia grows, the quantity of problem users grows with it, putting an ever-increasing demand on the administrators. Enabling easy reverts by proven "good-behavior" editors is good because (1) It will free up the more experienced admins for tasks that are more worth their time; (2) It empowers good users, and gives an incentive for borderline users to keep their act clean, so that they can attain this privilege; (3) It's a good middle-ground with which to entrust potential admin-candidate users with "a little bit of power", to see how they handle it. Elonka 00:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These are some good points...especially 3. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. This would greatly promote vandal fighting and would make it easier for them to be held at bay. Overall, I think it would reduce the stress level among Wikipedia's CVU, administrators and independent vandal fighters. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. A few things: 1) RfA is too much for some people to go through... especially if all you really want is rollback. Adminship is definitely no longer "not a big deal" in practice. 2) People can already revert to an earlier page, but this is less load time and server drain. 3) BCrats are fine with implementing this. 4)God-modes don't work for everybody. So I support with the understanding that BCrats will revoke the privileges at the first sign of trouble. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support as per the above and my comment in this discussion. AvB ÷ talk 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support. When I applied for adminship, Wikipedia:Administrators declared that...
    Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility. Some Wikipedians consider the terms "Sysop" and "Administrator" to be misnomers, as they just indicate Wikipedia users who have had performance- and security-based restrictions on several features lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks and asked nicely. However it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users.
    It no longer makes any mention that we're not a seperate class of users. RFR might allow the community to take some of the responsibility from administrators and, who knows, maybe it'll crack our ivory towers just a little bit. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support "anyone worthy of having rollback privelages is worthy of adminship, anyone not worthy of adminship should not have rollback privelages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)" - You are right but in some cases it just does not happen like with Cool Cat. Cool cat currently probably could become. Rollback privilage for cool cat would help a lot. The fact that a usere could have theis privilage should not be the reason for them not needing to be an admin. --Adam1213 Talk + 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. SUPPORTRC patrol can revert vandals much faster, as long as this rollback is made different from the admins. Plus the Godlike mod did not ruin wikipiedia, nor will this.Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 02:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Unleash the power of the people!--FloNight 02:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. More product than process. Jacoplane 03:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support. While Jimbo has stated that "adminship is no big deal", this is obviously not the case anymore, judging by any RfA in the past six months. Whether you think it should be or not, adminship is much more difficult to attain than ever before (and I've noticed that most of the people opposing on this basis are already admins). The majority of vandal-fighting is done by regular users who, for one reason or another, wouldn't pass an RfA. Not approving this is punishing them and increasing their workload. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Wow I didn't know this was here yet. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Anything to help RC. Banana04131 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Admin privileges need to be minimised. CalJW 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 05:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support. With this I would spend more time fighting vandalism. --Bruce1ee 05:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - This allows a nice middle ground between regular users and admins. There are many users who can be trusted not to vandalize, thus this privilege would be useful to them, but at the same time, aren't ready to be admins. --Cyde Weys 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Makes things easier for users (our most valuable resource).--Nectar 07:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support -- Karl Meier 07:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Certainly. --Carnildo 08:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support -- kaal 10:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. — FireFox • T • 11:36, 24 January 2006
  49. Support. *drew 11:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --Whouk (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support -- Stefan, but would also like a system where more privilidges is allocated more or less automatically to users with respect to account age and number of edits and maybe negative score for certain 'offences', best would be if this score could also be seen in the history log. Idea 30 edits +1, 100 edits +1, 300 +1, 1000 +1, 3000 +1, 1 month +1, 6 months +1, 1 year +1, 2 years +1 or something like that. Stefan 12:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What other privileges are you looking to allocate automatically? Carbonite | Talk 15:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not so much the original plan, I was more interested in knowing the 'score' of a editor from seeing the history to better spend my time checking possible vandals and not checking users with a long history. But really this could be used for most of admin powers, which I really do not know what they are :-), say edit main page after 1000 edits and a year, blocking users, maybe limit creation of categories and templates until you have 1 months and 30 edits or something (I know very un wiki style, but would probably make things better). Stefan 03:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: Prodego talk 14:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support: so long as we yank this without so much as blinking for 3RR - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: This would be a great tool for reverting vandalism without accidently messing up the page whilst trying to do so. Instead of having to make sure your revert matches the previous one exactly, this process could be done quite quickly. Above all, this will make the common user more prepared to tackle vandalism. --P. B. Mann 16:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: Anything to help fight the good fight. Danny 16:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. SupportXDarklytez24 January 2006
  58. Support --Zeizmic 17:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I have read all the associated material on reverts and don't understand any of it. Therefore, I will just continue to scream to somebody to fix things! But I understand this gives an intermediate level of adminship, and this would produce more people to help me when I scream.[reply]
  59. Support. If becoming an admin were truly no big deal then we wouldn't need this. As it is, we are approving almost 60 a month and rejecting 30 a month (source). If nothing else, we could have the bureaucrats review the hundreds of failed RfAs from the past year and extend this priviledge to all who were not rejected for something like disruption or 3RR. Plus I'm all for allowing users to apply for Rollback. NoSeptember talk 17:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support Why would any vandal be dedicated enough for this? It will allow more experienced and responsible users (myself NOT included - yet ;)) to improve the caretaking of the place. Ck lostsword 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Good idea, we need more rollbackers. Radiant_>|< 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong support Jwissick(t)(c) 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support as an RC patroller. Stifle 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. For responsible, experienced users.It would be a great improvement in vandal control speeding up reversion and decreasing the load on admins and non admins alike.--Dakota ~ ε 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support see my below proposal --Jaranda wat's sup 21:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Roachmeister 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support just so long as this doesn't become a prerequisite to adminship. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. RfR, FUCK YEAH! Sceptre (Talk) 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Try and refrain from using language in a voting session, especially you being an admin. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 23:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong support - I use the rollback script but I find it buggy sometimes. Would make fighting vandalism much, much easier. - dharmabum (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Can be very helpful Tarret 01:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support need to set some sort of guidelines however.  ALKIVAR™ 01:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong support (but rights should be granted and revoked automatically, per mav). ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong support. I don't see any problem with that. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support in principle, subject to clearly defined criteria being met before requests from Users would be considered. My view is that the bar for this should be a minimum of 3 months contributions and 750 edits. This would demonstrate a commitment to the project and would allow the Bureaucrats to make a proper, reasoned assessment of the Users contibution history. I have done my share of vandal fighting on RC Patrol, mainly using the godmode light script, but that appears to be broken right now. From experience, trying to fight vandals manually is very frustrating - by the time you get the page history up, check everything, select the version you want to revert to, fill out the edit summary box and hit save you find somebody with faster tools has beaten you to it. Meanwhile pages are screaming by on Recent Changes. Select the next page, go through the process again - same result. It is a serious disincentive for people without tools to fight vandalism. And we all know, vandalism is a SERIOUS problem here. With the correct structure in place, I would strongly support this idea. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support with some criteria. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 10:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - there will need to be some firm guidelines though (more bureaucracy). Latinus 12:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. I do not think rollback is a "big deal" these days, and the process of obtaining it should reflect that. --maru (talk) Contribs 13:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support making RC patrol easier. Leithp 14:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support makes vandalism reversion easier.--Adam (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Liberatore(T) 14:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - This seems like a good "training" privilege to see is somebody is ready to become an admin, and a chance to help give more users the ability to help out with Wikipedia and related projects. This is something that all users can do anyway, but just makes it easier and something that reduces a step for users who are helping with fighting vandalism. --Robert Horning 15:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Helps make dealing with vandalism and copyright problems easier. -Spartanfox86 19:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Very Strong Support Good idea. Makes users able to revert vandalism more effectivly Duke toaster 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Maxwahrhaftig 19:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support--Urthogie 20:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support --Celestianpower háblame 20:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Pepsidrinka 22:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Andy 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. l337k0ko 00:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. There's no formal rules for who gets rollback bur rather just a rough consensus? Good; keep it that way.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Supporting, but with Splash's misgivings. It's a worthy idea as long as we make sure it doesn't become as rigid and irreversible as adminship. Dmcdevit·t 05:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Very Tentative Weak Support with tentacles. Some of current and failed RfAs show me that this privledge is needed for users who fight vandals but for being too new are not admins. Just a thought, but the opposes make me think. You have no reason, for instance, to trust me, a user who has been active for just over one month, with rollback privledges, even if I've done RC patrol and new page patrol (therefore, against auto threshold). Just have a feeling that Rf(r?) will become almost like an RfA, and make it a really big deal anyways. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 06:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support This is an editing tool. Administration and editing are 2 separate things. Piet 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Jbjalbrz 18:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Groovy. Fang Aili 18:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Liamdaly620 18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Since godmode-light stopped working for me, I haven't been able to revert vandals with ease, this would help any non-admin anti-vandals! --Lox (t,c) 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support of course. I really don't understand the argument that we shouldn't grant this because people can do it already through suboptimal external tools. If it's okay for them to revert, why is it okay for them to do it only with a suboptimal tool? Demi T/C 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support the proposal as is, though I like the idea below of having some minimum qualification (800 edits may bee too many). --EngineerScotty 19:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support I would like to see very clear objective criteria for this so that it isn't seen as another level of admin, but a tool to help people that need it. There should be criteria to meet, and if you do a bureaucrat flips the switch, no voting. - cohesion★talk 19:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support having done a bit of RC duty, this would make things much more efficient -Nick 22:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support while I'm worried about instruction/hierarchy creep with this proposal, the RC people need help and this is a sensible way to achieve it as per Cactus's reasoning. Ziggurat 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support -- great idea, since there are scripts to do it anyway, there's nothing to stop people getting it if they want it, might as well make it more 'official' -- Gurch 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Robovski - something for the masses of the well-behaved and helps fight vandalism Robovski 03:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Robovski[reply]
  106. Support --W.marsh 04:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong support. In my opinion, even the currently-listed (and minimal) standards are too high. Anyone who asks (with more than maybe a hundred edits and two weeks here) should get it unless they're known for edit-warring. This is really a very minor feature. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Yes. --King of All the Franks 07:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Creates another process that everyone must hawk-eye and another circuit of "wikicourt" for its removal — even though we really have no idea whether that would work or not since we have no RfDA to model it on. Vast majority of editors do fine with either godmode light or popups, and that's ok with me. Some admins have a hard enough time keeping their rollback button under control, and they are among our most trusted users; less trusted users would be likely to have more difficulties. Additionally, I do not like the language in the section title "Requests for rollback" since it makes several assumptions and promises that have little evidenciary basis; I'm not going to endorse as policy/process something which starts out with flaws. Sorry. -Splashtalk 23:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which assumptions and promises are you referring to? Talrias (t | e | c) 00:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "A history of positive contributions to Wikipedia, ranging from article edits to interactions with other users on talk pages, will be expected. While access to the rollback feature will be given out liberally to Wikipedians who request it..." All are assumptions, perhaps even just aspirations. There is no basis for stating them up-front like this. On re-reading those sentences, I fear that rollback is intended to become admin-lite; that is something I would oppose very strongly. -Splashtalk 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As for access to the feature, it isn't an assumption, it is a requirement of the proposal. The history of contributions is basically needed so we know it isn't given to vandals, but otherwise, bureaucrats would be directed to give it if he doesn't have a good reason not to, and take it away if needs warrant. I'm not sure how they are assumptions, they're more directives than anything else. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Along the same lines, this would also provide a very good way to tell who is unsuited to adminship, so even if this becomes "admin-lite", is it really that bad? I trust someone with a revert button more than I trust them with a block button, and we need more people with the revert button. Yes, I'd rather it be semi-automatic - you get within 24 hours of asking, provided you have certian qualifications and haven't disqualified yourself by committing 3RR or blatent vandalism, but this is better than nothing. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 15:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not convinced of the need. Sure it will save a little time for a few vandal fighters - but the time spent on processing and voting on requests, and then policing abuses, will ourweigh it. If the users are trustworthy, then wait a month or two and try an RfA - admin is 'no big deal' (I'd probably support an automatic after x edits type system as less problematic)--Doc ask? 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Why can't potential rollback-ees just become admins? Adminship is no big deal, is it? --Wikiacc (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose - "oppose" because this is placing more administrative complexity on average wikipedians like myself, which is bad because it can be a power but the "can't be bothered" factor will put it out of reach of most. "Weak" because this isn't an issue I've given much thought to (because I've never wanted it or anything similar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gronky (talk • contribs) 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Wikiacc. Any user can revert a page. If a user wants to help fight vandalism and do the chores, then they are invited to try to become an admin. David | Talk 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The ability to reject another person's edits without so much as an meaningful edit summary is an easily abused power that should not be handed out lightly. Become an admin. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, anyone can install Lupin's Popups to automatically revert someone's change with the summary "Popups assisted reversion to revision X" where X is some number. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong oppose. This is but marginally more useful, and is certainly not worth the additional level of hierarchy. — Dan | talk 00:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose as well. We don't need another hierarchy of users. Also, if all it takes is to convince a bureaucrat that you won't abuse the rollback (easily done, since it's quite easy to assume good faith), how do we know vandals won't get the rollback? (*shudders*) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is easy to grab, and easy to lose. If there is any sort of misuse, it can be taken out after a warning. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Users who misuse this will have their access to it revoked. While they can reapply for access, egregious misusers of rollback are unlikely to be granted the permission again. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose implementation, but support idea. Instruction creep. From Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges#Support concept, oppose procedure: I'd prefer a system where users were automatically granted rollback after a certain period of activity and/or edits. For example, a user would be able to peform rollbacks after 1 month of activity and 250 edits (just throwing some figures out). If they abuse this tool, any admin would be able to disable their rollback privilege. Thanks/wangi 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose putting it into use, however, per Wangi, support idea. Therefore strong oppose for now, per Drew/Snottygobble. NSLE (T+C) 00:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Oppose As previously mentioned, this seems to impose another level of hassle at Wikipedia and another class of editors. If someone wants this function let them become an admin. Otherwise it is not too hard to simply revert a page if you need to (I did it the old-fashioned way all the time before becoming an admin).--Alabamaboy 00:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose. As with others, I support the idea, but strongly oppose the implementation. There's just too much instruction creep and additional bureaucracy to justify any advantages of granting rollback to non-admins. Carbonite | Talk 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Creates a new process with no demonstrable benefit; not worth the hassle. Users who are trusted and familiar with Wikipedia policy should apply for adminship; if you're either not trusted or not familiar with Wikipedia policy, you probably shouldn't have rollback in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, with the existence of popup tools, this is really unnecessary. --Deathphoenix 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is less taxing on the servers, and the devs don't like the popup tools or godmode-light, as said on the Replies to common objections section. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I also find that this adds unnecessary bureacracy. Someone trustworthy enough to get rollback privileges should also be trustworthy enough for adminship. --Deathphoenix 03:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I agree with the idea of expanding the number of people with rollback beyond admins and the tech savvy, but adding another voting mechanism IS NOT the way to do it. I would like to have this done automatically for any account that is older than 30 days and has made more than 300 edits. Getting blocked for any reason would reset the clock but not the edit count. Thus those that abuse editing privileges get their easy revert feature taken away for 30 days. Heck, getting blocked for any reason for cause should also make it impossible for that person to edit any semi-protected page as if they were a new user. --mav 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But the problem with automatically giving rollback is that a troll/vandal can "wait out" the time period, as with semi-protection, so there needs to be human oversight of this. This is why it is more of an RFD-type listing than an RFA-type vote. The onus is on finding a good reason to deny rollback privileges. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If they can behave for 30 days and not get blocked after making 300 edits (maybe even exclude reverted edits from the count), then they have proven some minor level of trust. Rest assured if they abuse that they will get knocked back down to newbie status fairly quick. --mav 01:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there should be human oversight, but it would be better to focus on removing the privilege from the abusers rather than attempting to screen every candidate. If a block removed rollback privilege (by resetting the clock), any admin could effectively deal with rollback abuse. Carbonite | Talk 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's an excellent idea. I did propose a similar method of automatically granting rollback based on account age and edit count, but hadn't thought of revoking access based on blocks. I think it's worth waiting to implement this procedure until we have code in place to carry it out as Mav described. Maybe some Wikimedia higher-ups could even convince the devs to fast-track it. Carbonite | Talk 01:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that getting unblocked by a human (vs by the timer running out) would restore the clock and thus the ability to use rollback. This would limit collateral damage caused by accidental and incorrect blocks. -- mav 01:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How would we go about officially instating that procedure? A seperate policy would have to be proposed and this process would start all over again. That could take several months or more, couldn't it (tell me I'm wrong)? What logistics are involved in making that idea a reality? -- §Hurricane ERIC§ <small>archive -- my dropsonde 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No new procedure would be needed at all. Blocks and editing would be as it is now. The only difference would be that we would allow users to have a feature they do not have now if they meet a couple simple requirements and keep from getting blocked. All that is needed is for a developer to code it. Simple as that. --mav 01:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 03:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose -- Get_It 01:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While of course you aren't obliged to give an oppose reason, if you could give one it would help in finding out what people dislike about it, and ultimately improving this proposal. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - anyone worthy of having rollback privelages is worthy of adminship, anyone not worthy of adminship should not have rollback privelages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What if someone wants rollback, but doesn't want to be an Admin? --LV (Dark Mark) 01:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If only becoming an admin were not such a bugbear I would agree with you. :) I prefer automatically giving users rollback after 30 days and 300 edits and controlling that via blocks. See above. --mav 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's not a very good idea: There are gobs of malicious users, trolls, and straight-out vandals who would then gain the ability to very easily and quickly force their agenda or vandalize - WP:AN and the various subpages are clogged enough as it is. There are 800 admins, but we can only cover so much. Mind you, anyone can still manually revert, but I do not want to give tools to folks to make their abuse easier. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Solved by the fact that each time they get blocked they lose rollback for a month. We could even code a 3 strikes and you're out for good mechanism. --mav
    JOG et al, is there really a shortage of admins? 800 Admins, how many are required? As someone who would apply for this rollback power if it were to be extended, but is not interested in admin status, I am interested to know how bad the admin shortage is (please feel free to reply on my talk page if you feel it more appropriate). Pete.Hurd 03:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I agree with the extension of rollback privileges, but am staunchly opposed to the creation of another huge bureaucracy drawing people's attention away from editing, especially over such a small feature. Sarge Baldy 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, because it threatens to erode the idea that adminship is no big deal. If we want to extend rollback to non-admins, I'd favor doing it on the same basis as we enable page moves - automatically via time and/or edit thresholds. Admins should then have the ability to "block from rollback" without blocking from Wikipedia entirely, to prevent vandals or abusers creating "sleeper" accounts. Ultimately, though, most of these good users who we're targeting with this should simply be made admins. I suspect that the only reason they aren't is that the lack of a sensible de-adminship procedure makes a lot of people scared to create any more admins. This is the underlying problem that has to be fixed. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose As it stands, there are vast swaths of Wikipedia that are lacking in both coverage and quality. While I can see benefits in making rollback privileges more widely available, I don't agree with the methods recommended in carrying it out. The last thing Wiki needs is more "politics," which tend to distract from actual quality edits. As another user suggested, if we loosened the stringent admin requirements, more quality editors (who couldn't be bothered with the frivolous talk page discourse some admins are involved in) could access the admin tools, and there'd be no concern about trolls and vandals abusing them. Volatile 05:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. The last thing we need is more hierarchies within Wikipedia. Instead, we should be focusing on inducting new admins/sysops to keep up with the site's growth. --Madchester 05:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I'm not convinced that this is a solution to any real problem. With the exception of User:Pete.Hurd, I don't know how many users there are that would want rollback and not want adminship. This will just turn into another RfA, which means it will be equally as painful for those who don't want a public trial. In addition, it creates more stuff to distract from those articles without a colon in their name. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, I don't find any of the arguments convincing that this is not redundant with adminship, which should be no big deal after all. Tuf-Kat 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose for now. I am not convinced that giving out rollback privileges will save server resources–given the fact that it will also add more to the new requests pages, and then the policing of abuses. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Undermines the RfA process, particularly when you think that many people vote based on whether users get in and manually revert. This will kill discussion, and reasons in edit summaries, and just isn't necessary. Let's keep the status quo with regards this issue. Harro5 06:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose There will be another bureaucracy built up around this, another RF- and more space for instruction creep. And Splash is right about admins having trouble keeping their finger off of the rollback button when they need to. All in all like I said on the talk page I don't like this implementation. The lack of edit summaries is a big obstacle also. I like the idea though. Reading the oppose comments I think there might be a hard time finding a middle ground here that satisfies everyone, especially when some folks oppose the very concept. I don't know what to say, rollback permission at 1000 edits with a mandatory edit summary. No roll back revocation but a block when it's misused similar to how 3RR is handled? I dunno. Rx StrangeLove 07:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose It does seem like more hierarchy and bureaucracy without a lot of benefit. Reverting isn't a race - it would be nice to reduce server load, but it's not necessarily bad that someone has to take two or three steps to revert an edit.--Bookandcoffee 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Oppose - per above ComputerJoe 08:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While of course you aren't obliged to give an oppose reason, if you could give one it would help in finding out what people dislike about it, and ultimately improving this proposal. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Either do it automatically, like for page moves, or make people who need rollback admins. We don't need additional layers of privileges. Zocky | picture popups 08:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Current impliment of reverting doesn't allow the editor who does revert and the automatically produced message has the person whose edit was reverted anger sometimes. Even if experienced sysops cannot escape from accusations against their 'innapropriate' reverting, what will happen with now requested feature? If you convince someone as worthy to be granted rollback priveledge, nominate him a sysop candidate. It is less beaurocratic than create another user class in my humble opinion. --Aphaia 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We need more rollbackers. We do not need an extra process. Either bestow rights on all users with more than X edits (I'd say 500 edits / one month activity) or let the bureaucrats bestow them will. Radiant_>|< 12:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Struck. Radiant_>|< 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er.. it pretty much is b-crats bestowing it at all, this is mostly a page to request the privilege. A brief period is allowed for comment, but the decision is left entirely up to the b-crat (there is no vote, no poll, or anything of the sort). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. This would create a significant process load while providing only minimal functional gain. A much better model would be to grant rollback in an almost automatic process and then have a functioning mechanism that allows for those users who abuse the privilege to have the rollback capability removed quickly without having to go through a lengthy block or Arbcom process. --Allen3 talk 13:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bureaucrat has already chimed in saying they believed they could handle it (and as always, if there is a problem, appoint more). And removal is, as I understand it, also to be left up to bureaucrats (and admins, when a user is abusing it, can block them to stop them from abusing it further). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Paves the way for multi-tier adminship and related nonsense. All good, experienced users should be given sysop privileges if they request it. No need to introduce various degrees of privileges in between. Phils 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose if I would support someone having rollback privilegies, I would support him having the full admin package. There are also some tools for reversion that anyone can use.  Grue  18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not everyone. ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 18:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Just make them admins, it's no big deal, right. Steve block talk 19:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Become an admin and there's no problem. If somebody can't get community consensus to become an admin, they shouldn't have this feature. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per Sarge Baldy. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose convoluted system.--nixie 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose unnecessary bureaucratic hoop. Either we can trust you, and you should be adminned, or we can't trust you, and you shouldn't get toys to abuse. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. Adminship should not be even more of a big deal. —Guanaco 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. Adds bureaucracy and a new class of editor, all for a single feature that isn't that important anyway. I suspect that reverts don't happen often enough that they create a significant server load, certainly not enough server load to insitute a drastic change like this that will save less than half of that. Molimo 01:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose I oppose narrowing of the user hierarchy. (That is, I oppose the addition of another level to the user hierarchy because it seperates users into more classes.) ~MDD4696 02:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose It's better to tackle the vandalism itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlatimer (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. Giving rollback out to people will enable people to tackle the vandalism. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose weakly. Don't like another set of policies, procedures and policing, though we need more vandal fighters. There's some merit to the idea of automatic "promotion" discussed below. --Kbh3rdtalk 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. I don't see the need that makes the extra cost in bureaucracy worth it. If a user is qualified for this why not nominate them for adminship? Also, this same idea is getting roundly defeated in the Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll. Oh and the validity of the poll that never specified upfront the threshold for the proposal to be accepted as a new process is suspect. For one if it is close there's going to be controversy. Also besides the link to Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges that I saw everywhere, nowhere did I see mention that there was an ongoing vote. - Taxman Talk 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Top of the Recent changes page lists two ongoing polls under the Opinion row... Pete.Hurd
  45. Oppose. Per Gure. Ian13ID:540053 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. There are tools available that can do this already. If they absolutely have to have the server-side roll back function, then they need to earn it and go through the RfA process. Zsinj 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. We might as well create Wikipedia:Requests for Blocking Privileges and Wikipedia:Requests for Deletion Privileges and discard administrators completely. If you really want the rollback privileges why not run for RfA? Chances are, if you can be trusted for obtaining rollback, then you can be trusted for adminship. LordViD 21:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose, because in my opinion the power to do this shd remain linked to admin status as at present: there are too many possibilities for such a power to be abused otherwise.Staffelde 22:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. Not sure there's really much point. I'm perfectly happy with no rollback button despite the vandalism fighting I do, infact, from how Rollback is described, I'd prefer the long way. Deskana (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose This would further clog up the already dramatic and resource-heavy hierarchy of RfA and RfB, all just for the purposes of rollback! Ashibaka tock 00:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose It's already been said by Jeffrey O. Gustafson: "Anyone worthy of having rollback privelages is worthy of adminship, anyone not worthy of adminship should not have rollback privelages." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose As everyone's already said, I don't see the problem with just going for adminship if you want to rollback. --InShaneee 04:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose Unnecessary. Waste of time and effort. -Ikkyu2 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Those who seek the roleback power should become an admin. Dmn € Դմն 17:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose per Andrew Lenahan. -- Michalis Famelis 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. STRONGLY OPPOSE NickSentowski 19:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While of course you aren't obliged to give an oppose reason, if you could give one it would help in finding out what people dislike about it, and ultimately improving this proposal. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose this particular form of hierarchy-itus, not necessary. Hall Monitor 19:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose: find myself persuaded by many arguments above. Jonathunder 20:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. Rollback without blocking powers is pointless. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be rude, but that's rather absurd, don't you think? Sometimes people vandalise an article, but don't warrant a block to be placed. Sometimes simply leaving a test template does stop someone from vandalising, and where it doesn't, how hard is it to call an Admin for assistance? I'm not sure I get it. Sorry. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship is a package deal. Rollback is already cited as a frequently abused facility for existing admins. It creates an extra tier on the hierarchy. I'm not thrilled with your characterisation of "absurd", by the way. JFW | T@lk 21:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    However, the technical changes which rollback makes is no different to reverting manually (it's just faster, more convenient and better for the servers). I don't agree with you that rollback without blocking powers is pointless. I roll back plenty of edits without blocking the person whose edits I am rolling back. Many people who help out on RC patrol are not admins. Your comment seems to suggest that they shouldn't bother unless they are admins. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose per above. Latinus 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose:There are two ways of reverting now. One slightly more laborious, where the offending parts are removed by anyone of good faith with an explanation. The other is for a person of good will and evidence of good wiil over a time to apply for adminship, when he can use the admin rollback. However, to meet the concerns of those who think rollback is being misused, why can't we after all change the procedure to having to include a good reason for the rollback. Even so, I must say, most of the rollbacks I have seen have been the result to stop outright vandalism anyway, where having to explain wouldn't be necessary. Dieter Simon 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my question to Zocky at the very bottom of this page. I don't understand one of your reasons. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Lord, I should have said reverting, which I have now changed in my previous contribution. All I meant was, since some people seem very concerned with the misuse of rollback perhaps we should change the procedure, and wherever possible and where it is needed, give a reason why we made a rollback. I am quite happy with the two ways of reverting. Why add yet another layer of official (and officious) control? Hope this explains it.Dieter Simon 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Weak Oppose. Anyone trusted enough to get rollback should be made an admin. I don't think we really need another layer of heirarchy and bureacracy. Kaldari 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong oppose. I should've read the proposal before I voted - what an ill-conceived idea. I want every registered user without exception to have the rollback function. It's a useful function that is convenient for every user to have around and results in a much better edit summary than the popular "rvv", and it's useless to vandals, who can do the same thing much more covertly through ordinary editing. It's far less dangerous than "edit" itself. The last thing we need, though, is a proliferation of statuses forming a power hierarchy - we should to the maximum extent possible be working as equals. For the record, I am an admin. Deco 06:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. I feel there is no basis for having rollback privileges determined by a "comment and feedback nomination" when there is no guarentee that this will not turn into something similar to Requests for Adminship. Better to have such privileges determined by some objective measure like length of memebership or number of edits. Wikipedia seems to be moving closer and closer towards an oligarchy when in reality there are a lot of people who this project depends on who are anonymous or registered but unprivileged editors. (P.S. I read the responses to criticisms page and was not impressed). Cedars 02:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Either go through the hoops that allow you to be vetted properly, or don't have the legitimated power. This place already has much too much difficulty from the fact that it isn't as strongly administered as most; don't make it even easier to gain what should be obtained only after thorough review of the person. Doug 02:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aranda56 Idea

I support the idea but I oppose the way it's going to be used, so heres my idea This new Request for rollback should be for users with 800 edits and 45 days who havent been blocked for 3rr, or WP:CIVIL or any other offence only. There are someusers including me who don't want to become a admin for the time being and it would be nice to give them a rollback button without going though RFA first. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support my idea --Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. -- I love the concept. I support all reasonable ways to employ it. 800 edits sounds reasonable; less than normal admin requirements but more than the casual user. My opinion is that an RPU CANNOT have ANY past blocks for any reason. 800 edits implies a hightened level of experiance in Wikipedia. Count me in. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - but lower the threshold for number of edits and possibly increase the threshold of time. Also, users with a block should have a second chance - let it go to a RFA-ish process if the user's block history doesn't support an automatic grant. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 15:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support in another poll. And to LV, ease up on the bureaucracy...this is a perfectly decent place to discuss this. JHMM13 (T | C) 15:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, thanks for trying to call me out. I think that's an excellent way to build a community. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if that's how it came off. I'm just saying this is as good a place as any to talk about it. Didn't mean any disrespect :-) JHMM13 (T | C) 03:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I wasted over 40 minutes today typing out edit summaries, and coping the IP address..blah..blah..blah...I think that this is the best way to allow rollback priveliges. Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 20:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who oppose this idea

  1. Oppose The threshold is too high. The RFR proposal states that the privileges will be handed out liberally, and taken away as easily, and establishing a number promotes the dreaded editcountitis, which is something we tried to avoid. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is very prone to abuse though, they should also create a RFA like process for it --Jaranda wat's sup 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Suggestion: change the standards down to ~600-800 edits and 1 month and I'm on board. Have you any idea how many reverts I've down beyond 1,000 edits but before 3 months? No vandal will be dedicated enough to go 700 edits in a month or two and not be easily caught by other users complaining about him. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed it too 800 edits and 45 days as just in case Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: I feel that this is too restrictive. As one who would be shut out by this threshold, I believe that users like me would be discouraged to combat vandalism by this. --P. B. Mann 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. As I have explained above, abuse of the rollback function by vandals is really not an issue. They can accomplish the same thing much more covertly through ordinary reverting with a misleading edit summary. Deco 21:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strongly Oppose. If we're going to create a new class of editors, it shouldn't be based solely on editcount and their time here. Molimo 01:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose. I'd prefer mav's suggestion. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 03:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, we don't need "Junior Admins" running around. The RfA process is sufficient. --Zsinj 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. This policy dictates that if you get 3rr in your earlier years you can never recover from it. Unfair.--Urthogie 20:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose as per Zsinj.Staffelde 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. There should be no incentive to perform edits other than the obvious one, i.e., the article being edited required improvement. -Ikkyu2 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Encourages Editcountitis and implies that quantity of contributions is greater than quality, regardless of what the number is set at. Deskana (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. No. -WAZAAAA 20:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback_privileges/Poll#Changes? why this discussion shouldn't even be taking place. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Some parts should form part of the crieria for getting the privalage. --Adam1213 Talk + 10:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • I agree with recommending a threshold (in terms of time and number of edits), but 800 edits is way too much (the current record of minimal number of edits to be promoted to administrator is 720 edits). Maybe we could also include a minimal number of vandalism reverts, as a guideline. - Liberatore(T) 17:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • Comment - It doesn't matter either way, lets be realistic, there are scripts that can do this easily (and I don't mean "popups") --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but those require four page requests, while rollback only requires one. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are we going to stop though? This would only affect a very small amount of people, most would just continue to use the already available scripts anyway, the download is negligable and doesn't affect the user (using broadband like most internet users have), the server load aspect only really affects Wikipedia and it will probably be a small amount of people granted non-admin rollback privileges. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but remember a "rollback" is just a fast edit. That user still has to adhere to the three-revert rule like anyone else, and if he aspires to become an admin, he should use his power carefully. I might consider supporting this idea if we can highlight "rollback privileges" rollbacks in contrast to regular admin ones, just to be sure nothing's going on. The user can't really abuse this power too much since there's no ability to block or protect a page or anything like that...hm...maybe I should support this idea. I'm about to change my vote, hold on. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to disparage anything you said here, but do keep in mind that a common user can format the edit summary of a revert to look just like an admin's revert. Not sure if a special message would be particularly useful here. --StuffOfInterest 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we can manipulate what a Rollback Privileged User's edit summary will look like versus an admin's. If a user is making their edit summary look like admin rollback, then that's just a whole different problem. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent. On one hand vandals are annoying. On the other hand, if we need more vandal fighters, make more mods, trin them, select them responsibly, etcetera. And who's going to have read that 50 pages of blathering diatribes which comprises the case for, really? This is hardly a voting system, its a cabal of the in-group and the unwashed out-group having a life, not reading, not voting, especially against, because if you vote against, you have to provide feedback. Yeah. Great. Rolinator 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's vote ourselves root on the servers. Why stop at rollback? - David Gerard 23:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    lol. but you have a point, maybe developers should be elected the same way as arbitrators or admins, by the community rather than the Wikimedia as a company? Not sure myself though as well, anyone can pretend to be trustworthy on the internet until they decide they're in the clear and want to use their access for their own ends. ~Shrug~ --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't take a genius to work out why the developers aren't elected. Rob Church (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your statement here, David. We already vote people into adminship on a regular basis; what is being discussed here is a more widespread method of giving people a subset of the admin abilities. How does that justify the analogy of "vot[ing] ourselves root on the servers"? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may just be getting elderly and forgetful, but didn't we already have a poll - in the last couple of months - to gauge support on this? Stirring the pot around again may feel good, but if the last one didn't get anywhere... Shimgray | talk | 00:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there was never a poll on this. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Chalk one up for senility. (It's all this working at schools that does it). Any idea what I'm remembering, then? I'm sure I remember a discussion that reached "yes, this would be great" consensus, bringing it to someone, and then it all stagnating. Or perhaps it was a different proposal. Shimgray | talk | 00:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 00:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak oppose. Although I like the idea of being able to have a rollback button, perhaps we should look into making RfA requirements a little less stringent instead. Many Wikipedians out there are, in my opinion, perfectly capable of being admin vandal-fighters, but have no history in too much wikipedia talk areas or other things like that. Yes, you don't need to be an admin if you want to fight vandals, but it helps, right? I think people just need to stop disallowing 3-4,000 good edit people from being admins based on the fact that they've only been around for 2 months instead of 3. Nobody's going to be the perfect admin...Wikipedia's too big to have one person into every area. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's rather funny that people claim Adminship is "no big deal", when in practice, it is a big deal it seems. (Just ask NickBush24??) Perhaps we should start the quote, "Adminship is supposed to be no big deal"? --LV (Dark Mark) 00:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By itself, I see little reason to do this (the overhead of a new class of users doesn't seem warranted by the benefit this proposal would provide). On the other hand, combined with the "stable version" idea I sketched at Wikipedia talk:Stable versions#forking considered harmful, I think this might solve numerous issues we have. The focus of the stable version proposal is different, but distinctly related. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While a new user class would enable editors to rollback vandalism, it really doesn't give them any other powers to deter vandals. I'd rather focus on selecting and grooming more admins so that they can rollback vandalism and block offending users in one felled swoop. With the new Rollback-class, admins would still need to step in to handle persistant vandals. I'd just stick to the KISS principle here. --Madchester 08:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think many people are missing one big aspect of this. There are some people that do not want to be an Admin, but wouldn't mind the convenience of a rollback button. And not everyone can use the god-mode scripts either. And like I said multiple times before... I think it's rather funny that people claim Adminship is "no big deal", when in practice, it is a big deal it seems. Perhaps we should start the quote, "Adminship is supposed to be no big deal"? Oh well, what more can I say. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I would like to present an example. User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me just missed out on adminship, mainly based on his length of time with the project. But he is a wonderful vandal fighter and he could benefit greatly with just a rollback button (as would WP as a whole). The community might not think he is ready quite yet for adminship, but how many people would oppose him having the rollback tool? I doubt very many. Just something to note. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He should have been made an admin, RFA demands are too high in my opinion. There was a lot of evidence that he would use the tools well and no evidence that he would abuse them. - Haukur 10:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's a good vandal fighter, and the current tools available to regular users already make reverting faster than doing it manually. --Zsinj 20:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for bolding this next part, but I've said it a dozen or so times now, the "God-mode" scripts do not work for everybody. Sorry for shouting. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget that the devs hate it because of all the unnecessary calls to the server it makes (or something; it's on the RFR talk page I believe). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I don't get some of the opposes saying "make them an admin". If adminship were no-big-deal, I'd be all for it. But adminship has been turned into a very big deal. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have 5+1 classes - anon, new user, regular user, admin, bureaucrat, plus steward, without mentioning arbitrators, nor Jimbo and the board. There's also separate checkuser privileges. Do we really need more? It's possible that currently the bar for getting the rollback is set too high, at level 4. We can simply move it down to level 3, regular users who are allowed to move pages and create articles. Let's face it, nobody is going to cause as much trouble with the rollback feature as Willy did with page moves - if anybody tries, they will be blocked and any damage easily undone. Why create a whole additional class of users just for this? Zocky | picture popups 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because edit warring is a much bigger problem than page move vandalism? (At least, I like to think it is; I suppose it'd be nice to have some statistics on this just to back up the claim). Rollback being given out like page moves would just lead to more (and easier) opportunities for edit warring. And because it would appear identical to admin reverts, simply seeing it on the recent changes list wouldn't mean it was a true reversion of vandalism (as is the case now). And it's not a "class". This is not an RFA-like process. Comments are allowed, but it's not an area for votes, nor an attempt to get consensus. The comments are only a place for people concerned to provide links to (what they believe) may be information important to the b-crat deciding the request. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, software can be easily changed to provide for different rollback summaries for admins and other users.
But more importantly, the whole thing is absurd. Anybody can alrady revert any change. The only difference, apart from the number of links they have to click, is that rollback always leaves the same edit summary. We should simply provide a summary textbox for rollback on diffs and let everybody use it. Zocky | picture popups 02:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: how would hundreds of editors writing, "rvv" be any better than "Reverting edits by Lord Voldemort to last version by Zocky"? Does requiring an edit summary do that much? --LV (Dark Mark) 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just make rollback status automatic for a category of sufficiently dedicated contributors, just like page moving is only enabled for non-new accounts, but subject to the ability (of admins? bureaucrats?) to suspend or remove it if it is abused? Not necessarily the same threshold as page moves, mind. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback_privileges/Poll&oldid=36918615"