Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll

message: When does this poll? -Splashtalk 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? Two weeks? I am not positive on the regular length of these types of polls, but you do bring up a good issue. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: One week seems long enough to give everyone ample time to weigh in on the issue. Two weeks might be dragging it out for too long. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a friendly reminder (also a reminder to myself): when the poll concludes, make sure to remove the link from MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Since this poll would introduce an entirely new access level (and all the processes and procedures that go along with it), I'd recommend having it run for two weeks to ensure that as much of the community as possible has a chance to vote. The last thing we want is for there to be cries of "I would have supported/opposed that, but the poll was only active for seven days!". Carbonite | Talk 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (enough edit conflicts! Let me in!) I second that. Two weeks sounds about right for voting on a new access level. There's a lot involved in making a dream come true, should it be deemed realistic by the Wikipedia community. We would want to get as many thoughts as possible. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's a fair point. I was concerned about dragging it out for too long, but making sure that everyone has the chance to vote is more important. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finish?

message: Should we perhaps make a section for "Support concept, but oppose procedure", or would that make the poll too stratified? --LV (Dark Mark) 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd always recommend strongly against moving goalposts during a poll. If this does not reach consensus as it stands, go away afterwards with all that is learned, and try again later. -Splashtalk 01:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's kinda what I was thinking, but just saw a growing number of people opposing for that reason. I'll defer to your judgment. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Well, it's kind of like changing weapons in the middle of a war: it has its significant ups and downs. I can see the logic behind such a move but Voldemort, what's your specific reason for wanting to create a seperate section? -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't really have an specific reason for the change, heck I don't even really want a change. i was just trying to see if it would be better to have its own section. There seems to be enough people o fill that section, so I just suggested it. (No devious motives behind it ;-) I'm not all evil.)  --LV (Dark Mark) 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This might be a good idea, so as to gauge what fraction of people marking themselves "opposed" are opposed only to the procedure but supportive of loosened restrictions on access to rollback. Sarge Baldy 04:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes? 

message: I prefer polls to discussion. But if this is a poll, why are opposed voters been questioned and contradicted? In fact, most 'support' voters have offered little reasoning for their votes and no-one quesioning that. However, 'oppose' voters, who have given more reasons are being questioned. It seems a little one-sided. --Doc ask? 15:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression it was a little bit of both. I seem to recall WP:SEMI's straw poll having a massive amount of discussion in the oppose side of things. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What kinds of questions would you ask support voters? Why are you supporting? I for one am supporting because I think the proposal's benefits are far greater than any costs it may have (such as bureaucracy - which I don't think will be a significant problem - or creation of another "layer" of users, which I do not think will occur). I don't see a problem with questioning oppose voters - it will help in improving the proposal to take their views into account and this can't be done without reasoning. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll or discussion 

message: Somebody added a tally to the top of the discussion / straw poll through the night, which has seen numerous updates. I have removed this since this isn't a simple numerical majority wins poll. Thanks/wangi 09:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree (and I thought this section was referring to me at first! :) ). Talrias (t | e | c) 13:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tally 

message: Would it be possible, if this proposal succeeds, that the message displayed when non-admins do rollbacks be different from the message that is displayed when admins do rollbacks?  Just so we can see at a glance whether or not the rollback was done by an admin or not.  User:Zoe|(talk) 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could add some sort of per-group customisations; I expect there are a couple of clean ways of doing it. Rob Church (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would support something that would enable us to tell if the rollback was done by an Admin, or a non Admin rollbacker. If this reaches some sort of consensus, of course. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: This has been running for more than a week now with a 2/3 majority in favor of rollback priviledges. I think it's time to close the poll.--God of War 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See a few threads up... Only a few more days now.  We don't want to cheat someone out of expressing their opinion on this matter. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, 2/3rds majority is borderline - as of this post there is only about 65% in favour, slightly less than 2/3rds. NSLE (T+C) 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Clearly it hasn't passed community consensus in any sense of the word.  Can we move it to this talk page?--Urthogie 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say so, but as an involved party, I won't be the one to do it. Right now it just clutters up the page and may be confusing. I support removal to talk page. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I'm really sorry I participated in this poll. Now there's two huge paragraphs on my talk page begging me to change my vote. Somehow, I don't think the text speaks to me personally; maybe I can just ignore it. But isn't that rude, too? John Reid 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct, Talrias asked about thirty users to reconsider their vote. I'm afraid this goes to show that voting is evil once more, and that creating a process through voting on it simply isn't going to work. >Radiant< 01:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed; the conduct of the poll has been a little weird. It's a little pointless to seek changes of 'vote' anyway, since any proposal that faces opposition from nearly 100 editors can't claim consensus regardless! -Splashtalk 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's quite correct, John. I explained why I believed that what you said in your oppose comment was not the case and asked you to reconsider your views on the issue given what I had said. That's not begging you to change your vote at all. Reconsidering is not changing. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta-discussion 

message: I support the idea but I oppose the  way it's going to be used, so heres my idea This new Request for rollback should be for users with 800 edits and 45 days who havent been blocked for 3rr, or WP:CIVIL or any other offence only. There are someusers including me who don't want to become a admin for the time being and it would be nice to give them a rollback button without going though RFA first. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aranda56 Idea 

message: #Support my idea --Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support Aranda56 idea

message: # Oppose The threshold is too high. The RFR proposal states that the privileges will be handed out liberally, and taken away as easily, and establishing a number promotes the dreaded editcountitis, which is something we tried to avoid. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose Aranda56 idea

message: #Some parts should form part of the crieria for getting the privalage. --Adam1213 Talk + 10:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral 

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