Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Vote/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Contents 1 I support a consensus result (Cast a Vote on Sunday) 1.1 Discussion on supporting a consensus result (comments not required! ;-) 2 Hate me 3 Headings 4 Proportional Representation? 5 Watchlist 6 What have pagemoves got to do with this? 7 I support options A and B, A and C, or A and B and C 8 Changing titles after voting has begun 9 off topic question 10 This vote is hopeless 10.1 Crap or get off the Wikipot 11 The big deal 12 Welcome to the new home of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 13 Just to remind everybody..... 14 Please clarify option B 15 Senior Editor status 16 Clarification needed 17 ArbCom 18 Exit strategy 19 Overkill 20 Use it, love it 21 Rollback and edit rate:technical question 22 Utterly invalid 23 Analysis 24 Ok, now seriously. 25 Draft for new poll about rollback tool 26 Watchlist advertisement 27 Attempt to halt polling and restart discussion on polling 28 No poll is going to help us at this stage 28.1 Support 28.2 Oppose 28.3 Other 28.4 Discussion for the sake of discussing about discussing is evil 28.5 Pressing rollback lights up a rollback colored button that says "DO NOT PRESS THIS BUTTON AGAIN" 29 Voting and changing questions 29.1 Voting 29.2 Changing questions 29.3 closing this poll 30 Fun 31 Suggested format 32 alleged consensus 33 Edit warring? 34 Is this Wikipedia, or the Jerry Springer Show? 34.1 This is Wikipedia 34.2 This is the Jerry Springer Show 34.3 This is SPARTAAAAAAA!!!!! 34.4 This Is Radio Clash 34.5 MADNESS 34.6 Is WP:CIVIL still a policy 35 Stop it 36 Arbcom level vote 37 You have 48 hours 38 Remove from Watchlist 39 lolrollback 40 Draft 41 Sunset clause 42 Vandalism? 43 Anthere's comment 44 Notification 45 Please make up your minds 45.1 Kitties! 46 Archive

I support a consensus result (Cast a Vote on Sunday)

Hate me

Let the damn thing run, put it in watchlists, and stop fighting already. You can all hate me after instead of each other. Lawrence Cohen 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page - "Wikipedia is not a democracy, not giving people a chance to discuss is bad, you've missed the point of the ArbCom which is to prevent similar issues from happening in future and you can't sum up everyone's feelings about both allowing rollback and/or the process itself into a few neat headings. I can't help but think this is a terrible idea and fundamentally goes against the "wiki" in Wikipedia and the idea of consensus.". Wikipedia is not about binding votes and process like this, and this isn't going to do anything but muddy the waters further. -Halo (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, by "I support non-admin rollback being implemented, automatically like pagemoves with no process" do you mean giving it to everyone in the "normal" usergroup automatically? And what if you agree to rollback without process but not with - will it get "lumped in" to some other policy based on your support for rollback in general? -Halo (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Wikipedia is a democracy! :-) (Oh, hang on...) Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate you already, so that doesn't help me. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:42, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Headings

It seems the options are becoming a bit muddled. What about if we refactor this? Sections something like this...

• Non-admin rollback should be implemented

• Support
• Oppose

• If implemented, non-admin rollback should be given out by community process (human decision)

• Support
• Oppose

• If implemented, non-admin rollback should be given out automatically (time-based)

• Support
• Oppose

Something like that. Allows for a little more leeway, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Because I oppose it's implementation unless it is automatic. So how do I vote?--Doc^g 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You could create a new section for that, or oppose all other proposals, I suppose. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A 6-way poll? Surely there must be a better way than *more* complicated up-to-interpretation polling :s -Halo (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If anything, that seems less ambiguous, to me; it allows us to separate the issues of whether to turn it on, and how to turn it on, if we do. Doc's objection in particular seems to apply just as much to the current poll model. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Thats why i BOLDly changed the heading, i assumed that people would want an option to have the roll-back tool remain Admin only, which i figured was what the last section was. Perhaps this would be better...

• Non-admin rollback should be implemented

• Support
• Oppose
• If implemented, non-admin rollback should be given out by community process (human decision)

• Support
• Oppose

• If implemented, non-admin rollback should be given out automatically (time-based)

• Support
• Oppose

• Non-admin rollback should not be implemented

• Support
• Oppose

--Jac16888 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or are the number of sections that people are voting in growing by the minute? I thought the purpose of this page was to be a straight forward simple vote, that is basicly yes or no. So I was wondering what the section about wikilove, and the section about supporting all opinions have to do with the current vote, and if they are really nesseccary. --Nn123645 (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

wikilove is always necessary. Enigmaman (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Proportional Representation?

Just a question: we've already got people putting in first and second choices; how on earth is anyone going to disentangle the will of the community here? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Only Wikipedia can mess up a simple vote count with strict rules. -Halo (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That was why i made the suggestion i did above. although it would be better to simplify, i.e. either A) Give the tool, or B) don't give the tool, then do another vote (i know, so much democracy is shocking) over the logistics when/if the tool is given--Jac16888 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be using approval voting. —Ashley Y 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if it's good enough to elect ArbCom, it should be good enough here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Straight vote, arbs ratify, go write a FA. Lawrence Cohen 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist

Please put this on watchlist. Lawrence Cohen 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a notice. Please feel free to revert if necessary. Nakon 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a notice. We've thousands of editors and many will not have a clue what this is about. If we are going to invite them to comment, in such a visible way, we really need to have more of an explanation/introduction first. Unfortunately, the poll will collapse as we didn't bother to agree wat we were doing before we began.--Doc^g 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely we should have a few days grace to decide at least what we want to vote on and the method involved to vote on that? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stays or goes, and if it goes does everyone just get it, or do we use the process, which is good enough to start. It's fine as is. No more damn beurocracy. Lawrence Cohen 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We need a notice. Everyone grumbled the poll was "secret", so just put it out. Lawrence Cohen 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone can put up a brief notice header of what it is. Lawrence Cohen 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone very neutral???? Please.--Doc^g 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I just added a short terse explanation. Lawrence Cohen 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everything needs ten layers of formality and debate. Just get done what needs doing, already. Discussion is great, but drowning in it for the sake of talk is frankly stupid. Lawrence Cohen 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In an ideal world the voters would know exactly what they were voting for, with pros and cons of each proposal - many users are going to come here not having a clue (and that could effect the poll in many different ways). Ryan Postlethwaite 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What pros and cons? It's a stupid revert button. I already had like 10 from Twinkle. We can hash out how people lose it later if the vote keeps going as it is under process. If the vote turns around and everyone loses it, thats it. At least then we can stop dicking around with backend shit and write articles again, which is why we're here. Lawrence Cohen 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am feeling especially un-informed today (sorry). Presently, non-admin editors with no tools simply click on a prior version they like, for "edit," then save that (two clicks). An edit summary for why you did that, is polite, but for vandalism, "RVV" works fine (three strokes). Is this debate about one click?? or have I missed something really important? What nefarious fixit stuff do you admins HAVE? SBHarris 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this whole big thing, boils down to being about one click, in a nutshell. SQL^{Query me!} 05:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

lol, the irony. --Nn123645 (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps its me (this debate may have resulted in paranoia) but this argument of "it's just a darn button" seems to overwhelmingly come from the same folks that want it to be bureaucratically given. Seems a double standard. If this "boils down to being about one click", may I ask User:SQL why you want to make sure we have an admins approval to use it? Surely a person can do far more damage with the "edit this page" button than "rollback"... and yet, even anonymous IP's have that. Justin ^chat 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We sure do. Two clicks and three strokes. Sounds like my first experience with sex ;) Okay, I'll let you guys go back to your important debate. SBHarris 05:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of paranoia, giving the button to everyone simply isn't supported by the community at this time, and, I don't think it's ever been widely supported, nor likely to be in the near future. Personally, my hope is that over time, this method will prove, that rollback is just a stupid goddamn button, that enables people to do something they could do anyhow, and, can be given out to everyone. IMO, this debate, and all the fuss surrounding it are WAY blown out of proportion. Seriously, this isn't that huge of a deal. SQL^{Query me!} 08:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What have pagemoves got to do with this?

In the first section on this page, editor Halo asked much the same question I came to ask.

I don't see an answer so I will ask it again:

By "I support non-admin rollback being implemented, automatically like pagemoves with no process" do you mean giving it to everyone in the "normal" usergroup automatically?

For someone who has no idea how pagemoves were inmplemented, this wording is very unclear. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Is that comma supposed to be in after "implemented"?

User accounts cannot move pages until they have been registered for at least four days. The same goes for editing of semi-protected pages. Rollback would be automatically given out only to accounts more than four days old to avoid abuse in the same way that semi-protection reduces vandalism – Gurch 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I support options A and B, A and C, or A and B and C

What's the point of this? Wouldn't it make more sense to just sign any ones that you agree with? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no offence Random, but its pretty stupid. You make it sound like you're looking or a cabal with that description. I would assume that the arbcom are intelligent to realise that people supporting either variation of having non-admin rollback, are in fact supporting it in general. I think it should be removed--Jac16888 (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone vandalised my header. I SPECIFICALLY stated "A and B". —Random832 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, well people keep changing the headers. I recommend re-voting in the appropriate section and not changing them back, just avoid another discussion, cause next we will be discussing the headings. Tiptoety ^talk 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, once this is over people will complain, and then it will happen again, and the process will probably be just as flawed as this time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Did people complain after the main page vote and the 3rr vote were ended? I mean, just looking at it logically, if you have 1000 people involved, and all our voices carry weight, sometimes you need to just cut through all the bureaucratic crap, and the endless discussion where things just need to get done, and do something. If not, nothing truly major will ever get done unless something or someone comes down from on high to say, "This is this," which goes completely against the wiki-way of everyone getting to chime in with their thoughts. Sometimes you need to tell people to just chime in without a lot of extra crap, to actually move forward. Lawrence Cohen 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but will that ever happen? No. Tiptoety ^talk 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree too, but here, there has already been too much "crap". - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing titles after voting has begun

I've now removed my signature since for some odd reason, people feel the need to change titles, add options, etc. This should have all happened before the voting began, obviously. So much for making things right this time around. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the header changed, this was the implied meaning - the status quo being that we continue as we have since it was impemented. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That was not the only change.... There have been several, right? Many/most of which have been changed back. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I understand these concerns, not sure what we can do now though (I had nothing to do with the header changes BTW). Ryan Postlethwaite 05:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rjd0060, once you vote under one title, it should not be changed, it is almost like having people vote and then change what they are voting for. This should have been all done and decided upon before this process started. Though like you said, not much we can do now but keep the titles the same. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you had nothing to do with it. I was just expecting a straight forward process here, but I guess I was wrong (again). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At first, I read the title of the first option (with the comment "the current status quo" as implying that the rollback process we now have was implemented by a community decision (it wasn't, of course). LondonStatto (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I gotta agree Rjd0060's objections. IF we must have a vote, the thing we're voting on must be static. One of the reasons this turned into such a clusterf*ck a week ago is that things kept evolving as the poll took place. The ballot must not change after votes begin. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

off topic question

I see the rollback link on histories, and user contribution pages now...did someone put me in the approved group with out telling me? I have not tested it, nor do I plan to use it at this time. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, i tested it and appearantly I can rollback. how odd. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See your log; Moreschi put you into the rollbacker group. That is, if you haven't already discovered that. :-) Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This vote is hopeless

Now that I know there are, in fact, people who are "opposed to rollback unless it's given automatically"; the situation is too complex for this kind of vote. We need to discard this and replace it with a system by which everyone can easily record their order of preference for the three possibilities. Maybe the Condorcet method? —Random832 05:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we have already tried that, and that is now why we are here. Tiptoety ^talk 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need 18 votes, 25 polls, 37 pages of talk archives, an arbitration case, and someone calling Florida to demand satisfaction from the WMF secretary. We need to end this, let the people we elected call the election, and go write articles. Something like the painfully complex Condorcet system if stupided down so anyone can understand what they need to do on a mega-poll with ten seconds of reading would be good for next time, which hopefully isn't this year. Lawrence Cohen 05:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure... you point that out AFTER I got off the phone with Florida. Of course, this vote is entirely unbinding, as it violates the very premise of WP:CONS. I only voted to continue Doc's cool "--" preceding his signature. What is this poll going to teach us? That the overwhelming majority of people that read WP:ARBCOM requests about rollback are interested in it being implemented. If anything, this poll is going to produce more problems. Those in group A may claim that since A and B comprise a vote to implement, and that the procedure explained in group A is already implemented, we should stick status quo. Those in group B will claim that since group A's procedure implementation was done without consensus, the results should be a consensus to implement, with no consensus to how. Those from group C are going to claim that because there was no consensus to implement, and there is no consensus on how to implement, we should retreat to the original, which was nobody has non-admin rollback. Finally, those in group D are going to be really ticked off, because all 5 of them are going to be forced to drink tea AND spread wikilove on the some 400 user talk pages of the rest of us that voted. Majority doesn't rule, a vote is not a substitute for a consensus, and monkey's at the zoo throw poop at tourists. These are the three golden rules of wikidom, so this has presented us with nothing more than another argument. Or more likely, another way to argue about the same thing. Justin ^chat 06:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Although couldn't one argue that the vote is just being used to judge consensus? Meaning if 500 people vote in support of something, and 1 person votes in opposition, there is a clear consensus for support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

....not that I really care about all of this rollbackerish nonsense at this point. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But how many "votes" do we need to establish consensus? Cause unless i am wrong this is about the third poll i have participated in. enough is enough. Tiptoety ^talk 06:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There would not be a set number. Kind of like the way RfA works. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote Lawrence Cohen "Did people complain after the main page vote and the 3rr vote were ended?". Tiptoety ^talk 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It means we vote when we have to. It means you do what you have to, when you do. Lawrence Cohen 06:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not suggesting anything. I was simply creating argument on the comment from User:Justin. Like I said, Frankly, I don't give a damn! - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't "how many votes makes this go away". The WP policies already dictate that polls don't equal consensus. This is likely to produce nothing more than a clear consensus that non-admins should have rollback. How that rollback is to be implemented is going to be a contentious debate (and that has ALWAYS what has been contentious about this). The argument that we need admins to "approve" people to avoid edit warring and vandalism has no merit. I could use the same argument for creating a pretty new process for the "edit this page" button. I've already seen half a dozen user pages advertising that they have the rollback button as if it's a shiny new button. Where would we be without our WikiSocial Classes :P. Do we really need a process so admins can pat themselves on the back for granting user rights? Do we really need a process so users that are granted can pat themselves on the back like it's some special degree of trust from the community? For not being a bureaucracy, it sure looks like a bureaucracy. Justin ^chat 06:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an organized bureaucracy. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Crap or get off the Wikipot

No disrepect to consensus, but did we or did we not vote on the main page, and on 3rr once upon a time? I feel stupid saying this, but it's not reasonably possible to collect 1000~ or people who may want to weigh in on something to sit down and expect them to chat about it until all the loudest complainers are satiated, which they may never be. Sometimes you need to just do something or else nothing ever gets down. Are we here to write articles or reinvent the US government until everyone down to the new guy on the US postal service assembly line is satisfied with how the Air Force is fueling their jets? And the poll, vote, or whatever it is, can certainly be binding, if people decide it is. Comes a time where enough is enough, or is there going to be some debate longer than the Bible every time something big comes along? At some point, you need to either crap or get off the wikipot. And then go write an article. Nothing else but the article matters in the end. Lawrence Cohen 06:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Meaning, no matter how many times we have a vote, there will always be a party that is unhappy with the outcome, but there comes a time when there has to be a end. Once a president gets elected, do people sit around and talk about until someone decides to just f**k the current president and have a new election? Come on now, enough is enough. Tiptoety ^talk 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How many times have I already said that? Again, I wasn't suggesting that a vote continue, or anything. This comment wasn't implying anything, just an argument, which is why I quickly added this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i know, and the comment was not aimed at you directly. :) Tiptoety ^talk 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well never mind then ;) -Rjd0060 (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The big deal

Really, what's the big deal? Why is rollback so controversial and important? Is it going to change all Wikipedia or something? I don't think. It's not like we're voting for or against advertisements by the WMF. Or altering the very pillars. -- Mentifisto 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly, not sure why we keep doing this. Tiptoety ^talk 06:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile important things are being dropped. Bstone (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

True that, i hope some one has been monitoring Jimbo Wales user page, or ANI. :) Tiptoety ^talk 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

People are treating this like we're giving users the power to destroy planets. Rollback privileges can be removed as easily as Twinkle, so what's the big deal? Oh, and while everyone's bickering here, places like Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention are being ignored. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia! Tiptoety ^talk 06:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually people are bickering about how it was implemented. You'll notice, many of the people that complained about the implementation are also supporting this feature as an auto-approve. I've said that some 15 times so far, but it apparently hasn't sunk in. Repeteing the same argument over and over doesn't make it true. I'm all for rollback... I'm totally against yet another social group within Wikipedia. Justin ^chat 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why does it matter? We are all working towards the same goal, so what's the big problem? Tiptoety ^talk 07:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It only matters to me because it's getting out of control. Wikipedia is an incredibly good idea that's turned into a "look how high I am on the ladder" competition. And now we have an argument for adding a new rung. There are a lot of media claims that Wikipedia is anti-elitist. I beg to differ... it seems that many are hellbent on creating social classes as quickly as possible. Wikipedia:Requests by normal users, which can be granted by super users, with oversight by super duper users, which can be repealed by admins, which must be brought in front of the Committee on committees that oversee the reviews of the Arbitration Review Committee. How far does this go? Justin ^chat 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand your point (in fact I'm considering whether to switch my vote to the autoconfirmed group) but even if this social 'class' is created, will it really be that 'powerful'? Currently the real classes are three - admins, bureaucrats, and stewards - there are oversights and checkusers but I think they're rather peripheral... they're powerful, but not main.

Now how 'proud' could the rollbacks really be? It's far from being admin (perceptibly and tool-wise itself) and it simply does what is already available, only quicker. So what makes rollback a completely distinct class? -- Mentifisto 07:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Proud enough that I've seen it advertised on a variety of user pages. One of which with a "thank you for the trust the community has put in me" speech. It's not power that concerns me, but the illusion of power. That's exactly why RfA's are so broken. Admin's have access to additional tools, and nothing more, but this has since evolved into admin's being "above" an editor. The funny thing about social classes is they don't have to be particularly different, they just have to think they are. And by making this a "tool by approval" we elevate the position of admin even higher than it already is (which is far too high) and create a different (if not distinct) class of editors. You point out this tool does nothing more than make an available task quicker. So if we have permission to go outside, why do we need permission to use the front door? Justin ^chat 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's going to be the way it is whether it's autoconfirmed or not. What's more authoritarian: instant approval after two minutes of reviews as it is now, or approval only if nobody rejects it over the course of four days of reviews, as it would be with autoconfirm? The way it is now seems a whole lot friendlier and faster to me. Kafziel ^Talk 08:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Four days of reviews? All they have to do is hang around for four days to be autoconfirmed. No discussions, no reviews. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Then what's the four days for? Kafziel ^Talk 08:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The four-day period is the existing four-day period for which a new user account must wait before they are able to move pages, or edit semi-protected pages. It seems logical to group rollback with these abilities and thus to make abuse via throwaway accounts less feasible (as semi-protection does with vandalism) – Gurch 08:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But we have that four day period to make sure (sort of) that they're here to contribute constructively. That probationary period amounts to a passive four-day review. Kafziel ^Talk 08:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In a way, I suppose. But only in a way, and no more. No actual reviewing takes place, after all. And more to the point, if, like most people here, you are already autoconfirmed, the amount of time needed to obtain rollback would be zero – Gurch 08:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But wasn't that kind of a deal-breaker during the real discussion about this? Automatically giving the tool to people with a visible history of edit warring and misuse of TW? I seem to recall a vast majority thinking that wasn't the greatest idea. Kafziel ^Talk 09:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was given out to everyone, then abuse would be dealt with by blocking. Contributors unable to contribute without becoming involved in edits wars should be, and are, blocked anyway, so this should be no different to existing practise – Gurch 09:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the social groups though.Tiptoety ^talk 07:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably only a matter of time before the first "This user is a rollbacker" userbox or something similar is created, if it hasn't already. The actual "power" these users are given is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. I don't care either way if rollback stays or goes, because it's not a big issue. But, the potential for mayhem if everyone has rollback is slight. We give page move privileges to everyone after a few days, and that's a much more powerful ability than rollback. The potential harm of giving everyone rollback is less than the harm of having admins anoint certain users as "worthy" or "unworthy" and creating a new class of editors. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been "This user uses <insert name of script/software here>" userboxes for years. Have they led to the creation of a new social class? No. Now please just stop this – Gurch 08:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the vast majority of those scripts don't require approval, and none requires approval through an official Wikipedia process, as far as I know. We seem to be heading into a world of, "All editors are equal. But some editors are more equal than others." --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What does requiring approval have to do with anything? Approval is required to use AutoWikiBrowser, has that created a new social class of AutoWikiBrowser users? No. Approval is required to review Flickr images on Commons, has that created a new social class of image reviewers? No. Approval is required to operate a bot, has that created a new social class of bot operators? No. Despite the best efforts of certain people (see a few sections down) to actually create new social classes, for some misguided purpose, it is not happening – Gurch 09:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the above concerns are about the users creating the social class themselves by thinking that they're more special than others. Creating userboxes etc. is trivial but it may become a social class eventually anyway and then people start argumenting about it on RfAs etc. -- Mentifisto 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And? I'll rephrase my questions, then. Do Twinkle users consider themselves to be more special than others? No. Do AutoWikiBrowser users consider themselves to be more special than others? No. Do Commons image tag reviewers consider themselves to be more special than others? No. Do bot operators consider themselves to be more special than others? No. I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that any such classes exist or would be created by rollback – Gurch 10:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do admins et al. consider themselves to be more special than others? That's the thing that may happen to rollback users because there's a process. The reason behind adminship etc. becoming a class applies to the rollback process, not the reason behind all those mentioned (I'm not sure about this though, of course, I'm only restating the above arguments). -- Mentifisto 12:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the new home of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Maybe I can get some help over here? Can I get an admin to delete [1] and [2]  ? I blanked it and CSD but I guess a .js page doesn't take wikicode so it's not taking {{db-userreq}} tag. Thanks and sorry for the interruption... -- ALLSTARecho 07:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. Thanks to whomever took care of it for me. -- ALLSTARecho 07:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, got a faster response here than at ANI. Tiptoety ^talk 07:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I'm jus' sayin'.. lol -- ALLSTARecho 07:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had to say, the title of this section made me laugh harder than I have in a long time. I'm still laughing. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind everybody.....

As pointed out above, there are other places needing Admin attention. You know, the usual places (AIV, UAA, AN/I and AN). Please try and keep an eye on those too. The community thanks you.

PS...User:Rjd0060/temp. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Userbox. Pure class. Pedro :  Chat  08:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Color scheme needs work, but I'm using it anyway because this shit is stupid. Lara❤Love 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify option B

Can someone please clarify what the "I support non-admin rollback being implemented, automatically like pagemoves with no process (autoconfirmed)" option means? Is it:

1. Any user gets the 'rollbacker' group along with 'autoconfirmed' but can at any time be removed from that group by any administrator.

   or

2. The 'rollback' permission is added to the 'autoconfirmed' group and cannot be removed (save for a plain ol' block).

Quite reasonably I believe it's about the first approach, but please clarify. Thanks, Миша13 08:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it's the second. Apart from anything else, if it was removed from a user they could simply create another account and wait for it to be autoconfirmed, which is trivial. Does it actually matter, though? If blocking is the only way to deal with people who abuse rollback, surely that will only lead them to be more careful – Gurch 08:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea. We have plenty of editors who are temperamental and get into edit wars, so shouldn't be trusted with rollback, but who are good-faith contributors and shouldn't be indef-blocked. Having it given out by admins to trusted users is IMO a much better idea. Walton^One 08:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Then vote for option A. This is about clarifying option B – Gurch 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm discussing. I'm trying to explain why I think option B is a bad idea. Walton^One 08:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Senior Editor status

Some while ago, someone (I can't remember who) suggested at WT:RFA that we introduce a "Senior Editor" access level, a kind of halfway-house between editorship and adminship, with the ability to delete and rollback but not block. This was rejected (correctly, in my view) on the grounds that anyone who can be trusted to delete can be trusted with all the admin tools.

However, since it seems to be accepted by the community that many non-admins can be trusted with rollback, I suggest that we should give a title like "Senior Editor" to those who receive non-admin rollback. We should also have a proper discussion period (of at least 3 days) before granting Senior Editorship.

Some people will see this as needless bureaucracy. But it's not uncommon for users to apply for adminship with a lot of experience of vandal-fighting, but without any substantial article-writing or policy discussion experience; their RfAs usually fail, because they haven't demonstrated the subtle judgment necessary to be a good admin. In such cases, we could offer them Senior Editorship instead - it would make them feel valued, and would also give them access to the rollback tool. Walton^One 08:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is the most insanely bad suggestion I've seen since Jimbo Wales decided to involve ArbCom earlier today – Gurch 08:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it such a bad suggestion? Walton^One 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

More processes and classes? No thanks. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree too. It further establishes the appearance of a hierarchy (editor - senior editor - sysop - crat) which we are supposed to be avoiding. And how long before RfA oppose votes start to say "You have been an editor for a long time but never progressed to senior editor, yet now you want the tools." Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a hierarchy already, and the step between editor and admin is often a very steep one, which intimidates and demoralises those who want to progress to adminship. Like it or not, many people do contribute specifically because they want adminship. Creating an extra rung on the ladder will give them extra motivation, and will prevent less experienced users becoming demoralised because their RfAs fail. Walton^One 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If the step between editor and admin is steep then how steep is the step between admin and bureaucrat? ;-) And the same applies there... if we ought to fill in the steepness between editor and admin then we should fill in the same gap between the other two ad infinitum - will Wikipedia become a community of solely social classes? -- Mentifisto 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I had a very similar thought earlier but dismissed it as too radical - basically, maybe, we could do as you said with some additions - many apply for an RfA only because they fight vandalism... some I guess could only do that... so instead of granting them full adminship status (or not) they could merrily apply for the rollback, and maybe never for an RfA. Well, yeah, similar to all the suggestions earlier and related to what we're voting for, but that's it. I didn't write this before because I'm not sure if I even endorse it. -- Mentifisto 09:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the non-sysop rollback has been a "grant" to useful editors on Wikia for ages. It might work on cruft wikis but it is dangerous even in sensible hands. A missed call from another RCper and the intial objective of the seemingly all hearts to say fuck vandal leaves a page with hours/days/weeks with a reference or remark we should have spotted. Rollback is fine for experienced users or articles with a healthy watchlist, but otherwise give them a wiki tutor or something first. Good editor go back and check the article is sound. RCers sometimes have to notch up marks and apologise after the damage has been done. Bpeps (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can we also create Junior Editor and/or Apprentice Editor? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  Only if I can be Senior Executive Vice-Editor – Gurch 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I call Ombudsman to the Council on Harmonious Relations Between Junior and Senior Editors with Usernames Beginning with A-J. John Reaves 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• :-) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for Senior Editor Status anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[Request Rejected]

It's a speedy undo button. This is getting out of hand. What issues have there been with the use of this feature by non-admins? All I can see is a bunch of admins whining about what could happen instead of doing anything constructive. So many pages I fear the server is going to lockdown and for what? Nothing. Everyone needs to calm down until there's a need to freak out. Wikipedia:Non-admin rollback noticeboard/Incidents. When If something happens, put it there. Until then, eveyone needs to stfu and get back to work. Lara❤Love 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed

It's not quite clear to me how the roll-back is essentially different from the current possibilities of reverting. There is the "rv" button in the small pop-up when hovering over "diff" in the watch list. There is the "undo" button" in the history list. And one can just edit and save any old version. −Woodstone (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen, brother. Kafziel ^Talk 09:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is far quicker and more efficient than any other method, even a script, and if a user has made multiple consecutive contributions to a page, they will automatically be reverted all at once. For more information, see Help:Reverting#Rollback, Wikipedia:Rollback feature and every single one of the 1000 f***ing discussions we've had on this now in which I and other people have had to explain this again and again and again and again and again and again to people who are too ignorant to understand what is going on or too lazy to figure it out for themselves – Gurch 09:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that was called for. In fact, I'm sure it wasn't. Kafziel ^Talk 09:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you really think 200 people want a software change to be made that would do nothing? Did you really think that administrators have had, and used, rollback for years while secretly not telling anyone that there's no point to it? If you don't like my answer, then how about next time you want to know something, rather than just saying "amen" to people who are just as clueless as you are, you find the answer yourself? Not like there's a shortage of discussions about it at the moment – Gurch 09:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what the rollback button does. I know what the "block", "unblock", "delete", and "restore" buttons do, too. I know because I have them. I don't like your answer because it's uncivil, not because I don't know what the answer is. Kafziel ^Talk 09:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - There's no point to it. The secret is now out. Kafziel ^Talk 09:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Still all of this doesn't answer my question. If rollback is just a matter of efficiency and does not add any power to the editor, why would a special privilege be needed to use it? −Woodstone (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the nature of the way MediaWiki works is that a user can either be assigned to the rollback group, or not. If you think all established registered users should have it, vote for option B in the poll. If you think it should be restricted to individually approved users, vote for option A. If you think nobody should have it, vote for option C. That is the whole reason why the poll exists – Gurch 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you can make more edits per minute with rollback than without, which might be of some concern in case of vandalbots. Kusma (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

The page claims that ArbCom will review the results of the vote. Where have they agreed to do that? If they haven't, the vote is operating under a wrong assumption and should be stopped until it is clear what it will be used for. Kusma (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo told them they have to. And apparently he can do that, or thinks he can. Since he appoints ArbCom in the first place, I guess it makes sense – Gurch 09:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I learned that voting is evil in my 3 years here. This way of "hold a poll and let ArbCom judge the results" is not our normal process of consensus building; usually we reach consensus (or don't) and later ArbCom members refer to that consensus in their decisions. Perhaps we need a process that says how software features should be implemented (developers traditionally operate under their own policies, not ours), but it should not be implemented by the ArbCom, which is our judicative, not our legislative body. Kusma (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know all that, as does every other sane person here. Compaining here is not going to change anything, however. You'll have to take it up with Jimbo, as I have already tried to do, though I have only been ignored – Gurch 09:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just posted in that thread, before seeing this comment :-) Kusma (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo decided to employ the ArbCom in this poll (which is a poll because consensus just couldn't be achieved in the previous discussions) because this needs to end - the ArbCom has the ultimate say in order to end disputes, and that's why it needs to do that here, I guess. -- Mentifisto 09:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom clarifies policy and deals with user conduct. It does not determine policy and hence can't ratify anything. Unfortunately Jimbo once again causes more harm than good. His intentions are good but his ideas really aren't. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem with the previous rollback discussions wasn't that there was no consensus, either -- it was that the feature was implemetned in the middle of discussion when nobody was expecting it. There was already clear consensus that rollback should be given out in some form -- which is all this poll is determining, which means we're going to get nowhere. What hadn't been worked out was the details of the process, and even then, the poll on that showed ~67% support for what had been proposed. Intervention is unnecessary, what is necessary is for people to stop whining about there being no consensus or no process or that things haven't been done "properly" and either accept the situation as is or figure out how to improve the rollback process, which this poll is not doing – Gurch 09:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's simply spinning the facts. The problem is that although most people are willing to support rollback in some form, that does not translate to a consensus that we should have rollback. I'm willing to support an autogranted no-process rollback, but strong oppose the current system and would prefer we have none. Others strongly support an RfA type of rollback, but would strongly oppose an autogranted one and would prefer none. There is simply no consensus for anything, and until there is, Wikipedia policy and practice demands the status-quo. That has been disgustingly disregarded - and it is outrageous for people who have got their way without consensus to blame those who oppose it for the disruption and effectively say that the solution is for silent acceptance. NO. The solution was for people not to have started this process whilst there was ongoing discussion and no-consensus. That was, and remains, the disruption.--Doc^g 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, the proportions in this poll seem pretty similar to how the situation seemed before. Almost everyone wants rollback, there is less certainty over how it should be implemented. The only person who is picking the difficult position and asking for rollback yet refusing to have any kind of approval process, even a "can I have it? yes, here you go" kind, is you. – Gurch 10:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You are spinning again. The poll is the same as before currently 85 "support a rollback as we have it" 49 "no process" and 16 "no rollback". You cannot add the 85 and the 45 together and declare a consensus for "some for of rollback" since many who are included in those numbers would rather have none than a rollback with a different mechanism to their choice. I have consistently opposed process- that's why I want rollback given automatically or not at all. However, we currently have this bastard system that has no consensus. As long as we have it, I will make the best of it, which is to grant rollback to anyone who asks me without any process whatsoever. But I still oppose the system of admin right to grant.--Doc^g 10:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am convinced that most of those 49 – if not everyone except you – would vastly prefer any kind of rollback at all to nothing, but if given the choice would prefer it to be given to anyone. That is the impression given by earlier discussion – Gurch 10:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not me. My order of preference would be: all users get rollback, then no users get rollback, then needless process that awards rollback to most, but not all, users. Not trying to be disagreeable, just saying for what it's worth. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally would prefer no rollback than it granted in the current manner and I'm definitely not the only one. Please don't make those sort of assumptions. -Halo (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What is needed is to explicitly ask these sort of questions, not to have either side spin results their way. ie. (A) Is the tool useful?: yes/no/other; (B) Is the tool a big deal?: yes/no/other; (C) Should the option to give people rollbacker rights be turned on on en-wiki?: yes/no/other; (D) What should have the tool?: (i) Both humans and bots (ii) Only humans (iii) Only bots; (E) How many should have the tool?: Anyone/no-one/limited numbers (for the amount of limitation, see next question) - ask the question for both (i) humans and (ii) bots (the rest of the questions apply to humans only); (F) How limited should the numbers be?: low entry barrier (eg. autoconfirmed) or higher entry barrier (selection method to be determined); (G) Who should grant rollback rights and who should take them away?: anyone/admins/bureaucrats; (H) Should the request and selection process be determined before or after the function is switched on?: before/after; (I) Is another poll required to approve the policy and decide between various different selection methods, or should those be developed by normal means? more polling/go ahead. It gets more complicated the further you get down the decision tree, but it is not impossible to set up a poll like this to get clearer answers to key questions. Carcharoth (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That is rational, but, well, only some questions were asked recently related to the rollback process and consensus is in chaos - wouldn't those questions take an infinity to answer based on the current practical situation? -- Mentifisto 12:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Exit strategy

The problem with the last poll, and the problem with this one, is there there is no agreement on how to deal with the result, and who should judge it. Both in the recent poll, and this one, what was needed was do decide beforehand how to judge the result, rather than the "at the end, let's spin it whichever way we think best supports our position" recipe for chaos. Please, please can we agree to let the bureaucrats judge consensus in cases like this? I'm am going to be bold and post to WP:BN about this, but even better would be if the header at the top of the poll stated how the result will be decided. At the moment, it is possible to interpret it as a straight vote (ie. if one side gets one more vote than the other side, it "wins"). I do hope no-one is interpreting this as a straight vote. Rather, it may help determine consensus, but, crucially, cannot over-ride consensus. Carcharoth (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll use consensus to establish this. If that's uncertain, we'll use consensus to establish whether there's consensus. And if that's uncertain, we'll use consensus to establish whether there's consensus that there's consensus. The developers, the Foundation, ArbCom and Jimbo all choose to defer to the community on this issue. —Ashley Y 10:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

?– Gurch 11:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Did we straight vote on the main page and 3rr? People keep saying we don't vote, but then people keep saying it seems we do. Where are we going to sit down 1500 users, who all have equal standing, and have any sort of useful consensus discussion? Lawrence Cohen 13:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Overkill

This is an entirely unnecessary tool. Rules and guidelines already exist for vandalism and reverting, deletions, etc. I see this being used as a tool by disgruntled dogmatic and dictatorial editors (sometimes acting in groups - as can be evidenced by canvassing already going on to vote for it) to eliminate instantly things that they don't like. It is a form of enforcing personal opinions by yet another of the countless overlapping Wikipedia guidelines. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why we can remove it. You are aware that the tool existed long before it was available to non-admins right? John Reaves 11:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rules and guidelines for using rollback already exist, too. Administrators have used this tool to efficiently deal with vandalism for years. It is merely a far more efficient version of the scripts that non-administrators have been using, and is no more likely to encourage abuse than those – Gurch 11:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

An admin tool is one thing. A tool for every Tom Dick and Harry, as I have indicated in my post above, is quite another. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Use it, love it

{{User:Merovingian/Admin grant rollback}} For the admins. -- ALLSTARecho 10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Allstarecho/User grant rollback And of course one for us lowly ole users too. We can hand out the image anyway. it's just as valuable as the "tool" -- ALLSTARecho 11:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback and edit rate:technical question

I would like to ask a technical question. bugzilla:12534 seems to indicate that rollback is somehow connected to the maximum edit rate. Can a "rollbacker" just roll back lots of edits from a user's contribution page in very short time like an admin can? This would be a feature that should not be given to autoconfirmed users, as it would invite stupid vandalbot attacks. Or "autoconfirmed" rollback would need a severe edit rate limit that reduces its usefulness. Can anyone explain? Kusma (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I tested on my alternate account, and after 5 rollbacks (in a few seconds), the rollbacker gets the MediaWiki:Actionthrottledtext message. I assume you can rollback only 5 times every minute. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! This seems to indicate that giving rollback to autoconfirmed users isn't a big security risk. Kusma (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Utterly invalid

Unfortunately, as well-meaning as this poll was, it was always doomed by the fact it was initiated without any agreement as to the questions, or scope. That always made it weak. But I've just noticed that half-way through, the first section was changed from "implemented, through a community decided process" to "... through promotion by admins" - that's two different things. One might support "a" process but not the specific one of "promotion by admins". Basically someone has changed what people voted for. Further, the description "the status-quo", which might have specified things has variously appeared and disappeared - that confuses matters. And what is the status-quo? I believe that we should return to the status-quo (i.e. before the aberration of the last 24 hours). Anyway, whatever one thinks this poll is only going to show confused lack of consensus - and is really a waste of time. I move we thank the originator for the thought, and terminate it.--Doc^g 12:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Most definitely agree with Doc. Can we close this and move on some other way? Any poll which is amended after being opened should simply be declared invalid. Hiding T 12:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The first section was changed because it was incorrect - yesterday only admins gave away rollbacks, that's why you can't say that the community decides it. And I don't think the community would do it RfA-style - that would take a lot of time and it is more bureaucratic than the current one (besides, aren't you against any kind of process? It would be worse community-decided, no?). -- Mentifisto 12:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of going "me too" I agree with you that this poll is doomed. -Halo (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The other option has also changed "Page-moves are granted to all registered users after four days - although rollback could be whatever time (days, weeks, months) is subsequently agreed." from being "autoconfirmed" users. More confusion. *sigh* -Halo (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• This poll performs very poorly as a consensus-building tool, and doesn't adhere to even the most minimal standards of democratic voting procedures (i.e. don't change what people voted for after they voted). It is useless. Kusma (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking to see if a detailed poll (ie. 5+ questions) has been done before. While reading the background, I discovered that the technicalities of rollback throw up some interesting options - eg. have it as an option in the user preferences, turn on rollback in the background but not have visible links (ie. people can only access rollback through scripts), and so on. But I'd be happy to put my detailed poll above on a "draft poll" page and also try and weed out all the different arguments people have made over the course of the discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, and this is not a partisan question, but can anyone make a case that this poll is useful, or should we close it and seek another way forward?--Doc^g 12:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting if you did, being that Jimbo "ordered" it. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:56, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• No. Close it. Start a fresh where the topics are not changed every 7 votes or so. Eat cookies. Be happy. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, Cookies are the first proposal to stem from this drama that I think everyone will agree with. But what kind of cookies...? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the cookie proposal!! KnowledgeOfSelf for president WP:JIMBO! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

Would people agree that this is a fair analysis of where the community is at (not of this poll in particular)?

• About 65% of people are willing to back the current admin-based system.
  • However, amongst these it is not unnecessarily their first choice

1. some (%unknown) would prefer autoconfirmed rollback
2. some (%unknown) would prefer more safeguards - more like a mini-RfA

• About 35% of people oppose the current admin-based system.
  • However, amongst those

1. some (%unknown) oppose all non-admin rollback
2. some (%unknown) would be willing to support but only if an autoconfirmed roll-back
3. some (%unknown) would support, but only if more safeguards

• Some (%unknown) don't give a rat's arse

Is that fair? I'm trying not to spin it at all - the significance of this is, naturally, open to interpretation. --Doc^g 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to analyse it, then I'd like to vote. :) It's a poll that defeats analysis somewhat, since it appears people were voting for multiple options and the like. A far better poll would be a two stage poll, a simple yes I would like some sort of rollback for non-admins, and no I would not like that, and then list some options. We've done this before, but I forget where. Hiding T 13:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That poll would not do. Because I'd need to know what the form of option is before I said yes or no. I can't answer your first question until the second one is answered. A poll isn't going to help, that's why I'm trying a vaguer analyses.--Doc^g 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been clearer. I am NOT trying to analyse THIS poll. I'm trying one the basis of the last one, this one, and the discussion to work out where we are at. If we know where we are, it is easier to work out where we want to be.--Doc^g 13:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. We now have a new poll based on some kind of vague consensus. At what point should we begin to take this seriously because it lost all credibility when the stuff you voted for was altered in the middle of the poll and now this restart after many many votes. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now seriously.

Since when has rollback mattered? In my tenure as an administrator, I maybe used it a handful of times...and not always even for vandalism, but just when I needed a quick revert. Are we /that/ lazy now that we can't be bothered to open the previous oldid and just resave? I, and I'm sure I speak for others, am absolutely sick of this endless wasted discussion over a largely useless feature. There is no need for polls, ArbCom intervention (wtf?), or any of this hooplah. If you (as a non-admin) really /REALLY/ want rollback that bad, try to not be a dick, suck up the cabal, and they might just let you pass RFA. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I made that point at the proposal. If all the people who supported the rollback proposal "voted" at RFA every day, we wouldn't have this problem. There was enough support there to pass each non-admin. The worrying conclusion I draw from this is that a lot of contributors are getting rollback whom the community doesn't trust. Hiding T 13:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• And just a thought, but how long before someone's lack of having had rollback issued is made a cause to oppose at RFA. Hiding T 13:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I made that point only yesterday, that I expect to seeing RfA's nose dive due to perceived misuse of the rollback tool, or that it wasn't granted etc etc etc. Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft for new poll about rollback tool

Why not go the whole hog and do a new, expanded poll?

• (A) Is the tool useful?
  • Possible answers: yes/no/other
• (B) Is the tool a big deal?
  • Possible answers: yes/no/other
• (C) Should the option to give people rollbacker rights be turned on on en-wiki? (For who gets the right, see next question)
  • Possible answers: yes/no/other
• (D) What should have the tool? (for how many, see the next question)
  • Possible answers: (i) Both humans and bots (ii) Only humans (iii) Only bots
• (E) How many should have the tool? (for the amount of limitation, see next question)
  • Possible answers: (i) Humans: Anyone/no-one/limited numbers; (ii) Bots: Anyone/no-one/only antivandalbots
• (F) How limited should the numbers be?
  • Possible answers: low entry barrier (eg. autoconfirmed) or higher entry barrier (selection method to be determined)
• (G) Who should be able to both grant rollback rights and take them away?
  • Possible answers: self-selection/anyone/admins/bureaucrats/other combination (eg. admins grant, bureaucrats take away)
• (H) Should the request and selection process be determined before or after the function is switched on?
  • Possible answers: before/after
• (I) Is another poll required to approve the policy and decide between various different selection methods, or should those be developed by normal means?
  • Possible answers: more polling/go ahead

Ten questions. Possibly too many, but it has to be better than what has happened here. And please, before starting anything like this, find someone willing to judge consensus. Ask Jimbo, ask the bureaucrats, ask ArbCom, but get someone to agree to judge the consensus and state that at the top of the poll before starting it. Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt. I could pick so many holes in it, tough/ Best just to say that polls TEH SUX.--Doc^g 13:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please pick a few holes in it. I promise not to pick holes in your holes. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What about just asking question (C)? Or rather, what if we ask something along the lines of "Should rollback be made available to non-administrators in some way?" Simple question, should be easy to answer, and if we get a clear majority of yes-votes, then we can decide on the how. If we don't, well, then there's no need to think about the how, anyways. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sequential polls? That might work. Keep them short and wait for overwhelming agreement from both sides, and then gradually move towards the more divisive questions. That really has a chance of working, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist advertisement

Someone please remove it, for now. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:46, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The way things are at the moment, yes, best to remove from the watchlist. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to halt polling and restart discussion on polling

Attempt to halt polling and restart discussion. See here. Maybe this will stick? Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done Carcharoth. Discussion first. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. hehe. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:53, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I undid you. IAR, etc., and a desire to see things actually happen. Lawrence Cohen 13:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry too! I undid you, see my edit summary for details. I won't revert again, but this is getting downright silly. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

NO! Please. Edit warring over polls is the lamest thing possible. Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mmmm I thought that edit warring over this was the lamest thing possible. But you are right this comes close, which is why I won't revert again. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, You are aware you reverted to a poll that wiped out the previous poll that you had started, right? Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed it. I think on major things affecting hundreds if not all users people need to use common sense and check their IAR at the door as inappropriate. No offense to anyone specific. There's no consensus I see to stop this thing, given over 100 people have participated. Lawrence Cohen 14:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No poll is going to help us at this stage

Voting and changing questions

Voting

Yes or no: did we or did we not have votes on the main page and 3rr? Were they binding? Lawrence Cohen 13:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing questions

How exactly would you make a vote that no one change the questions on? Transclude the questions on special pages? Once the questions are agreed upon, are you going to protect the questions, and aggressively stop any admin from pulling an IAR against the will of the community and just changing them anyway to not "taint" the vote? Lawrence Cohen 13:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

closing this poll

And where and how are you going to give 1500+ people a fair chance to weigh in on the vote format? What are you going to do to satiate all the people who have a slight disagreement? Are discussions with more than 400-500 people even workable? If yes, please show me where it's worked--link, please. If this vote is closed by someone, just start up the Arbcom five minutes later. Lawrence Cohen 13:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fun

Who has reacted to the total breakdown of Wikipedia processes during this mess by ceasing to care?

1. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:58, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
2. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) will not be voting again until a stable poll appears, but likes the rolcat very much.

Suggested format

Right guys, let's take a deep breath and consider what needs to be done. I would personally consider a similar format to the original poll we had here. Three sections;

1. I support rollback being given by administrators, using the Wikipedia:Requests for rollback format.
2. I support rollback being given to autoconfirmed users.
3. I oppose rollback being given to non administrators.

Now, we then under each, can have an explanation of exactly what each one involves, and the negatives and positives (that we decided prior to this starting) that each proposal has. If we limit it to one vote per person then we should have by the end something which is more likely to be considered a valid result. Let's try and keep things simple. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We pretty much already had that. What was the sense in clearing the page and starting again? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:02, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Replacing the poll with a new ones just increased the drama several notches. I attempted to calm things down by blanking and directing people here to allow discussion and then a restart later (note that I linked to the two previous polls, keeping things transparent). What I'm going to do now is take a deep breath and walk away for a few hours. I suggest anyone thinking of edit warring over the poll does the same. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I blanked again. Whatever should be happening, this new poll isn't it. Either restore the original poll or keep discussion going here on the talk page for now. Replacing one poll with a new identical poll is just idiotic. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:09, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)

In Jimbo's name, what on Earth are you guys doing here? Can we at least have this vote removed from the Watchlist until this kind of unnecessary and damaging warring ends? Squiggleslash (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

alleged consensus

Where is this consensus to discard the poll that was claimed? Lawrence Cohen 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Utterly invalid, I presume. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Six people in the middle of the night isn't ever consensus on something this scale, it's an irrelevant knitting circle. Editors here aren't autistic, and know how to click the Discussion/Talk button. If people didn't want the vote to run they'd let us know. Lawrence Cohen 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Middle of the night? It's bright daylight here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe to you. ;) But its still a small morning knitting circle. Lawrence Cohen 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring?

<sigh> Are people really edit warring over this? Come on. If this page ends up being protected that's not going to do anyone any good. I count three different versions being warred over. Please, stop it now. Put a disputed tag on the page and discuss here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be reverted to the last version before that 18 option one was put in before blanking. Lawrence Cohen 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be the m:wrong version. Edit warring is an indication the poll is broken. There are valid concerns about the poll. It should be stopped and marked invalid because people changed the wording during the voting phase. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Please stop right now. SQL^{Query me!} 14:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my revert, I thought I was reverting the new poll. I'm in favor of keeping the old one, at least as opposed to the new one. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:17, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia, or the Jerry Springer Show?