Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:

General comments on the poll and how to proceed[edit]

This poll has gone on for almost two weeks now and I think that while there are clearly more supporters than objectors some people still remain unconvinced as to the merits of this proposal. I'm glad to see the large number of people contributing to this poll. Where to take the proposal from here? I think enough people have misgivings about it to mean that it should not be implemented permanently, without further discussion. However, I think there is sufficient support for a short trial run. To that end, I propose that when Rob Church has finished the development of the new bureaucrat interface, we should take the proposal as it stands for a spin. For a period of three weeks, we should let bureaucrats grant and revoke the rollback privilege as per the terms of this proposal. During these three weeks and after they have come to an end, we can discuss the effectiveness of the proposal, with a view to either adopting as a full measure, modifying the procedure to reflect how it is really used in practice, or dropping the concept. By having a trial period, we will be able to see the merits of the proposal far better than we can by discussing hypothetical scenarios. We've done the thought experiment. Now let's see if the benefits of giving out rollback privilege liberally to help in removing vandalism will be greater than the concerns about another rung on the heirarchy ladder or the amount of instruction creep this proposal includes. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To keep things in one place, please reply at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges#General comments on the poll and how to proceed. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When is this going to be resolved? It just seems to go on and on. --Bduke 06:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This poll has been going for exactly 3 months now. What is happening now is not constructive. Of the 313 votes cast, only 28 have been in the last month. So not quite 9% of the votes cast have occurred in the last third of voting. There have been only 31 edits of any kind to this page in the last month. It has come to 2/3 support and 1/3 oppose. It would need one more support vote to be exactly that margin. In any event, it is no consensus. Wikipedia:Straw polls says, "Straw polls should not have opening and closing times as votes do." So the resolution is: "If the majority of opinion is in one direction, but a significant minority of people oppose it, work to find a solution that can be accepted by as many people as possible." We need to either drop this completely due to the large number of people who seem to be against any form of it, or rewrite the proposal entirely. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This poll has been considered inconclusive for almost two months and a half, but opinions keep slowly trickling in; that said, there has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges, with the last edit there being made yesterday. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Naturally I support this! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As do I. Essjay talk 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Having worked significantly on the drafting of the proposal, of course. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. sure -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support - Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Alr 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Emersoni 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support. The Wookieepedian 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Rob 23:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support —Philip N.✉ 23:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No Guru 23:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Such mechanisms need to be in place as W grows. Elijahmeeks 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support --Z.Spy 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support.--Kf4bdy 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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]
  17. weak support sold on technical/load benefits Pete.Hurd 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support.-- I want that one! Mercurius 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support. It is a good idea. --Bduke 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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]
  21. Support This is a huge money saver for Wikipedia. Jtrost 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, and I plan to apply for it when it's available.-Mr Adequate 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. 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]
  24. 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]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. 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]
  29. Support as per the above and my comment in this discussion. AvB ÷ talk 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 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 separate 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)
  31. Support "anyone worthy of having rollback priveleges is worthy of adminship, anyone not worthy of adminship should not have rollback priveleges. --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 privilege for cool cat would help a lot. The fact that a usere could have theis privilege should not be the reason for them not needing to be an admin. --Adam1213 Talk + 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 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]
  33. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 02:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Unleash the power of the people!--FloNight 02:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. More product than process. Jacoplane 03:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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]
  37. Support Wow I didn't know this was here yet. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Anything to help RC. Banana04131 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Admin privileges need to be minimised. CalJW 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 05:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support. With this I would spend more time fighting vandalism. --Bruce1ee 05:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Makes things easier for users (our most valuable resource).--Nectar 07:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -- Karl Meier 07:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Certainly. --Carnildo 08:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support -- kaal 10:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. — FireFox • T • 11:36, 24 January 2006
  47. Support. *drew 11:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --Whouk (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support -- Stefan, but would also like a system where more privileges 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]
  50. Strong Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: Prodego talk 14:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. 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]
  53. 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]
  54. Support: Anything to help fight the good fight. Danny 16:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. SupportXDarklytez24 January 2006
  56. 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]
  57. 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 privilege 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]
  58. 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]
  59. Strong support--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, we need more rollbackers. Radiant_>|< 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC) struck.[reply]
  60. Strong support Jwissick(t)(c) 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support as an RC patroller. Stifle 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 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]
  63. Support --Jaranda wat's sup 21:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Roachmeister 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support just so long as this doesn't become a prerequisite to adminship. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. 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]
  67. 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]
  68. Support Can be very helpful Tarret 01:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support need to set some sort of guidelines however.  ALKIVAR™ 01:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong support (but rights should be granted and revoked automatically, per mav). ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong support. I don't see any problem with that. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. 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]
  73. 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]
  74. 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]
  75. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support making RC patrol easier. Leithp 14:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support makes vandalism reversion easier.--Adam (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Liberatore(T) 14:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. 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]
  80. Support. Helps make dealing with vandalism and copyright problems easier. -Spartanfox86 19:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Very Strong Support Good idea. Makes users able to revert vandalism more effectively Duke toaster 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Maxwahrhaftig 19:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support--Urthogie 20:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support --Celestianpower háblame 20:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Pepsidrinka 22:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Andy 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. l337k0ko 00:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. 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]
  89. 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]
  90. Very Tentative Weak Support with tentacles. Some of current and failed RfAs show me that this privilege 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 privileges, 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]
  91. Support This is an editing tool. Administration and editing are 2 separate things. Piet 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Jbjalbrz 18:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Groovy. Fang Aili 18:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Liamdaly620 18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. 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]
  96. 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]
  97. 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]
  98. 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]
  99. Support having done a bit of RC duty, this would make things much more efficient -Nick 22:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. 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]
  101. 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]
  102. Support. Robovski - something for the masses of the well-behaved and helps fight vandalism Robovski 03:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Robovski[reply]
  103. Support --W.marsh 04:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. 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]
  105. Yes. --King of All the Franks 07:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Yes, I support this. :P Tohcc (t | e | c) 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support as I have mentioned on other pages relating to this topic --Nick Catalano (Talk) 11:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Strong support Popup assisted revert tool is trash. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Godmode light seemed to stop working with firefox 1.5, besides, with all this growing attention focused on WP and people who want to create their own Siegenthaer case, hi-powered wikipedians would be a good idea, assuming this won't be handed out to just anyone. Obli (Talk) 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Vandalism is wrong, but not allowing the every day editor to take care of it more easily is an affront to everything Wikipedia stands for. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, Cernen, I am not sure what you mean, "not allowing the every day editor to take care of it more easily is an affront"... Every day editors can do any rvv they like, often better than the admin rollback because they can give a reason why they are doing it. Dieter Simon 23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By more easily, I imagine he means rollback is both faster and requires less clicking. It is not necessary to provide an edit summary when reverting vandalism, so using rollback is perfect for it. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Definitely support.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. I don't have the time right now to be able to stay involved regularly with Wikipedia, so I am not interested in being an admin right now. I would like to have this tool, though, so that I can revert vandalism when I see it and do it more quickly. Better still, rather than make users go through some political process to earn this tool, I think that any registered user who can pass a simple online test on how the tool works ought to be granted the privilege. If they abuse the privilege, then the admins can take it away. H2O 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Strong Support - I'd love this tool! -- 9cds(talk) 00:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Not too much overhead. Broken S 03:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. 'Support. Revert "is no big deal" (as they say). Good idea since experienced users can already do this with user scripts; this proposal would allow the same experienced users to rv vandalism with less load on the server. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Weak Support Reversion of Vandalism is something which users need to have, especially if they can show they can be trusted with it. I agree that if vandals get hold of it, we're sunk, but I support on principle. Thor Malmjursson 13:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Talk with Thor[reply]
  117. Support - --NorkNork 15:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - Nooby_god | Talk 15:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support User:Yodard 17:45, 28 January 2006 {UTC}
  120. Support - China Crisis 17:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support We already have godmode-lite, so wouldn't be adding any more abuse risk. - Ikh (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Strong Support Romihaitza 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Strong Support. I would also like all current admins to be reduced to only having rollback privileges, and being resubjected to RFA for the further powers that they have currently. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 20:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Strong Support I've been a user for a while, and I do RC patrol in order to keep down the vandals, and sometimes just reverting takes a while. I'm not ready for adminship, since I'm only at 750 edits or so, but I'd like to be a more efficient vandal pruner. Makemi 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. support William M. Connolley 21:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support, please! --AySz88^-^ 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support, Waaaaaay too many admins get privileges just for the rollback button. Hopefully this will change the attitude that edit count is the major factor for becoming an admin.--God of War 07:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Strong Support, We need all the help we can get to revert vandalism --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 15:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. What a great idea. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Strong Support, it sounds like a great way to give more power to those who are not quite admins as long as the process is somewhat difficult to get through. Perhaps instead of being given the mop these users will be considered to have the dustbuster! --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 04:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. Useful power to grant, yet small. Do it. -R. S. Shaw 06:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support not so sure this is a good idea for newbies or trolls, but great for most others. Bjelleklang - talk 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support, but only with a software modification to prevent rollback from working while the user is blocked, and as long as it's easily revokable as well. Mostly because non-admins can use the javascript rollback tools anyway. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 18:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to point out that blocking has prevented use of rollback (and some other admin functions) since about 10 January. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. Makes vandal fighting just a bit more pleasant -- Eug 01:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. strongly Derex 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support, long overdue. Biot 08:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support.--Sean Black (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. Fetofs 11:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. Based on discussion below that makes it clear it is easy to remove this privilege when justified, I think implementing it is a low risk change. I think there's a good chance the benefit of quicker vandalism reversion will outweigh the extra process costs. - Taxman Talk 15:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. LordViD 21:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. -- DS1953 talk 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support--The Scurvy Eye 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support, easier to revert vandalism. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. --Khoikhoi 01:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support--Shanel 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Naturenet | Talk 11:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - I have some concerns, but I think it'll really help cases of mass spamming and such. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support with some reservations, but I think this is a good start. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Obviously I'd far rather this were made available to all editors by default, to be confiscated from those who abuse it. But I'll support anything that gets us on our way. Enough talk, let's do it. --Tony Sidaway 13:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Agree with Tony, this is better than nothing. Garion96 (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support - power devolution good where practical. Lupin|talk|popups 15:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support WikieZach 15:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Strong Support - In general I feel that bcrats will have good enough judgement to not need arbitrary numeric thresholds. I don't think I'm going to have a ton of time this semester to devote to Wikipedia, so I'm hesitant to run for Admin, but rollback would be very useful. I tried using Sam Hocevar's script and it crashes Safari. Abuses of rollback can easily be kept in check by bcrats. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL•16:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support - While I do agree with opposing voters here that Wikipedia does not need more bureaucracy, optional rollback privileges for reputable editors would be useful. I am on an extremely slow connection (cable modem but this thing gives me about 1.8 kbps download speed) and Popups are extremely slow. Sometimes it takes me a couple of minutes to get pages loaded, and another minute or two probably to get the edit processed. I would love to be able to roll back vandalism without having to deal with the 'dirty stuff' that come with being an admin.Yuyudevil 17:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support --JorgeBeach 17:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support - Physchim62 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support with a touch of Onigiri --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool Cat, I'm overcome with curiosity; what does Onigiri have to do with rollback? -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 07:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Weak support. I have been on dialup for long time and it /really/ pains. However I would preferre more useful tools - e.g. hiding clear and immediatelly reverted vandalism from normal history or ability to fill in missing edit summary by trusted users. Pavel Vozenilek 21:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really what this proposal is all about. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Strong Support. -Chairman S. 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Weak support Flying Canuck 06:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support godmodelight may be almost as good but I think a way to grant trusted users this would be good. I don't want to be an admin but could make use of this priv on the articles I watch if it were available to me. No complex process to grant it though, please... ++Lar: t/c 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Strong Support Would be a great addition IMO. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Strong Support I wouldn't want to be an admin, but increased vandalism fighting powers would be great. Caravaca 16:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  165. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support. Anyone can already effectively do rollbacks with Javascript. Why not give them access to proper server-side rollback, which is both safer and less stressful on the servers? In fact, I'd prefer to see rollback privileges given out automatically like pagemove privileges are. Of the two, rollback is much less dangerous. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support A good idea. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support adminship is not supposed to be a big deal, but it is; giving rollback to those who wouldn't pass RFA will help our fight against vandalism... Mikker ... 23:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Weak Support A good idea, however then it will come to rollback wars and so on. --Weatherman1126 02:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Strong Support I have to do this by hand a lot countering vandalism, and it will save me time. Makes it easier, but doesn't give anyone capabilities they don't fundamentally already have. Good idea. Georgewilliamherbert 03:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support This would be great. Godmode lite doesn't work for me, and popups, though nifty, is time consuming. With this, it would actually be possible to keep up with the "recent IP edits" as they scrolled by, which is just about the only way to catch the subtle stuff. RobthTalk 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Weak support per Weatherman1126. ComputerJoe 08:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support For us non-admin vandal-busters, this tool will be the best thing to come along in a long time. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support If this is wrong, then why are things like Popups and God-mode-lite allowed? You can't expect us to fight vandalism and not give us the tools for the job. Waggers 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support This would be a great tool for those who have proven to have a desire to fight vandalism, but do not want to, or cannot, become Admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Measure (talk • contribs) 20:25, February 24, 2006
  176. Support. RC Patrol can be much faster with RfR, especially in my Javascript-disabled browser. --SYCTHOStalk 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support. This tool is one of the major reasons I want to eventually become an admin. Unfortunately, while being an admin is supposed to be "no big deal", becoming an admin is. --Cymsdale 11:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support. (Thought I'd already voted for this.) Since it simply makes it easier to do something you can already do, the arguments against granting this a specious. I mean, is the point just to be annoying by forcing non-admins to use a flawed interface? – Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support per 'Middle Ground' argument. Addition, godmode-light crashes on Opera (though I should probably spend a bit of time and work that out), forcing me at the moment to Firefox. ~ PseudoSudo 22:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Strong support. godmode-light is good, but it's not atomic, and I've actually had cases where interleaving has occurred. — TKD (Talk) 11:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Strong support. I have the same question as Doug Bell. It seems pointless to limit rollback privelages to sysops; other legitimate qualified editors should be able to rollback vandalism as well. Popups do not give the names of the users/versions in question, only the entry number, which is meaningless unless you are a computer; it seems silly to allow popups for all users when these give less information as to what has been done. --Heah talk 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  182. STRONG SUPPORT: There are only so many admins. Plus, godmode-light and the rest are a hassle to install-uninstall, and a built-in wikipedia version of a rollback version would have less of a chance of all hell breaking loose because I used a tool. Recon0 21:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Strong support. User:Jimbo Wales says adminship is no big deal, but that's clearly not true anymore. Just look at the past RfAs. People have criteria for adminship which are more strict than any others I've seen. Bart133 21:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Strong Support god-mode lite is good, but not perfect. This would be a massive help to Wikipedia. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Strong support -- We need this tool, as adminship is much harder to attain. --Yurik 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support Definitely. I probably wouldn't pass WP:RFA, but I have no doubt that I would pass a WP:RFR. Plus, the user-side scripts are clumsy, increase server load compared to [Rollback] and more that i can't be bothered to mention. RFR is a much more elegant and useful process. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support Definitely I would really like this feature make it easier to revert things --Kyle G 03:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support Nationalparks 07:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support Brilliant idea! Pako 15:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Strong Support Would make reverting vandalism much easier for non-admins--TBC??? ??? ??? 10:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support WP 03:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support. Popups & other JS stuff is a crap. MaxSem 08:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Strong Support It would make the clean up much easierSod Aries
  195. Support. The amount of vandalism certainly appears to have increased over the past few months, and this seems like a reasonable way to combat it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support. Some users can't use popups because there computer can't handle it or does not the necessary program. Jedi6-(need help?) 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support, massively useful antivandal tool. Also, some may be nervous about installing 3rd party antivandal programs, some vandals (Squidward springs to mind) might produce a fake antivandal tool that installs trojans. CaptainVindaloo 17:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Fine with me. It would help immensely with tacking down the Adolf Hitler, Wikipedia, Jew, Islam, and other heavily vandalized pages. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support. I've never been #200 before. --TantalumTelluride 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aww, I'm not #200 anymore. Oh well, I still support. --TantalumTelluride 04:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support - another way to speed up Tawkerbot2, though I think access to rollback should be restricted) -- Tawker 06:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support I can see the point, I'm just not sure about how widespread these powers should be. Whyy impose complex functionality that few would want? Would this create trigger happiness? Certainly would simplify vandal fighting, which, if you want to engage in that, would be most useful. FIghting vandals is already exhausting enough. joshbuddytalk 06:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support, admin rollback > slow as hell GML. --Rory096 01:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Strong support, as an editor who isn't active enough to qualify for WP:RFA but like to fight vandals from time to time. --Goobergunch|? 09:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support. This will enable people who don't make enough edits to become an admin to help wikipedia by deleting vandalism quicker. DarthVader 07:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support If not full rollback - at least make an automated revert for the last edit on diff pages available to run-of-the-mill wikipedians.Nogwa 00:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support. Reverting vandalism edits without having to go to history, choose the correct version, and then edit it would be really helpful and encourage more editors to revert vandalism when they find it. -Xol 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Strong support. Tijuana Brass 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Strong Support, if this power were given out judiciously, it could be very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalme (talk • contribs)
  209. Support I'm not sure I'd want to be an admin, but it'd be nice to rollback instead of popups-revert when people start putting phone numbers in article history again. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Strong Support 'crats have enough experience to give rollback to someone who needs it. It is not a hierarchy, it is a tool. GizzaChat © 05:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support --Philosophus T 04:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support -- Crazynas 15:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support If we can speed the work of the vandalfighter who's not yet ready for admin, then that's got to be good. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support -- I believe that those that do fight vandalism, but are not Admin material, could benefit from the rollback privileges. I do know how hard it is to manually go to last versions without rollback. Danl 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 13:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support, for saving time and reducing server load. --ais523 13:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  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 certain qualifications and haven't disqualified yourself by committing 3RR or blatant 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
  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 perform 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]
    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]
    Still think this is unneeded and likely to turn out badly in this particular implementation, but enough people I trust are watching it that I feel alright withdrawing opposition. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 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]
  14. 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 separate 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§ 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]
    I like this 30 day idea. It lets regular users quickly revert without dealing with Wikipedia bureaucracy. Arctic Gnome 21:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. 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]
  24. 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]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
    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]
  27. 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]
  28. Oppose. Current implement 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 privilege, nominate him a sysop candidate. It is less bureaucratic 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]
  29. 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]
  30. 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]
  31. 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]
  32. Just make them admins, it's no big deal, right. Hiding talk 19:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. 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]
  34. Oppose per Sarge Baldy. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose convoluted system.--nixie 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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]
  37. Oppose. Adminship should not be even more of a big deal. —Guanaco 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 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 institute a drastic change like this that will save less than half of that. Molimo 01:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose I oppose narrowing of the user hierarchy. (That is, I oppose the addition of another level to the user hierarchy because it separates users into more classes.) ~MDD4696 02:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose It's better to tackle the vandalism itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlatimer (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 January 2006
    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]
  41. 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]
    Changing my vote to support based on the below discussionOppose. 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
    After review and consideration, I'd be for this as a low risk trial if it was made easier to remove the privilege. For one a bureaucrat should be able to remove it without listing if they see obvious abuse, and for another the language shouldn't make it sound like there needs to be repeated abuse to have the privilege removed. For something like this there shouldn't be much leway. Abuse it and you lose it. I think that change would remove most significant objection to the proposal. - Taxman Talk 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is already part of the proposal. From the removal procedure: "In the case that the rollback tool is being misused, a bureaucrat may, at his/her discretion, remove the rollback ability.". By without listing, I'm assuming you mean without someone else having to report it first. I believe that a bureaucrat should still provide some diffs to explain why he/she removed the rollback privilege. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's different than what is in the 'Misuse of rollback' section, especially as the quote is under 'procedure'. Yes, the BC should supply justification, but shouldn't have to wait. And that still doesn't clear up the language so far that may be used to stretch the meaning of continue. Any really clear abuse should be grounds for immediate removal on sight, and any abuse at all after a warning should result in removal. That could be solved by making it say "A user who again misuses rollback...". Simple change, but the easier and less cumbersome the removal of the tool is the less risk there is in giving it out. That's really not that onerous since it shouldn't be hard for users to only use this tool for clear vandalism. - Taxman Talk 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The bureaucrat has the option of removing it without warning if he considers the abuse egregious enough, but would usually provide a stern and final warning. I think thtat the sentence you add is a good modification (clarification?) of the proposal, so I'm all for making it more clear. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, based on the clarifications that it is easy to remove this privilege when justified, I see little risk in implementing it. The extra process creep will probably be justified by the quicker reverting of vandalism. - Taxman Talk 15:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Per Gure. Ian13ID:540053 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 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]
    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) Changed vote. LordViD 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 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]
  45. Oppose. Not sure there's really much point. I'm perfectly happy with no rollback button despite the vandalism fighting I do, in fact, from how Rollback is described, I'd prefer the long way. Deskana (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 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]
  47. 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]
  48. 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]
  49. Oppose Unnecessary. Waste of time and effort. -Ikkyu2 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any reasons why its unnecessary? --Jaranda wat's sup 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose Those who seek the roleback power should become an admin. Dmn € Դմն 17:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose per Andrew Lenahan. -- Michalis Famelis 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. 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]
  53. Oppose this particular form of hierarchy-itus, not necessary. Hall Monitor 19:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose: find myself persuaded by many arguments above. Jonathunder 20:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. 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]
  56. Oppose per above. Latinus 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. 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]
  58. 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]
  59. 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]
  60. Oppose. I feel there is no basis for having rollback privileges determined by a "comment and feedback nomination" when there is no guarantee 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]
  61. 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]
  62. Oppose. Becoming an admin is supposed to be "no big deal" so just become one. No need for another layer. Rmhermen 16:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. In addition to the above comment, I have been reverting pages for quite a while now without adminship and I don't find it particularly difficult. In fact, having to click multiple times just makes it more likely that I won't make mistakes (I can only speak for myself here.) Giving everyone one-click power devalues the admin process and allows for more errors and slights against good-faith editors. Nach0king 17:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. An extra layer of bureaucracy that I am not convinced is necessary, esp. given how frighteningly easy it is to become an administrator. Gamaliel 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Becoming an admin is easy enough, so users should go that route if they choose to or want to wield more power. Otherwise, this added feature could quickly cause an escalating plague of intellectual vigilantism, among other things. Bsaark 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. This will make thoughtless revert wars more prevalent. At least now, most people have to look at a textarea before reverting. This will be too much temptation to fight without any comments at all -- not even an edit comment, which can sometimes diffuse revert wars. --James S. 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. No level required between user and admin. --Golbez 01:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose as unnecessary. I agree that we should be making our vandal-fighters admins instead. If we can't trust them with admin powers, I don't see why we should trust them with rollback privileges. —Cleared as filed. 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So why do we allow those "god-mode" scripts? --LV (Dark Mark) 05:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Everyone who can really be trusted with this should be fully capable of passing an RfA. AnnH (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me. This user is more than qualified to be an admin, but his short time on WP (2 months) has hindered his promotion. Looking at his contributions, rollback will clearly be a significant tool for this user, without any fear he will misuse it. Pepsidrinka 12:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose per Mav. James James 04:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be grateful if you could explain your opposition. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose Admins are enough. John Reid 06:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. Instruction creep. If you can be trusted with rollback, you can be trusted with adminship as well. Coffee 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose. Ditto. User:Ejrrjs says What? 20:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be grateful if you could explain your opposition. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose. - Mailer Diablo 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be grateful if you could explain your opposition. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll#Disagree (intermediate user layer). - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose -- IMHO the vandals will simply multiple-user edit to get round this, thus "ensuring" that all roll-back is to one or other of their pages. Will not work, therefore not worth the effort. Sorry. -- Simon Cursitor 08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (a born cynic, but ... )[reply]
    Then how come normal admins' rollback buttons work? Besides, you could always tag the vandals as sockpuppets and tell an admin to block them if enough evidence is accumulated. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. If a user is good enough to get rollback, then surely they're good enough to be an admin. If they 're not good enough to be anadmin, then they shouldn't get rollback. But what, I hear you say, about those who would use rollback but don't want to be an admin? Well, adminship is largely about correcting other people's problems, mistakes, and vandalism, and as such rollback is actually one of its biggest tools. Giving good editors rollback is simply going to create "admin-lite" - yet another level of hierarchy in a supposedly egalitarian wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose --cj | talk 14:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be grateful if you could explain your opposition. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose - Yet another hulking piece of bureaucracy in the clumsy obese mess of wikipedia. Not another tier red tape please. - Hahnchen 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose the poll -- The poll itself is worse than the proposal. This isn't important enough for so much talk. John Reid 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your alternative solution for making decisions like this that affect the community as a whole? Jacoplane 18:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I the only person here aware of the immense irony of a vote opposing a poll?--Urthogie 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. I actually chuckled a bit when I saw this. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 07:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    John Reid has already voted. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose per Jeffrey O. Gustafson: "Anyone worthy of having rollback privelages is worthy of adminship, anyone not worthy of adminship should not have rollback privelages." — TheKMantalk 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some users don't want to become admins though --Jaranda wat's sup 20:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any reason not to revert like the rest of us non-admins? Is it just so that the rest of us can revert without RexNL beating us to the punch? — TheKMantalk 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC
        • A lot of us are reverting so much vandalism that any time saving mechanism expands our reach greatly.--Urthogie 21:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then why don't you want to become an admin? As an admin you also get to delete nonsense articles and ban persistant vandals, which is an even greater time saver. People who don't want to become admins obviously see no need to do admin-type chores, and are not spending a great deal of time patrolling and reverting. — TheKMantalk 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Someone else nominated me earlier and the consensus was I have to spend a longer time at wikipedia before im an admin-- they understood I was making good edits, and reverting vandalism when I should, but they decided I was still not experienced enough with some intricacies of policy and whatnot. Adminship isn't a big deal in theory, but in practice it is.--Urthogie 21:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose, for many reasons already listed: it creates another class of user, which feels to me like instruction creep; we already have "godmode-lite" scripts available; and anyone who can be trusted with this tool ought to be able to pass RFA. Antandrus (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, those scripts are still manual reverts; they just "look" like an admin did it. They still involve loading many copies of the page, which can be reduced with the "real" thing. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose. It is so easy to be an admin, that it is hard to trust anyone with credentials not good enough for admin to have rollback.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What if people just want to fight vandals more efficiantly and don't want the other responsibilities that come with Adminship? By taking the above position, you are basically telling those people to cry you a river, build you a bridge and get over it. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 07:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose echoing all the other comments - if a person qualifies for rollback, they need to go through RfA. There are other tools that can just as easy roll-back changes, and this seems more like a solution in search of a problem. —akghetto talk 09:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose. This apparently has made a change from a straw poll to something official, and a lot of opponents have been asked to change their vote. Giving out rollback is a good idea, but the method of creating a policy for it has crossed the line for m:instruction creep; it just goes to show that voting doesn't work. >Radiant< 15:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. I hate polls. Radiant! took the words right out of my mouth, except for one thing: this is a bad idea. Wikipedia is already drowning in its own bureaucracy. We don't need more. Inter\Echo 23:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose Wikipedia has too much bureaucracy as it is, and adding another procedure in order to remove this feature from certain editors would just add to the paperwork. This isn't the biggest problem on Wikipedia, and I don't think there is any real need for it at the moment! Bjelleklang - talk 23:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose idea as presented; Support mav's idea with the caveat that the user must ask a bureaucrat (no voting, but opt-in so that people don't go "Hmm, what's this?", rollback a few times and get accused of abusing it.) I think another voting procedure like RfA is bad, and will only increase the time needed to become an admin. Ral315 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose. Adminship is no big deal. If you want rollback, become an admin. --Kbdank71 21:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose I just discovered godmode lite, which works fine, and per Splash's reasons (vote # 1).--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 19:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Too much of a risk. --Eleassar my talk 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Ain't broke, you know. -08:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  91. Oppose Too complicated for such a small change. Becoming an admin and removing admin powers should be the issue and should be easier. --Henrygb 17:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose as process creep. Adminship is no big deal, and people can use popups to rollback stuff. - ulayiti (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Seems to introduce a lot of bureaucratic work for something which is no big deal. EyesAllMine 23:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. The level of oversight and bureaucracy it requires is far too high. Now admins must serve as recent change patroller patrollers? There are too many functional alternatives that work for the vast majority of people, and the old-fashioned "history--> old version --> save" still works just fine. JDoorjam Talk 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose When the US Congress gets tired of trying to get elected president they don't create an "election for presidential veto powers." The RFA process is difficult for a reason, and we shouldn't shave off bits of it to create sub-level positions for those who want the powers without the RFA. Staxringold 15:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose. With such tools as Godmode light around, I see no need to complicate issues further with "in-between" levels. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose, this is not necessary and m:instruction creep. If you want a rollback button, you have popups, AWB, godmode-light...why create a big ol' request thing just for that? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose, per BorgHunter. The users that have godlite, such as myself, can do the rollbacks just fine. If it were more widespread, there would be more wasted time in missing a revision to another user. That five seconds can be used elsewhere. The rollback really isn't that big of a deal. Right now it speeds things up; for regular access it will slow things down. My 2¢. T K E 04:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose as a solution without a problem – I'll repeat a common sentiment: adminship is no big deal, and I see no real value in separating adminship and rollback privileges. – ClockworkSoul 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose. The process as it stands does not differ substantially from an RfA. Isopropyl 06:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose - I've already seen too many admins misusing this privilege, giving it to regular users would just make matters worse. --Cyde Weys 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. oppose this is an abused admin power...all we need are more revert wars. EdwinHJ | Talk 06:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose. Will lead to more revert wars, as well as creat more unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose. Will give more power to revert warriors. Either way, can we just close this poll as it has been dragging on too long? Kimchi.sg | talk 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose. Will probably cause more revert wars per most of the above. Also, I really like my popups, even if the edit summaries suck. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose utterly pointless. How often is a non-admin going to want to use bot rollback anyway? Anything else can be done with popups et al. Cynical 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. While I'd love this tool myself and think it should be widely available, I also believe that being an admin should be no big deal and thus see no reason to extend rollback beyond admins. Eluchil404 12:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose, use adminship instead -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway's suggestion[edit]

Let's have no more divisive polls. Let's talk about this idea. Rollback is just a way of reverting vandalism quickly. It should only ever be used to revert simple vandalism (page blanking, dubya is a poopy-head, insertion of random characters, etc). So, make it easy to get and easy to lose. Anyone who wants the power may ask for it and be granted it at the discretion of a bureaucrat (who may refuse). Any three administrators who believe that a user has abused the rollback privilege may petition for its removal from the user for cause. A bureacrat should not unreasonably refuse to remove rollback privilege if there is evidence of abuse. The arbitration committee may also rule that a user should be deprived of rollback privilege.

This should be enough to ensure that rollback is available widely for the purpose of dealing efficiently with vandalism, but not widely abused. --Tony Sidaway 13:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea, but would it put too much stress on the bureaucrats? -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can always get more.--Urthogie 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is basically what we're advocating. Easy to get, easy to lose. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is another bad idea. Can't people see that Wikipedia is drowning in its own bureaucracy? Inter\Echo 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er...I can't. But I thought that line was funny anyway. BTW, I fixed your it's-its error. Hope you don't mind. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • 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 negligible 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]
  • Posting on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't take long, and is usually dealt with very switfly. So I wouldn't worry about vandals not being blocked. I'd suggest that one of the criteria for getting these rollback privileges be that users are aware that when they encounter vandals they need to post test warning messages on user pages, and if no admin responds to add the vandal to that page. Jacoplane 17:23, 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]
Please don't misquote us as a group. None of us have expressed outright hatred for the script; the most it gets is disapproval, and I don't see evidence of that on wiki. If you're going to drag the developers into another policy mudslinging match, at least have the decency not to misrepresent us. Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was going off of a comment on the main talk page (admittedly by a non-dev, but I respect the editor so took the comment at face value). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:41, 27 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]

Oh this is ridiculous. What are we having a stupid poll for? Give rollback to anybody who shows up for RC patrol three nights in a row, and take it off anyone who uses it for edit warring. What's the problem? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (this is not a vote... though I did vote above, sorry) William M. Connolley 17:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Exactly! That's what we're trying to do. However, we need to have consensus to draft policy... even if it common sense. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, again lets not even bother finding out what the community wants. - Taxman Talk 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The community obvious both wants this and needs it. All the rest is hot airm and a poll isn't going to tell us much that we don't already know, while it gives the few naysayers the opportunity to oppose on procedural grounds. --Tony Sidaway 13:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I would like to add something to those people that still feel adminship is "no big deal" but at the same time realize that standards are rising. We are not overwhelmed by vandalism. A massive overhaul is not needed, nor am I calling this one. However, the RC Patrollers and CVU "participants" are able to handle the 500-600 vandalisms/hour during peak hours just fine. While a Rollback button would be easy, I see no immediate need to bestow this to those who are not admins. I could be two days old with 100 manual vandalism reverts and I'd probably get the [rollback] button if this passes. I don't want people to be editing under the radar just to get special privileges. If any non-admin is to get this privilege, it should be on a case-by-case basis after a set of minimum set of requirements have been met (few hundred edits including non-revert contributions to the encyclopedia and a month of activity). Maybe then, we can reinstate CVU "membership." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsinj (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 February 2006

It would be granted on a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting here. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: few non admins oppose this, while admins and nonadmins alike support it.--Urthogie 16:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new idea[edit]

I propose that instead of giving rollback to selected non-admins, we give rollback links to everybody, but for non-admins they lead to the edit page for the appropriate version, instead of automatically rolling back. That will save users plenty of clicks and the servers plenty of web requests, but will still require regular users to look at the version they're rolling back to and offer them a way to provide edit summaries. Even for admins, it would be useful having links like that instead of, or in addition to, outright rollback. Zocky | picture popups 16:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but how would we guarantee that anybody would look at the revision page, and not just automatically click "Save page"? Would there really be any advantage to it over the current proposal? Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do we guarantee now that people don't click history, then the version they want, then edit, and save, without ever looking at the text? We don't and we can't. Zocky | picture popups 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So what is the advantage of this? --LV (Dark Mark) 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saves user clicks and reduces server load. Is there any other reason we would want this non-admin rollback at all? Zocky | picture popups 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just support the current proposal. My question is, what is the advantage of this "new idea" over the current proposal? --LV (Dark Mark) 16:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, we're starting from the current situation, not from the current proposal, which seems to have enough healthy opposition to demonstrate that there's no consensus on it.
The only valid reasons I see to change the current situation are saving user clicks and server requests. This proposal would help achieve this goals, without fully automating reversion for non-admins. Unlike the current proposal, it would not add new procedures, instructions, policies, hierarchy levels, nor more opportunities for wikilawyering and hurt feelings. Zocky | picture popups 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the main reason, to enable trusted users the ability to fight vandalism more effectively. The main purpose isn't just to save time and server drain, it is to fight vandalism. And I don't care if you oppose this current proposal, you are well within your right. I just think this new idea of yours was a step backward and not as effective. I wasn't discussing the cureent situation, I was discussing the current proposal. This page is for the current proposal, this other discussion should be taking place on the talk page. Oh well, see you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trusted users are called admins. If you think that the current RFA procedure is not good, work on changing it instead of thinking up ways to get around it. Zocky | picture popups 16:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right... to a point. I personally feel there are plenty of editors I trust, that I would not support for adminship. I am sure you can think of some. And then there are those people who like to fight vandalism (and would make good use of rollback), but don't want all the other things that comes with adminship. This has all been discussed before on the RfR talk page and archives. You can go read more there, if you would like. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are these "other things that come with adminship". Nobody forces admins to use all the extra buttons they received. Zocky | picture popups 17:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, "being the face of WP", etc. Adminship carries with it a certain weight, and trying to deny it is not realistic. People go to Jimbo all the time with "this Admin did this, so you need to do that." or say things like "even four Admins agree with me", this type of stuff. Those who have been here understand that Admins are just regular users with a few additional editing tools, but others, especially newcomers look up to Admins and will defer to their opinion just because they are Admins. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a more on-topic note: The current proposal would help these users fight vandalism exactly by saving user clicks and server requests. Zocky | picture popups 17:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but this new idea is a step backwards from the current proposal in this vein. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sacrifices one click, while removing all of the bad features of the current proposal. Zocky | picture popups 17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what exactly are all the bad features of the current proposal? The "process creep", the "new heirarchy"? Those are very valid points of opposition. So why not just give everybody the real rollback button? Does saving the one click do anything? Are there disadvantages of giving full rollback to every registered user? --LV (Dark Mark) 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be strongly opposed to giving out rollback automatically. It would only encourage revert wars, which are already a large problem. By having people request rollback from a b-crat, you're ensuring that the requesting editor has had his block log checked as well as his recent contributions. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the revision histories of:

You see the problem? Imagine if they had such facilities. Latinus 17:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... giving rollback automatically will not work. That is my point exactly. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this problem would made worse by giving rollback to everyone. If anything, giving rightout rollback with a fixed edit summary to everybody would make it easier to find those reverts and people who engage in revert wars, not harder. Again, everybody can revert as it is. Zocky | picture popups 18:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense as well - it doesn't matter how one reverts. The 3RR will always apply. I think that it would be a good idea to assign full rollback to all editors with more than 1,000 edits (I read that somewhere above). RC patrol increases one's edit count a lot - if a user really does RC patrol, then it would be very easy for him or her to meet the standard (I made 1,000 edits last week alone). Latinus 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that has to do with a number is bad. Many users don't want rollback, they don't even know what it is, so just dropping it on them through an automatic procedure is dangerous. How hard is it to just ask for it? Besides, this is worded to make it clear that if adminship isn't a big deal, then this shouldn't be a deal at all, and that the onus is on not giving it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to oppose this idea, based on Locke Cole's comment. This would make it far too easy for vandals, edit warriors and trolls to ply their trade. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 14:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rollback for everybody? Unless you have a different definition to the standard one for "everybody", that would mean giving rollback to vandals. No thank you. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree with automatic delivery of rollback, but with the ability of any admin to reset the count at any time. The criteria should be the same as for editing a semi-protected article. The 3RR deals with revert wars. It's a simple cost benefit trade off a) the cost of people working on a new election process b) the cost of having to revert a few vandals who have the patience to work through the 1000 (or whatever) edit rule c) the minor cost of a few mistaken reverts (these will be rare and will mostly be self-re-reverted) c) the benefit that vandalism gets quickly reverted d) the benefit that vandals have to spend time making 1000 neutral edits in order to get the revert tool.
    Looking at that; it seems the vandals mostly won't bother (easier just to get an editing bot) and any form of discussions or elections about this will cost more than dealing with the problems or dealing with the vandalism. Mozzerati 12:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback_privileges/Poll&oldid=1146800577"