Wikipedia talk:Community Trust

message: I think this proposal is very solid, I'd love to see some comments on it tho! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 10:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I think it'd be best to address any criticism before we invite wider community discussion. // Pathoschild 10:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

message: First, I believe very much the rollback button really isn't nearly as big a deal as blocking users or editing the interface. Seeing how someone uses it could provide good information for an RFA, too. I definitely support some easy way of granting this access.
I think this proposal would do better under another name, and without calling the "rollback privilege" by another name--"community trust" has the disadvantage of a) sounding like a big deal (which it isn't) and b) not being entirely clear what it refers to. So this should be called "one-click rollback".
Secondly, instead of having admins vote (I don't like giving admins increased power to make decisions, just increased privileges to carry them out), how about a process like RFD, where petitioners (or others, doesn't matter) list their names, and after five days if there is no objection, an admin grants the rollback privilege. Demi T/C 04:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reason that admins voting looked good at the time, was for a more rapid deployment to the users. I would imagine with any real long time of voting, that this list would grow to an unmanagable length. (altho, if approved, I'd imagine that the initial rush, would be insane) IMHO, commuity trust, sounded like the most descriptinve term at the time. You are, however, correct, 'Community Trust' does sound like a big deal. It is, however, my opinion that 'Request for Rollback' or 'One Click Rollback' just don't sound good, too official, sterile, and beurocratic. Just my $0.02, however. (ya, I know, I'm violating my wikibreak) --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 05:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like it. Let's change everything! 

message: "71% of articles are Unwatched! Special:Unwatchedpages now enabled for admins only". Maybe it's a good idea to allow users with community trust to access this page too, to reduce the workload for admins. Jacoplane 07:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowing users to see Special:Unwatchedpages 

message: There's already a proposal which would grant rollback privileges to suitable candidates, via a similar process to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. What's stopping it from being implemented are bugs 3317 and 3801. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges]] 

message: I don't believe that it would be "easy" to become a trusted member of the community.  If a person is coming to the encyclopedia only to vandalise, I don't think that they would want to wait a whole month and get 300 edits before they begin doing so. That is many hours and days of editing, and probably not worth their time.
However, I don't think it should be allowed for Trusted Members to be able to block other users, as this power could be easily abused.  I can remember times where leaders we have trusted have gotten irritated with the community and started blocking people for no reason.
Feel free to leave comments.
Link9er 14:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I support this idea