Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Finish?

When does this poll? -Splashtalk 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

??? Two weeks? I am not positive on the regular length of these types of polls, but you do bring up a good issue. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
One week seems long enough to give everyone ample time to weigh in on the issue. Two weeks might be dragging it out for too long. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder (also a reminder to myself): when the poll concludes, make sure to remove the link from MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Since this poll would introduce an entirely new access level (and all the processes and procedures that go along with it), I'd recommend having it run for two weeks to ensure that as much of the community as possible has a chance to vote. The last thing we want is for there to be cries of "I would have supported/opposed that, but the poll was only active for seven days!". Carbonite | Talk 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
(enough edit conflicts! Let me in!) I second that. Two weeks sounds about right for voting on a new access level. There's a lot involved in making a dream come true, should it be deemed realistic by the Wikipedia community. We would want to get as many thoughts as possible. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I was concerned about dragging it out for too long, but making sure that everyone has the chance to vote is more important. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • One week would have been long enough (just about any poll gets no significant changes after the third day, and that nearly includes the ArbCom vote) but since that wasn't clearly stated at the beginning people are going to object to that. Radiant_>|< 12:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes?

Should we perhaps make a section for "Support concept, but oppose procedure", or would that make the poll too stratified? --LV (Dark Mark) 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd always recommend strongly against moving goalposts during a poll. If this does not reach consensus as it stands, go away afterwards with all that is learned, and try again later. -Splashtalk 01:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's kinda what I was thinking, but just saw a growing number of people opposing for that reason. I'll defer to your judgment. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, it's kind of like changing weapons in the middle of a war: it has its significant ups and downs. I can see the logic behind such a move but Voldemort, what's your specific reason for wanting to create a seperate section? -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't really have an specific reason for the change, heck I don't even really want a change. i was just trying to see if it would be better to have its own section. There seems to be enough people o fill that section, so I just suggested it. (No devious motives behind it ;-) I'm not all evil.) --LV (Dark Mark) 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This might be a good idea, so as to gauge what fraction of people marking themselves "opposed" are opposed only to the procedure but supportive of loosened restrictions on access to rollback. Sarge Baldy 04:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This would definitely be a good idea. I'd go as far as to state that the poll was ill-conceived and should be reset. Either that, or ask all oppose-voters to consider which "new" section they're in. The way it is worded now, it will likely not give a meaningful consensus (and that, of course, is why voting can be evil). I think there are two relevant questions here... the first is "should more people have rollback options", and I'd say it's obvious that consensus supports that (per responses here, responses in the earlier vote, and WP:AAP).
  • The question then is, how do we bestow them, and that is what we should be asking here... 1) to any editor with more then X edits (just like page moving); 2) by bureaucrat fiat, to be applied liberally; or 3) through a RFA-like process.
  • $.2 Radiant_>|< 12:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll or discussion

I prefer polls to discussion. But if this is a poll, why are opposed voters been questioned and contradicted? In fact, most 'support' voters have offered little reasoning for their votes and no-one quesioning that. However, 'oppose' voters, who have given more reasons are being questioned. It seems a little one-sided. --Doc ask? 15:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was a little bit of both. I seem to recall WP:SEMI's straw poll having a massive amount of discussion in the oppose side of things. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
What kinds of questions would you ask support voters? Why are you supporting? I for one am supporting because I think the proposal's benefits are far greater than any costs it may have (such as bureaucracy - which I don't think will be a significant problem - or creation of another "layer" of users, which I do not think will occur). I don't see a problem with questioning oppose voters - it will help in improving the proposal to take their views into account and this can't be done without reasoning. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It is important to form consensus. Hence, it is important to learn why dissenters dissent, to see if it is possible to address the issues they may have. It is rather pointless to draw a strict line between polls and discussions. Radiant_>|< 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearly

Clearly there is more discussion to be had. I'd rather get it right than to rush it based on initial "good-sounding" rationale of currently-active editors, rationale which may be unfounded or incorrect. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-25 13:40

[edit] Tally

Somebody added a tally to the top of the discussion / straw poll through the night[1], which has seen numerous updates. I have removed this since this isn't a simple numerical majority wins poll. Thanks/wangi 09:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree (and I thought this section was referring to me at first! :) ). Talrias (t | e | c) 13:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differentiating

Would it be possible, if this proposal succeeds, that the message displayed when non-admins do rollbacks be different from the message that is displayed when admins do rollbacks? Just so we can see at a glance whether or not the rollback was done by an admin or not. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We could add some sort of per-group customisations; I expect there are a couple of clean ways of doing it. Rob Church (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would support something that would enable us to tell if the rollback was done by an Admin, or a non Admin rollbacker. If this reaches some sort of consensus, of course. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why would we want something like this? I'm not sure I see the point. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a matter of being able to tell if somebody is an admin -- to see if a relatively new person understands how to revert vs. someone who has been vetted by the community. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There is already Special:Listusers/sysop, but this seems possible. However, people who are given the rollback privilege will only be given the permission because a bureaucrat has placed some trust in them, so I do not agree with your division of "relatively new person" and "someone vetted by the community". Talrias (t | e | c) 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Still it's a new tool, it would be nice to easily see the difference and be able to see how it is used. It would only take a couple words difference for that and would make the job of people monitoring usage a lot easier. - Taxman Talk 15:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose. I'm just wary of creating a division where I don't see a real need for one, usage statistics notwithstanding. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I am wary of that too, but I think Zoe makes a good point. It would, in theory, allow for easier reviewing of possible misuse of the rollback feature. Worth thinking about if this proposal proceeds any further. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it over yet?

This has been running for more than a week now with a 2/3 majority in favor of rollback priviledges. I think it's time to close the poll.--God of War 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See a few threads up... Only a few more days now. We don't want to cheat someone out of expressing their opinion on this matter. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, 2/3rds majority is borderline - as of this post there is only about 65% in favour, slightly less than 2/3rds. NSLE (T+C) 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

heh thats funny...apparently that doesn't apply to tfd.--God of War 02:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, everyone can't win all of their battles. Except maybe the '72 Dolphins. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 03:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How about ending 18:00 UTC this Sunday, February 5, 2006? -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How about simply two weeks after the poll started? That would be almost midnight between Monday/Tuesday. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Midnight whose time? --LV (Dark Mark) 04:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
UTC. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do people want "official closure" of a straw poll? And what are you proposing to be done next? If you want this poll to indicate we should adopt this policy as written, then people are going to complain that 65% does not equate to consensus. If you want to discuss further, by all means go ahead but that doesn't require official closing of the poll. >Radiant< 14:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've decided to suggest a way forward from the results the poll shows us. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] move aranda's idea to talk page?

Clearly it hasn't passed community consensus in any sense of the word. Can we move it to this talk page?--Urthogie 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say so, but as an involved party, I won't be the one to do it. Right now it just clutters up the page and may be confusing. I support removal to talk page. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll do this in 24 hours if there's no opposition. It's completely reversible so shouldn't be a big deal if I'm stepping out of bounds here..--Urthogie 18:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I may give it a subpage, actually.--Urthogie 18:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Create a subpage of a subpage? That could get quite confusing. I support the move to the talk page, however. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 07:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meta-discussion

I'm really sorry I participated in this poll. Now there's two huge paragraphs on my talk page begging me to change my vote. Somehow, I don't think the text speaks to me personally; maybe I can just ignore it. But isn't that rude, too? John Reid 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's correct, Talrias asked about thirty users to reconsider their vote. I'm afraid this goes to show that voting is evil once more, and that creating a process through voting on it simply isn't going to work. >Radiant< 01:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; the conduct of the poll has been a little weird. It's a little pointless to seek changes of 'vote' anyway, since any proposal that faces opposition from nearly 100 editors can't claim consensus regardless! -Splashtalk 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's quite correct, John. I explained why I believed that what you said in your oppose comment was not the case and asked you to reconsider your views on the issue given what I had said. That's not begging you to change your vote at all. Reconsidering is not changing. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aranda56 Idea

Notice This was on the main page but got moved because of failure to reach consensus

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)

[edit] Support Aranda56 idea

  1. Support my idea --Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Good idea. 1,000 edits is more then enough to deter any vandal. Banana04131 04:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)
    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)
    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)
  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)
    'rvv' is normally quite sufficient for an edit summary. --Doc ask? 09:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. 800 edits and no blocks? I can go for that. --James S. 21:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - Good idea! --NorkNork 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose Aranda56 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)
  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)
  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)
    I changed it too 800 edits and 45 days as just in case Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  7. Weak oppose. I'd prefer mav's suggestion. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 03:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, we don't need "Junior Admins" running around. The RfA process is sufficient. --Zsinj 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  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)
  10. Oppose as per Zsinj.Staffelde 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  13. Oppose. No. -WAZAAAA 20:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. I think this is a pretty arbitrary thing, hair-splitting, really. --King of All the Franks 12:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Those figures are arbitrary, and give yet more weight to the people who contribute to this encyclopedia on a quantity over quality basis. Nach0king 17:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Oppose The limit is way too high. I am with CVU, roughly 450 edits, never been warned or blocked for an offence, yet I would lose the right to rollback vandalism if I saw it, based on Aranda56's proposal. Not good enough. Sorry! Thor Malmjursson 13:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Talk with Thor
  17. Oppose, unduly mechanistic. Question, did Aranda just oppose (as well as support) his own idea, or is that a formatting error? Alai 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, because I think the more freeform this is the more usable it'll be. Mo0[talk] 17:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, sorry. - Mailer Diablo 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, I can't support this idea as many wil abuse this powers. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Editcount is not a good measure. Writing 10 (thus 10 edits) new large articles from scratch can be more work than bolding words from the title in 800 articles.--Jan Smolik 14:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose for above reasons.-The Scurvy Eye 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Quality is much more important than quantity. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Quality over quantity, always. Inter\Echo 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  1. Some parts should form part of the crieria for getting the privalage. --Adam1213 Talk + 10:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Huh? --James S. 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I understand what you are trying to convey but forexample I wouldnt qualify to the rollback privilages with that. Everyone knows I RC patrol zelausly. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
  • 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)