Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Vote/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is of such marginal consequence that I will cast my vote on or after Sunday January 27 for whichever option has gained the most votes in the interest of promoting a consensus result. (Once vote has been cast strike vote from list).

  1. R. Baley (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on supporting a consensus result (comments not required! ;-)

If people are going to start doing that, we might as well just close the poll now in favour of option A, which is clearly going to win – Gurch 10:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. . .but apparently the margin matters. Even if A wins, B will still be used to argue (or vice-versa). But whatever happens stopping the poll because of this would be silly. R. Baley (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hate me

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

As I noted on your talk page - "Wikipedia is not a democracy, not giving people a chance to discuss is bad, you've missed the point of the ArbCom which is to prevent similar issues from happening in future and you can't sum up everyone's feelings about both allowing rollback and/or the process itself into a few neat headings. I can't help but think this is a terrible idea and fundamentally goes against the "wiki" in Wikipedia and the idea of consensus.". Wikipedia is not about binding votes and process like this, and this isn't going to do anything but muddy the waters further. -Halo (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, by "I support non-admin rollback being implemented, automatically like pagemoves with no process" do you mean giving it to everyone in the "normal" usergroup automatically? And what if you agree to rollback without process but not with - will it get "lumped in" to some other policy based on your support for rollback in general? -Halo (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yay! Wikipedia is a democracy! :-) (Oh, hang on...) Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate you already, so that doesn't help me. Equazcion /C 11:42, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

You could create a new section for that, or oppose all other proposals, I suppose. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A 6-way poll? Surely there must be a better way than *more* complicated up-to-interpretation polling :s -Halo (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If anything, that seems less ambiguous, to me; it allows us to separate the issues of whether to turn it on, and how to turn it on, if we do. Doc's objection in particular seems to apply just as much to the current poll model. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Non-admin rollback should be implemented
  • Support
  • Oppose
  • If implemented, non-admin rollback should be given out by community process (human decision)
  • Support
  • Oppose
  • If implemented, non-admin rollback should be given out automatically (time-based)
  • Support
  • Oppose
  • Non-admin rollback should not be implemented
  • Support
  • Oppose

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

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

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

Proportional Representation?

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

  • Only Wikipedia can mess up a simple vote count with strict rules. -Halo (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That was why i made the suggestion i did above. although it would be better to simplify, i.e. either A) Give the tool, or B) don't give the tool, then do another vote (i know, so much democracy is shocking) over the logistics when/if the tool is given--Jac16888 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Agreed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose if it's good enough to elect ArbCom, it should be good enough here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

I have added a notice. Please feel free to revert if necessary. Nakon 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I oppose a notice. We've thousands of editors and many will not have a clue what this is about. If we are going to invite them to comment, in such a visible way, we really need to have more of an explanation/introduction first. Unfortunately, the poll will collapse as we didn't bother to agree wat we were doing before we began.--Docg 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely we should have a few days grace to decide at least what we want to vote on and the method involved to vote on that? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Stays or goes, and if it goes does everyone just get it, or do we use the process, which is good enough to start. It's fine as is. No more damn beurocracy. Lawrence Cohen 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Someone very neutral???? Please.--Docg 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I just added a short terse explanation. Lawrence Cohen 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not everything needs ten layers of formality and debate. Just get done what needs doing, already. Discussion is great, but drowning in it for the sake of talk is frankly stupid. Lawrence Cohen 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In an ideal world the voters would know exactly what they were voting for, with pros and cons of each proposal - many users are going to come here not having a clue (and that could effect the poll in many different ways). Ryan Postlethwaite 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
What pros and cons? It's a stupid revert button. I already had like 10 from Twinkle. We can hash out how people lose it later if the vote keeps going as it is under process. If the vote turns around and everyone loses it, thats it. At least then we can stop dicking around with backend shit and write articles again, which is why we're here. Lawrence Cohen 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am feeling especially un-informed today (sorry). Presently, non-admin editors with no tools simply click on a prior version they like, for "edit," then save that (two clicks). An edit summary for why you did that, is polite, but for vandalism, "RVV" works fine (three strokes). Is this debate about one click?? or have I missed something really important? What nefarious fixit stuff do you admins HAVE? SBHarris 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, this whole big thing, boils down to being about one click, in a nutshell. SQLQuery me! 05:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
lol, the irony. --Nn123645 (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps its me (this debate may have resulted in paranoia) but this argument of "it's just a darn button" seems to overwhelmingly come from the same folks that want it to be bureaucratically given. Seems a double standard. If this "boils down to being about one click", may I ask User:SQL why you want to make sure we have an admins approval to use it? Surely a person can do far more damage with the "edit this page" button than "rollback"... and yet, even anonymous IP's have that. Justin chat 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We sure do. Two clicks and three strokes. Sounds like my first experience with sex ;) Okay, I'll let you guys go back to your important debate. SBHarris 05:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of paranoia, giving the button to everyone simply isn't supported by the community at this time, and, I don't think it's ever been widely supported, nor likely to be in the near future. Personally, my hope is that over time, this method will prove, that rollback is just a stupid goddamn button, that enables people to do something they could do anyhow, and, can be given out to everyone. IMO, this debate, and all the fuss surrounding it are WAY blown out of proportion. Seriously, this isn't that huge of a deal. SQLQuery me! 08:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What have pagemoves got to do with this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yea, well people keep changing the headers. I recommend re-voting in the appropriate section and not changing them back, just avoid another discussion, cause next we will be discussing the headings. Tiptoety talk 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, once this is over people will complain, and then it will happen again, and the process will probably be just as flawed as this time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Agreed, but will that ever happen? No. Tiptoety talk 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree too, but here, there has already been too much "crap". - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing titles after voting has begun

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

Although the header changed, this was the implied meaning - the status quo being that we continue as we have since it was impemented. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That was not the only change.... There have been several, right? Many/most of which have been changed back. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I understand these concerns, not sure what we can do now though (I had nothing to do with the header changes BTW). Ryan Postlethwaite 05:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Rjd0060, once you vote under one title, it should not be changed, it is almost like having people vote and then change what they are voting for. This should have been all done and decided upon before this process started. Though like you said, not much we can do now but keep the titles the same. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I know you had nothing to do with it. I was just expecting a straight forward process here, but I guess I was wrong (again). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
At first, I read the title of the first option (with the comment "the current status quo" as implying that the rollback process we now have was implemented by a community decision (it wasn't, of course). LondonStatto (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I gotta agree Rjd0060's objections. IF we must have a vote, the thing we're voting on must be static. One of the reasons this turned into such a clusterf*ck a week ago is that things kept evolving as the poll took place. The ballot must not change after votes begin. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

off topic question

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

ok, i tested it and appearantly I can rollback. how odd. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
See your log; Moreschi put you into the rollbacker group. That is, if you haven't already discovered that. :-) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This vote is hopeless

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

I think we have already tried that, and that is now why we are here. Tiptoety talk 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't need 18 votes, 25 polls, 37 pages of talk archives, an arbitration case, and someone calling Florida to demand satisfaction from the WMF secretary. We need to end this, let the people we elected call the election, and go write articles. Something like the painfully complex Condorcet system if stupided down so anyone can understand what they need to do on a mega-poll with ten seconds of reading would be good for next time, which hopefully isn't this year. Lawrence Cohen 05:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh sure... you point that out AFTER I got off the phone with Florida. Of course, this vote is entirely unbinding, as it violates the very premise of WP:CONS. I only voted to continue Doc's cool "--" preceding his signature. What is this poll going to teach us? That the overwhelming majority of people that read WP:ARBCOM requests about rollback are interested in it being implemented. If anything, this poll is going to produce more problems. Those in group A may claim that since A and B comprise a vote to implement, and that the procedure explained in group A is already implemented, we should stick status quo. Those in group B will claim that since group A's procedure implementation was done without consensus, the results should be a consensus to implement, with no consensus to how. Those from group C are going to claim that because there was no consensus to implement, and there is no consensus on how to implement, we should retreat to the original, which was nobody has non-admin rollback. Finally, those in group D are going to be really ticked off, because all 5 of them are going to be forced to drink tea AND spread wikilove on the some 400 user talk pages of the rest of us that voted. Majority doesn't rule, a vote is not a substitute for a consensus, and monkey's at the zoo throw poop at tourists. These are the three golden rules of wikidom, so this has presented us with nothing more than another argument. Or more likely, another way to argue about the same thing. Justin chat 06:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Although couldn't one argue that the vote is just being used to judge consensus? Meaning if 500 people vote in support of something, and 1 person votes in opposition, there is a clear consensus for support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
....not that I really care about all of this rollbackerish nonsense at this point. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
But how many "votes" do we need to establish consensus? Cause unless i am wrong this is about the third poll i have participated in. enough is enough. Tiptoety talk 06:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There would not be a set number. Kind of like the way RfA works. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
To quote Lawrence Cohen "Did people complain after the main page vote and the 3rr vote were ended?". Tiptoety talk 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It means we vote when we have to. It means you do what you have to, when you do. Lawrence Cohen 06:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not suggesting anything. I was simply creating argument on the comment from User:Justin. Like I said, Frankly, I don't give a damn! - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue isn't "how many votes makes this go away". The WP policies already dictate that polls don't equal consensus. This is likely to produce nothing more than a clear consensus that non-admins should have rollback. How that rollback is to be implemented is going to be a contentious debate (and that has ALWAYS what has been contentious about this). The argument that we need admins to "approve" people to avoid edit warring and vandalism has no merit. I could use the same argument for creating a pretty new process for the "edit this page" button. I've already seen half a dozen user pages advertising that they have the rollback button as if it's a shiny new button. Where would we be without our WikiSocial Classes :P. Do we really need a process so admins can pat themselves on the back for granting user rights? Do we really need a process so users that are granted can pat themselves on the back like it's some special degree of trust from the community? For not being a bureaucracy, it sure looks like a bureaucracy. Justin chat 06:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an organized bureaucracy. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Crap or get off the Wikipot

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

Meaning, no matter how many times we have a vote, there will always be a party that is unhappy with the outcome, but there comes a time when there has to be a end. Once a president gets elected, do people sit around and talk about until someone decides to just f**k the current president and have a new election? Come on now, enough is enough. Tiptoety talk 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How many times have I already said that? Again, I wasn't suggesting that a vote continue, or anything. This comment wasn't implying anything, just an argument, which is why I quickly added this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, i know, and the comment was not aimed at you directly. :) Tiptoety talk 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well never mind then ;) -Rjd0060 (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The big deal

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

My point exactly, not sure why we keep doing this. Tiptoety talk 06:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile important things are being dropped. Bstone (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
True that, i hope some one has been monitoring Jimbo Wales user page, or ANI. :) Tiptoety talk 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
People are treating this like we're giving users the power to destroy planets. Rollback privileges can be removed as easily as Twinkle, so what's the big deal? Oh, and while everyone's bickering here, places like Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention are being ignored. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 06:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to wikipedia! Tiptoety talk 06:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually people are bickering about how it was implemented. You'll notice, many of the people that complained about the implementation are also supporting this feature as an auto-approve. I've said that some 15 times so far, but it apparently hasn't sunk in. Repeteing the same argument over and over doesn't make it true. I'm all for rollback... I'm totally against yet another social group within Wikipedia. Justin chat 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Then why does it matter? We are all working towards the same goal, so what's the big problem? Tiptoety talk 07:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It only matters to me because it's getting out of control. Wikipedia is an incredibly good idea that's turned into a "look how high I am on the ladder" competition. And now we have an argument for adding a new rung. There are a lot of media claims that Wikipedia is anti-elitist. I beg to differ... it seems that many are hellbent on creating social classes as quickly as possible. Wikipedia:Requests by normal users, which can be granted by super users, with oversight by super duper users, which can be repealed by admins, which must be brought in front of the Committee on committees that oversee the reviews of the Arbitration Review Committee. How far does this go? Justin chat 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I understand your point (in fact I'm considering whether to switch my vote to the autoconfirmed group) but even if this social 'class' is created, will it really be that 'powerful'? Currently the real classes are three - admins, bureaucrats, and stewards - there are oversights and checkusers but I think they're rather peripheral... they're powerful, but not main.
Now how 'proud' could the rollbacks really be? It's far from being admin (perceptibly and tool-wise itself) and it simply does what is already available, only quicker. So what makes rollback a completely distinct class? -- Mentifisto 07:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Proud enough that I've seen it advertised on a variety of user pages. One of which with a "thank you for the trust the community has put in me" speech. It's not power that concerns me, but the illusion of power. That's exactly why RfA's are so broken. Admin's have access to additional tools, and nothing more, but this has since evolved into admin's being "above" an editor. The funny thing about social classes is they don't have to be particularly different, they just have to think they are. And by making this a "tool by approval" we elevate the position of admin even higher than it already is (which is far too high) and create a different (if not distinct) class of editors. You point out this tool does nothing more than make an available task quicker. So if we have permission to go outside, why do we need permission to use the front door? Justin chat 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's going to be the way it is whether it's autoconfirmed or not. What's more authoritarian: instant approval after two minutes of reviews as it is now, or approval only if nobody rejects it over the course of four days of reviews, as it would be with autoconfirm? The way it is now seems a whole lot friendlier and faster to me. Kafziel Talk 08:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Four days of reviews? All they have to do is hang around for four days to be autoconfirmed. No discussions, no reviews. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Then what's the four days for? Kafziel Talk 08:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The four-day period is the existing four-day period for which a new user account must wait before they are able to move pages, or edit semi-protected pages. It seems logical to group rollback with these abilities and thus to make abuse via throwaway accounts less feasible (as semi-protection does with vandalism) – Gurch 08:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
But we have that four day period to make sure (sort of) that they're here to contribute constructively. That probationary period amounts to a passive four-day review. Kafziel Talk 08:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In a way, I suppose. But only in a way, and no more. No actual reviewing takes place, after all. And more to the point, if, like most people here, you are already autoconfirmed, the amount of time needed to obtain rollback would be zero – Gurch 08:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
But wasn't that kind of a deal-breaker during the real discussion about this? Automatically giving the tool to people with a visible history of edit warring and misuse of TW? I seem to recall a vast majority thinking that wasn't the greatest idea. Kafziel Talk 09:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If it was given out to everyone, then abuse would be dealt with by blocking. Contributors unable to contribute without becoming involved in edits wars should be, and are, blocked anyway, so this should be no different to existing practise – Gurch 09:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you about the social groups though.Tiptoety talk 07:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's probably only a matter of time before the first "This user is a rollbacker" userbox or something similar is created, if it hasn't already. The actual "power" these users are given is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. I don't care either way if rollback stays or goes, because it's not a big issue. But, the potential for mayhem if everyone has rollback is slight. We give page move privileges to everyone after a few days, and that's a much more powerful ability than rollback. The potential harm of giving everyone rollback is less than the harm of having admins anoint certain users as "worthy" or "unworthy" and creating a new class of editors. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There have been "This user uses <insert name of script/software here>" userboxes for years. Have they led to the creation of a new social class? No. Now please just stop this – Gurch 08:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the vast majority of those scripts don't require approval, and none requires approval through an official Wikipedia process, as far as I know. We seem to be heading into a world of, "All editors are equal. But some editors are more equal than others." --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
What does requiring approval have to do with anything? Approval is required to use AutoWikiBrowser, has that created a new social class of AutoWikiBrowser users? No. Approval is required to review Flickr images on Commons, has that created a new social class of image reviewers? No. Approval is required to operate a bot, has that created a new social class of bot operators? No. Despite the best efforts of certain people (see a few sections down) to actually create new social classes, for some misguided purpose, it is not happening – Gurch 09:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the above concerns are about the users creating the social class themselves by thinking that they're more special than others. Creating userboxes etc. is trivial but it may become a social class eventually anyway and then people start argumenting about it on RfAs etc. -- Mentifisto 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
And? I'll rephrase my questions, then. Do Twinkle users consider themselves to be more special than others? No. Do AutoWikiBrowser users consider themselves to be more special than others? No. Do Commons image tag reviewers consider themselves to be more special than others? No. Do bot operators consider themselves to be more special than others? No. I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that any such classes exist or would be created by rollback – Gurch 10:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do admins et al. consider themselves to be more special than others? That's the thing that may happen to rollback users because there's a process. The reason behind adminship etc. becoming a class applies to the rollback process, not the reason behind all those mentioned (I'm not sure about this though, of course, I'm only restating the above arguments). -- Mentifisto 12:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the new home of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Resolved: --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Much obliged. Thanks to whomever took care of it for me. -- ALLSTARecho 07:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, got a faster response here than at ANI. Tiptoety talk 07:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I'm jus' sayin'.. lol -- ALLSTARecho 07:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just had to say, the title of this section made me laugh harder than I have in a long time. I'm still laughing. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind everybody.....

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

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

The Userbox. Pure class. Pedro :  Chat  08:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Color scheme needs work, but I'm using it anyway because this shit is stupid. LaraLove 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify option B

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

  1. Any user gets the 'rollbacker' group along with 'autoconfirmed' but can at any time be removed from that group by any administrator.
  2. The 'rollback' permission is added to the 'autoconfirmed' group and cannot be removed (save for a plain ol' block).

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

I imagine it's the second. Apart from anything else, if it was removed from a user they could simply create another account and wait for it to be autoconfirmed, which is trivial. Does it actually matter, though? If blocking is the only way to deal with people who abuse rollback, surely that will only lead them to be more careful – Gurch 08:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea. We have plenty of editors who are temperamental and get into edit wars, so shouldn't be trusted with rollback, but who are good-faith contributors and shouldn't be indef-blocked. Having it given out by admins to trusted users is IMO a much better idea. WaltonOne 08:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Then vote for option A. This is about clarifying option B – Gurch 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm discussing. I'm trying to explain why I think option B is a bad idea. WaltonOne 08:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Senior Editor status

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

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

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

The above is the most insanely bad suggestion I've seen since Jimbo Wales decided to involve ArbCom earlier today – Gurch 08:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is it such a bad suggestion? WaltonOne 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
More processes and classes? No thanks. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree too. It further establishes the appearance of a hierarchy (editor - senior editor - sysop - crat) which we are supposed to be avoiding. And how long before RfA oppose votes start to say "You have been an editor for a long time but never progressed to senior editor, yet now you want the tools." Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We have a hierarchy already, and the step between editor and admin is often a very steep one, which intimidates and demoralises those who want to progress to adminship. Like it or not, many people do contribute specifically because they want adminship. Creating an extra rung on the ladder will give them extra motivation, and will prevent less experienced users becoming demoralised because their RfAs fail. WaltonOne 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If the step between editor and admin is steep then how steep is the step between admin and bureaucrat? ;-) And the same applies there... if we ought to fill in the steepness between editor and admin then we should fill in the same gap between the other two ad infinitum - will Wikipedia become a community of solely social classes? -- Mentifisto 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I had a very similar thought earlier but dismissed it as too radical - basically, maybe, we could do as you said with some additions - many apply for an RfA only because they fight vandalism... some I guess could only do that... so instead of granting them full adminship status (or not) they could merrily apply for the rollback, and maybe never for an RfA. Well, yeah, similar to all the suggestions earlier and related to what we're voting for, but that's it. I didn't write this before because I'm not sure if I even endorse it. -- Mentifisto 09:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Can we also create Junior Editor and/or Apprentice Editor? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Only if I can be Senior Executive Vice-Editor – Gurch 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I call Ombudsman to the Council on Harmonious Relations Between Junior and Senior Editors with Usernames Beginning with A-J. John Reaves 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Clarification needed

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

Amen, brother. Kafziel Talk 09:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It is far quicker and more efficient than any other method, even a script, and if a user has made multiple consecutive contributions to a page, they will automatically be reverted all at once. For more information, see Help:Reverting#Rollback, Wikipedia:Rollback feature and every single one of the 1000 f***ing discussions we've had on this now in which I and other people have had to explain this again and again and again and again and again and again to people who are too ignorant to understand what is going on or too lazy to figure it out for themselves – Gurch 09:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that was called for. In fact, I'm sure it wasn't. Kafziel Talk 09:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you really think 200 people want a software change to be made that would do nothing? Did you really think that administrators have had, and used, rollback for years while secretly not telling anyone that there's no point to it? If you don't like my answer, then how about next time you want to know something, rather than just saying "amen" to people who are just as clueless as you are, you find the answer yourself? Not like there's a shortage of discussions about it at the moment – Gurch 09:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I know what the rollback button does. I know what the "block", "unblock", "delete", and "restore" buttons do, too. I know because I have them. I don't like your answer because it's uncivil, not because I don't know what the answer is. Kafziel Talk 09:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
PS - There's no point to it. The secret is now out. Kafziel Talk 09:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, the nature of the way MediaWiki works is that a user can either be assigned to the rollback group, or not. If you think all established registered users should have it, vote for option B in the poll. If you think it should be restricted to individually approved users, vote for option A. If you think nobody should have it, vote for option C. That is the whole reason why the poll exists – Gurch 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you can make more edits per minute with rollback than without, which might be of some concern in case of vandalbots. Kusma (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Well, Jimbo told them they have to. And apparently he can do that, or thinks he can. Since he appoints ArbCom in the first place, I guess it makes sense – Gurch 09:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I learned that voting is evil in my 3 years here. This way of "hold a poll and let ArbCom judge the results" is not our normal process of consensus building; usually we reach consensus (or don't) and later ArbCom members refer to that consensus in their decisions. Perhaps we need a process that says how software features should be implemented (developers traditionally operate under their own policies, not ours), but it should not be implemented by the ArbCom, which is our judicative, not our legislative body. Kusma (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know all that, as does every other sane person here. Compaining here is not going to change anything, however. You'll have to take it up with Jimbo, as I have already tried to do, though I have only been ignored – Gurch 09:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just posted in that thread, before seeing this comment :-) Kusma (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Jimbo decided to employ the ArbCom in this poll (which is a poll because consensus just couldn't be achieved in the previous discussions) because this needs to end - the ArbCom has the ultimate say in order to end disputes, and that's why it needs to do that here, I guess. -- Mentifisto 09:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom clarifies policy and deals with user conduct. It does not determine policy and hence can't ratify anything. Unfortunately Jimbo once again causes more harm than good. His intentions are good but his ideas really aren't. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The problem with the previous rollback discussions wasn't that there was no consensus, either -- it was that the feature was implemetned in the middle of discussion when nobody was expecting it. There was already clear consensus that rollback should be given out in some form -- which is all this poll is determining, which means we're going to get nowhere. What hadn't been worked out was the details of the process, and even then, the poll on that showed ~67% support for what had been proposed. Intervention is unnecessary, what is necessary is for people to stop whining about there being no consensus or no process or that things haven't been done "properly" and either accept the situation as is or figure out how to improve the rollback process, which this poll is not doing – Gurch 09:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's simply spinning the facts. The problem is that although most people are willing to support rollback in some form, that does not translate to a consensus that we should have rollback. I'm willing to support an autogranted no-process rollback, but strong oppose the current system and would prefer we have none. Others strongly support an RfA type of rollback, but would strongly oppose an autogranted one and would prefer none. There is simply no consensus for anything, and until there is, Wikipedia policy and practice demands the status-quo. That has been disgustingly disregarded - and it is outrageous for people who have got their way without consensus to blame those who oppose it for the disruption and effectively say that the solution is for silent acceptance. NO. The solution was for people not to have started this process whilst there was ongoing discussion and no-consensus. That was, and remains, the disruption.--Docg 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh, the proportions in this poll seem pretty similar to how the situation seemed before. Almost everyone wants rollback, there is less certainty over how it should be implemented. The only person who is picking the difficult position and asking for rollback yet refusing to have any kind of approval process, even a "can I have it? yes, here you go" kind, is you. – Gurch 10:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No. You are spinning again. The poll is the same as before currently 85 "support a rollback as we have it" 49 "no process" and 16 "no rollback". You cannot add the 85 and the 45 together and declare a consensus for "some for of rollback" since many who are included in those numbers would rather have none than a rollback with a different mechanism to their choice. I have consistently opposed process- that's why I want rollback given automatically or not at all. However, we currently have this bastard system that has no consensus. As long as we have it, I will make the best of it, which is to grant rollback to anyone who asks me without any process whatsoever. But I still oppose the system of admin right to grant.--Docg 10:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am convinced that most of those 49 – if not everyone except you – would vastly prefer any kind of rollback at all to nothing, but if given the choice would prefer it to be given to anyone. That is the impression given by earlier discussion – Gurch 10:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not me. My order of preference would be: all users get rollback, then no users get rollback, then needless process that awards rollback to most, but not all, users. Not trying to be disagreeable, just saying for what it's worth. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally would prefer no rollback than it granted in the current manner and I'm definitely not the only one. Please don't make those sort of assumptions. -Halo (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
What is needed is to explicitly ask these sort of questions, not to have either side spin results their way. ie. (A) Is the tool useful?: yes/no/other; (B) Is the tool a big deal?: yes/no/other; (C) Should the option to give people rollbacker rights be turned on on en-wiki?: yes/no/other; (D) What should have the tool?: (i) Both humans and bots (ii) Only humans (iii) Only bots; (E) How many should have the tool?: Anyone/no-one/limited numbers (for the amount of limitation, see next question) - ask the question for both (i) humans and (ii) bots (the rest of the questions apply to humans only); (F) How limited should the numbers be?: low entry barrier (eg. autoconfirmed) or higher entry barrier (selection method to be determined); (G) Who should grant rollback rights and who should take them away?: anyone/admins/bureaucrats; (H) Should the request and selection process be determined before or after the function is switched on?: before/after; (I) Is another poll required to approve the policy and decide between various different selection methods, or should those be developed by normal means? more polling/go ahead. It gets more complicated the further you get down the decision tree, but it is not impossible to set up a poll like this to get clearer answers to key questions. Carcharoth (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That is rational, but, well, only some questions were asked recently related to the rollback process and consensus is in chaos - wouldn't those questions take an infinity to answer based on the current practical situation? -- Mentifisto 12:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Exit strategy

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

We'll use consensus to establish this. If that's uncertain, we'll use consensus to establish whether there's consensus. And if that's uncertain, we'll use consensus to establish whether there's consensus that there's consensus. The developers, the Foundation, ArbCom and Jimbo all choose to defer to the community on this issue. —Ashley Y 10:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
?– Gurch 11:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Did we straight vote on the main page and 3rr? People keep saying we don't vote, but then people keep saying it seems we do. Where are we going to sit down 1500 users, who all have equal standing, and have any sort of useful consensus discussion? Lawrence Cohen 13:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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

That's why we can remove it. You are aware that the tool existed long before it was available to non-admins right? John Reaves 11:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Rules and guidelines for using rollback already exist, too. Administrators have used this tool to efficiently deal with vandalism for years. It is merely a far more efficient version of the scripts that non-administrators have been using, and is no more likely to encourage abuse than those – Gurch 11:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
An admin tool is one thing. A tool for every Tom Dick and Harry, as I have indicated in my post above, is quite another. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Use it, love it

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

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

Rollback and edit rate:technical question

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

I tested on my alternate account, and after 5 rollbacks (in a few seconds), the rollbacker gets the MediaWiki:Actionthrottledtext message. I assume you can rollback only 5 times every minute. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! This seems to indicate that giving rollback to autoconfirmed users isn't a big security risk. Kusma (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Utterly invalid

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

  • Most definitely agree with Doc. Can we close this and move on some other way? Any poll which is amended after being opened should simply be declared invalid. Hiding T 12:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The first section was changed because it was incorrect - yesterday only admins gave away rollbacks, that's why you can't say that the community decides it. And I don't think the community would do it RfA-style - that would take a lot of time and it is more bureaucratic than the current one (besides, aren't you against any kind of process? It would be worse community-decided, no?). -- Mentifisto 12:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of going "me too" I agree with you that this poll is doomed. -Halo (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The other option has also changed "Page-moves are granted to all registered users after four days - although rollback could be whatever time (days, weeks, months) is subsequently agreed." from being "autoconfirmed" users. More confusion. *sigh* -Halo (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This poll performs very poorly as a consensus-building tool, and doesn't adhere to even the most minimal standards of democratic voting procedures (i.e. don't change what people voted for after they voted). It is useless. Kusma (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking to see if a detailed poll (ie. 5+ questions) has been done before. While reading the background, I discovered that the technicalities of rollback throw up some interesting options - eg. have it as an option in the user preferences, turn on rollback in the background but not have visible links (ie. people can only access rollback through scripts), and so on. But I'd be happy to put my detailed poll above on a "draft poll" page and also try and weed out all the different arguments people have made over the course of the discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

It would be interesting if you did, being that Jimbo "ordered" it. Equazcion /C 12:56, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Close it. Start a fresh where the topics are not changed every 7 votes or so. Eat cookies. Be happy. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Now, Cookies are the first proposal to stem from this drama that I think everyone will agree with. But what kind of cookies...? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I support the cookie proposal!! KnowledgeOfSelf for president WP:JIMBO! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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

  • About 65% of people are willing to back the current admin-based system.
    • However, amongst these it is not unnecessarily their first choice
  1. some (%unknown) would prefer autoconfirmed rollback
  2. some (%unknown) would prefer more safeguards - more like a mini-RfA
  • About 35% of people oppose the current admin-based system.
    • However, amongst those
  1. some (%unknown) oppose all non-admin rollback
  2. some (%unknown) would be willing to support but only if an autoconfirmed roll-back
  3. some (%unknown) would support, but only if more safeguards
  • Some (%unknown) don't give a rat's arse

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

If you're going to analyse it, then I'd like to vote. :) It's a poll that defeats analysis somewhat, since it appears people were voting for multiple options and the like. A far better poll would be a two stage poll, a simple yes I would like some sort of rollback for non-admins, and no I would not like that, and then list some options. We've done this before, but I forget where. Hiding T 13:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That poll would not do. Because I'd need to know what the form of option is before I said yes or no. I can't answer your first question until the second one is answered. A poll isn't going to help, that's why I'm trying a vaguer analyses.--Docg 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been clearer. I am NOT trying to analyse THIS poll. I'm trying one the basis of the last one, this one, and the discussion to work out where we are at. If we know where we are, it is easier to work out where we want to be.--Docg 13:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Ok, now seriously.

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

  • I made that point at the proposal. If all the people who supported the rollback proposal "voted" at RFA every day, we wouldn't have this problem. There was enough support there to pass each non-admin. The worrying conclusion I draw from this is that a lot of contributors are getting rollback whom the community doesn't trust. Hiding T 13:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And just a thought, but how long before someone's lack of having had rollback issued is made a cause to oppose at RFA. Hiding T 13:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, I made that point only yesterday, that I expect to seeing RfA's nose dive due to perceived misuse of the rollback tool, or that it wasn't granted etc etc etc. Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft for new poll about rollback tool

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

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

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

Thanks for the attempt. I could pick so many holes in it, tough/ Best just to say that polls TEH SUX.--Docg 13:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please pick a few holes in it. I promise not to pick holes in your holes. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
What about just asking question (C)? Or rather, what if we ask something along the lines of "Should rollback be made available to non-administrators in some way?" Simple question, should be easy to answer, and if we get a clear majority of yes-votes, then we can decide on the how. If we don't, well, then there's no need to think about the how, anyways. --Conti| 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sequential polls? That might work. Keep them short and wait for overwhelming agreement from both sides, and then gradually move towards the more divisive questions. That really has a chance of working, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist advertisement

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

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

Attempt to halt polling and restart discussion on polling

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

Well done Carcharoth. Discussion first. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. hehe. Equazcion /C 13:53, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I undid you. IAR, etc., and a desire to see things actually happen. Lawrence Cohen 13:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry too! I undid you, see my edit summary for details. I won't revert again, but this is getting downright silly. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
NO! Please. Edit warring over polls is the lamest thing possible. Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Mmmm I thought that edit warring over this was the lamest thing possible. But you are right this comes close, which is why I won't revert again. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence, You are aware you reverted to a poll that wiped out the previous poll that you had started, right? Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I fixed it. I think on major things affecting hundreds if not all users people need to use common sense and check their IAR at the door as inappropriate. No offense to anyone specific. There's no consensus I see to stop this thing, given over 100 people have participated. Lawrence Cohen 14:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No poll is going to help us at this stage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Polls may, or may not, be inherently evil. However, in this complex discussion, whatever our views, it is evident that polling is a waste of time:


  1. --Docg 13:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Bpeps (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Without an uninvolved neutral mediator this will not be settled before half of us are eventually blocked for edit warring or disruption. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)



  1. A poll on the talk page of a poll? That is beyond silly. Why not just Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote/Preliminary vote? Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) If that link turns blue, I give up!
  2. (e/c) Erm, Hey Doc, you are awesome dude. But a poll to determine if a poll should be taken? Silliness. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. I think this was an attempt at humor. Not bad either. Equazcion /C 13:54, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Discussion for the sake of discussing about discussing is evil

  1. More so than voting, which sometimes just gets a damn thing done. Lawrence Cohen 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pressing rollback lights up a rollback colored button that says "DO NOT PRESS THIS BUTTON AGAIN"

  1. Support: Obviously. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Voting and changing questions


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

Changing questions

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

closing this poll

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


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

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

Suggested format

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

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

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

We pretty much already had that. What was the sense in clearing the page and starting again? Equazcion /C 14:02, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Replacing the poll with a new ones just increased the drama several notches. I attempted to calm things down by blanking and directing people here to allow discussion and then a restart later (note that I linked to the two previous polls, keeping things transparent). What I'm going to do now is take a deep breath and walk away for a few hours. I suggest anyone thinking of edit warring over the poll does the same. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I blanked again. Whatever should be happening, this new poll isn't it. Either restore the original poll or keep discussion going here on the talk page for now. Replacing one poll with a new identical poll is just idiotic. Equazcion /C 14:09, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)


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

alleged consensus

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

Utterly invalid, I presume. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Six people in the middle of the night isn't ever consensus on something this scale, it's an irrelevant knitting circle. Editors here aren't autistic, and know how to click the Discussion/Talk button. If people didn't want the vote to run they'd let us know. Lawrence Cohen 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Middle of the night? It's bright daylight here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe to you. ;) But its still a small morning knitting circle. Lawrence Cohen 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring?

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

It should be reverted to the last version before that 18 option one was put in before blanking. Lawrence Cohen 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be the m:wrong version. Edit warring is an indication the poll is broken. There are valid concerns about the poll. It should be stopped and marked invalid because people changed the wording during the voting phase. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Please stop right now. SQLQuery me! 14:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my revert, I thought I was reverting the new poll. I'm in favor of keeping the old one, at least as opposed to the new one. Equazcion /C 14:17, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia, or the Jerry Springer Show?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For the love of $DEITY what are you guys doing!

Let me see if I have this right....

  1. We can't agree if/how rollback should be granted
  2. We can't agree on what constitutes consensus
  3. We can't agree on how to agree on what constitutes consensus
  4. We can't agree on ANYTHING.

So we are now at the point where we are arguing on how to judge consensus, and several different polls are produced and rejected.

I suspect that by tommorow we will have 20 different polls, and be unable to reach a consensus on which to use. Doubtless at that point, we will have a poll on which poll to use (and doubtless several alternative polls that we won't agree on).

If a discussion involving a very high proportion of admins, and editors in good standing deteriorates like this, then one has to question whether the lunatics are running the asylum.

The issues have been done to death, and opinions aren't going to change, so for good or bad, some form of poll is necessary. No matter how hard we try, the poll will never please everybody in its construction. We could argue till the end of time, and still end up with some people saying that there is no consensus on the method to be used for consensus judging.

So, we have three options;

  1. Go with a poll (any poll), including a "this is not a fair poll" option. If this option gets 10% of votes, the poll was flawed, and we try again. Accepting that a 2:1 supermajority is a reasonable definition of consensus here.
  2. Ask Arbcom to agree the poll that we are to use, and accept their view.
  3. Accept that we have grown beyond consensus decision making and ask Arbcom to decide.

The further down the list you go the less attractive the options seem!

Above all, there is a serious need to remember that we are just writing an encyclopedia here, and that this really isn't as big a deal as some people imagine.

Let's all chill out to a huge degree, and stop making ourselves look silly

Mayalld (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To late. Tiptoety talk 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia

  1. Enigmaman (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. There's nothing new here. It has all the prerequisites of a successful proposal: a)the old vote/consensus debate, b)edit warring, c)Jimbo saying something that makes things even worse, and d)a satirical poll making fun of the proceedings. This happens every time anyone tries to get anything done. This is Wikipedia. Kafziel Talk 17:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the Jerry Springer Show

  1. Equazcion /C 14:57, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  2. Tiptoety talk 15:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Afraid so :( Stifle (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


  1. Random832 14:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Coreycubed (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Gurch 15:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. - yeah !!--Cometstyles 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. нмŵוτнτ 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. {{#expr:300 x #~~~~}} :D --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. -- Cat chi? 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  8.  — master sonT - C 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Enigmaman (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. BJTalk 20:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This Is Radio Clash

  1. Caknuck (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Wow, I don't get why this is so difficult. I suspect people wouldn't mind as much if the messages weren't showing up daily, only to have participating rendered worthless. Enigmaman (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pure madness - managed to post some stuff on TOR and IP without getting noticed. Lets really get these arguments moving so that we all burn out, leave the trolls to troll (yes because they are watching this with glee), we all settle for an Arbcom which will say it has been successful and was properly polled and we all end up sorting out the last five days of shit which we missed. Bpeps (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:CIVIL still a policy

Hiding T 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Hopefully but now we know what would happen without it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS are only minor points. We will all rant iuntil we realise it wasn't a bad thing. We do that. We waste time arguing when we could surely be making WP:Wikilove with each other. Join in. Start a new tangent which joins both groups together against you and they will all forget it was a lil button which some kid could ask for and if he messed with it, it got undone, Rome was saved and he could get the button back next week. Bpeps (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Or we could just give it to everyone, or everyone with x amount of edits, and just block people if they abuse it. There's so many better, cleaner ways of doing it that could avoid a lot of the process creep we've got right now. But, you know, we like arguing. It saves having to write the encyclopedia. Hiding T 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop it

There is NO demonstrated consensus to stop the vote that Jimbo called for. Lawrence Cohen 14:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to overturn the result of the previous votes. Polling is not for fishing for "the right" result. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
What section here has wide consensus? I don't see it. Show me. Lawrence Cohen 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus for the poll that Jimbo called for. Equazcion /C 14:17, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
So you claim. 100+ people contributing to it says otherwise. Show me where there was no consensus for it to run--where did people say NO to it happening? Lawrence Cohen 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No such thing as consensus rejection. Rejection is a lack of consensus. Burden of proof of consensus is on those who claim acceptance. Equazcion /C 14:20, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I claim proof of consensus for the vote to run based on everyone using it cheerfully, aside from process wankery back here, and Jimbo calling for it, and no significant outcry against it. There. Go vote, then write a FA. Lawrence Cohen 14:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
People voting is not proof of consensus. People are voting because a vote is occurring. That doesn't change the fact that there was no consensus for it to be begin. It happened because Jimbo called for it. That's not consensus. Equazcion /C 14:24, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence, whatever Jimbo meant, I'm sure he didn't mean for the poll to be tweaked and changed during the voting phase. There is ample precedent for protecting the questions and transcluding them from another page. There is also ample precedent for discussing the wording of a poll before starting it. Hastily worded, snap polls rarely produce good results. Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Any poll which is amended during voting is typically null. Beyond that, please read this talk page. This is not a poll which has consensus. Do we really want a situation where we poll on the consensus as to the validity of this poll? Let the community decide how to poll, the suffrage, the questions and the polling time. Hiding T 14:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not the poll Jimbo called for, in fact, he specifically said the community should decide the parameters of the poll,[3] which it is claimed did not happen here. Hiding T 14:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In full, Jimbo said:

"If there is a poll already in existence, then they can discuss whether it meets the standards for sufficient consensus to turn the feature on. They might decide to ask for a broader poll, or a poll on a slightly different question, or, or, or..."

For the record. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thyat's my point. He specifically said the community should decide on the poll. Or am I completely misreading his words? Hiding T 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict times infinity, since I didn't realize this didn't go through and went to post on Jimbo's talk before coming back to an error page. This is in response to "There is NO demonstrated consensus to stop the vote that Jimbo called for.") Did Jimbo call for this vote in this specific format (if so, it was ill-specified, since people don't seem to know if they're allowed to specify second choices or not), or did he just call for "a" vote? —Random832 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom level vote

Is it going to take something as big and structured as an Arbcom vote (stop calling it a poll) to get people to stop edit warring over the page itself?Lawrence Cohen 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people disagree that another vote should be held. By "stop edit warring" you really mean "stop going against my version of what should be on this page". You participated in the edit war. Equazcion /C 14:31, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I reverted vandalism, to be frank. Lawrence Cohen 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ha. Equazcion /C 14:36, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Bout sums it up, yeah. Voting is not evil if nothing else will reasonably work. Lawrence Cohen 14:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion. It doesn't render your opponents' versions vandalism. You have an opinion and you edit warred over it. Equazcion /C 14:40, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Your edits played a role in discarding the opinions of over 100 editors. Whose is the greater sin? Lawrence Cohen 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sin? That's good. You weren't warring with me, so don't count me as part of this. I apologized for my revert because I thought I was reverting something else. You edit warred, it's as simple as that. Comparing your version to the other is irrelevant. Lots of people defend warring by saying "my version makes more sense". That doesn't make their actions any less edit warring. Equazcion /C 14:46, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Look, there was zero support anywhere to blow the vote, that over a hundred people had already contributed to, is my only point. The people that are the troublemakers (I don't care who now) are the ones who took it upon themselves to nuke the operation, and then made sure it would turn into a protected edit war to lock it down. They should be ashamed of themselves, for deciding they are more important than everyone else--had they done that on another vote, like RFA or the AC elections, they would have been blocked. Lawrence Cohen 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If there was zero support to "blow the vote" the page wouldn't be protected now. RfA is a process that has consensus to operate. You edit warred. You are one of "the troublemakers". Get over it. Equazcion /C 14:50, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You have 48 hours

In which to settle your differences. Stupidest edit war I can remember seeing, and I've watched some pretty dumb ones. Congratulations to the edit-warriors on the winning my Prize Juggins Award, given out monthly. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. One thing to watch out for is people copy-pasting the poll to a new page and restarting the poll? Or even restarting the poll on another page? That would be a type of forking. However, blanking and protecting feels like you are protecting in your preferred version (it's mine as well, but I'm sticking to the talk page after the one attempt I made to edit the page - excepting my vote). Just be aware that some people will object to protecting in the current blank state. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you do everyone a favour and extend the protection indefinitely? – Gurch 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove from Watchlist

Who needs to be bribed to get the notice that currently appears on the Watchlist about this removed? Until the final form of the poll is resolved, if ever, the notice does more damage than good. --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Support :) Equazcion /C 14:32, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I clicked the "Dismiss" button or not, but, it's not showing up on mine (I was just going to remove it) SQLQuery me! 14:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Done this. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Can has Image:Lolrollback.jpgs on pages plz?

  1. Random832 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Don't know why that would be removed, seeing as it's the only thing everyone agrees on. Equazcion /C 14:34, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support. If nothing else then to show that the only thing we can agree on is an image of a cute white cat. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've done this. Please note that any administrator who removes the cat will be editing a protected page against consensus, and will most likely be desysopped :) Cheers, Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please remove this ridiculous picture; this process is a big enough joke as it is. If anybody is ever going to take this process seriously, the image is not going to help them get there. - auburnpilot talk 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Lighten up. Seriously.  :-) If you can't laugh at yourself, you're doing something wrong. And I haven't seen much to indicate people aren't taking this seriously enough. If anything, the opposite: People are acting like this is the end of the world. The drama doesn't help. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


I've started a draft at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Draft poll. Edit away to reach a consensus poll/vote. Hiding T 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've linked to this from the current main voting page. Thank you. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Hiding, this should set us on the right track. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks Moreschi. Hiding T 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunset clause

I previously mentioned the idea, but I forgot where. It might also be an idea to implement a sunset clause on the permission so that we can try it out for a longer period of time and see just what, exactly the effect will be. I'd say two months would be sufficient to test the thing out— as it is implemented currently— and, after that point, it is deactivated and things go back to the way it was before the change. Then, a couple of days after that, we start a new discussion to come to a final decision on whether to re-enable it permanently, tweak any minor issues, and solidify a policy. That way, we can hope to have rational discussion and not a hodgepodge of proposals, we can base it on evidence from field testing, and we can figure out if it's the best course of action. I would advise against use of Watchlist-notice again, though, because it clearly helps to turn discussions into polls. --slakrtalk / 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ad infinitum - the debate has been what do we say to the editors who have been given the tool and had it taken off them? Does everybody who granted them status have to explain in detail that Wikipedia is just getting worse and we can't be bothered to write and do the things you do because for the next three weeks we are going to work out the wording of the template we stick on your talk page saying that we have remove a button from the history list? Bpeps (talk)
Where has this been tried before... Nakon 18:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there was no agreed-upon sunset date— what happened there was a change was made without consensus and implemented indefinitely (with no forced ending date)... kind of like what many have argued happened here. --slakrtalk / 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
And yet, Wikipedia did not explode due to that change. Imagine that. Nakon 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope Wikipedia won't explode and in a day or two we will be fine. The consensus arguement is really what it boils down to. Mmmmmm consensus has been arbitary for a long time ;-) The people have been given special rollback need to have been told that it wasnt done and dusted. if they do get to keep them when nobody else can (as mentioned above) do they become demi-admin and have a userbox? dunno Bpeps (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Is it not vandalism to blank the project page, put up a picture of a cat and full protect it? Bstone (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done — I removed it, because this is highly unprofessional. I would suggest that fellow admins do not continue on this course, but I'm not going to revert any more, so it's up to them. --slakrtalk / 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think any unprofessionalism here has been in the content and process of the discussion, not the presence or absence of a cat. In fact I like many others found the rolcat amusing, witty, and a helpful reminder that this is a hobby (not a profession) for all of us. We are in danger of taking ourselves too seriously. I don't have the admin buttons to restore the cat, nor would I if I had. But for me the image stood for the notion that I could argue seriously and with commitment, yet also enjoy myself here and enjoy the creativity of others. I honestly believe that Wikipedia is a better place for jags of light relief such as this. kthxbai, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that the cat is gone, how about restoring the project page? Bstone (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia isn't professional, that's why we don't get paid. I found the cat to be a positive reminder that we all need to keep a sense of humor about this. Furthermore every vote held about its inclusion turned only supportive votes. It would be nice if one admin that disagrees wouldn't take it upon himself to remove it despite that. Equazcion /C 18:36, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Rollcat was an important part of the project page because it was the only thing we could agree on. Some progress has been made now though - at least we appear to have a sort of consensus on the framework. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The cat needed to go, and thanks to Slakr for doing it. This may not be a paid profession, and we may not need to take ourselves seriously 100% of the time, but this is not the place for witty joke images; we should attempt to maintain some type of professional decorum. This entire process has been absurdly chaotic, and the cat was seriously unprofessional. - auburnpilot talk 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If we don't take ourselves seriously 100% of the time, then this is one of those rare occasions where we shouldn't. If we ever needed a reminder to refrain from petty wars, this is it. I can't think of a more appropriate situation to ease up on the seriousness. Equazcion /C 18:45, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Then we'll simply have to agree to disagree, because I can't think of a better way to make a mockery out of those attempting to move this process forward. - auburnpilot talk 18:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it not vandalism to blank the picture of a cat without proper consensus? Coreycubed (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No good faith edit is vandalism. It wasn't vandalism to blank/protect the page, and it wasn't vandalism to remove the image. - auburnpilot talk 18:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then it's page blanking. I think it's a warnable offense. Blanking the page reeks of an attempt to derail the voting process. It rubs me the wrong way and I see it as anti-community. Bstone (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's clearly vandalism. I've reported it as such. Moreschi has grossly overstepped his mandate. Bstone (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. It's not vandalism. Maybe it was ill-judged behaviour, but it's a long way from being vandalism. (Personally I think we should have kept the cat - it's more use than the poll at present.) WaltonOne 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The cat was actually reinserted by Moreschi after a small vote here (don't laugh - it was the only civil part of what has happened here today). To remove it was to revert Moreschi while the page is fully protected. Some would claim that required Moreschi's approval. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought the cat being on the project page was very apropos and represented the absurdity of the whole process. Enigmaman (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
While I thought the cat was funny, I also think the people who don't like it were acting in good faith by removing it. Why does it have to be one or the other? Does NAR/RFR just attract people who can only see things in dichotomies or something? • I'd also like to point out that people tend to assume humor is exclusive to "serious" or "professional". I can't say that's the case, and I think it's sad that some do think so. If "the media" see us laughing at ourselves, so what? Better to have people understand that Wikipedia is a product of its community. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The image serves no constructive purpose, and if anything is inflammatory to the situation. I consider myself to be one of the most laid back people in the world and have a decent sense of humor; in fact, I frequently try to inject humor into overly serious conversations, but there's a time and a place for everything. This page has been linked from elsewhere and was widely publicized in {{Watchlist-notice}}, so it was widely publicized to the public. A fully-protected page with nothing on it but a lolcat sends the wrong message about this project and begs any news organization having a slow day to run a story about "Wikipedia collapses" or some other nonsense. We're able to have fun, yes, but the power isn't in that— it's in knowing when to have fun, and the site of a trainwreck isn't the best place to be hopping around playing. --slakrtalk / 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthere's comment

See here, where she tells us to chill and do our job without looking for decision help from Jimbo, Arbcom or the foundation. I find myself in complete agreement with her approach to the issue. Kusma (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This should have never risen to such high a level of drama. It's just a tool that makes things easier. Chill out. Nakon 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Like many who have been granted +rollbacker in the last couple of days, I've been using it to revert vandalism just as I previously used TW. Guess what? Vandalism is being reverted (a bit more quickly), warnings issued, vandals are still be reported to AIV and being blocked where appropriate.
In short the world hasn't ended. The business of the 'pedia continues, just as it did on January 8. Xdenizen (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


So I've scanned the various pages and found there are 1119 different users who at one point or another have chimed in on this issue. I think it would be good to notify those users (as obviously there are people who !voted in one poll and not the other.). My proposed wording is "Previously you have commented on an issue relating to the rollback function of Wikipedia. Currently there is a discussion going on [[x]] that you may be interested in participating in." Anyone object or can improve this wording? MBisanz talk 20:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What should they comment on at the moment? Nothing needs to be done right now. Kusma (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I dragged this over from another page that was archived, what I mean is that when this new poll Jimbo suggested finally gets together, then a notification of all the people should be made. MBisanz talk 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't necessary. When there is something to comment on, another watchlist advertisement will be posted. Posting on everyone's talk pages is overkill. Equazcion /C 21:06, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Eh, maybe, but when this msot recent poll was held, a number of people seemed to feel it was getting swept under the rug with th elow-degree of visibility it had. I'm sure there will be plenty of time to figure this out, if we can ever decide what method to use to organize the task force that will review the proposals for the dialect of English to be used in the new poll. MBisanz talk 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support notification of all who already participated. And when/if the aforemented "final" vote goes up, I'd hope that anyone disrupting it is encouraged to stop, the same as if they were disrupting any other official process the community is participating in. Lawrence Cohen 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent idea. Bstone (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I support this too. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be in and out through next Thursday, so I created a page here with the names User:Mbisanz/RollbackNotify its in AWB readable format, not that this will be near that stage by then. MBisanz talk 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make up your minds

Could those who have actually tried to reach a consensus please be informed about when and where such work can take place without being shutdown only a few hours later? The poll that was first shutdown after over 100 votes, the ridiculous edit war after the second try and then the shutdown of the 3rd attempt initially approved by Moreschi. Can you tell us at what point we should stop laughing at this display of WikiPolitics and actually get some work done? Thank you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you also please remove the link to the now shutdown debate? You know... so this doesn't look like it is being run by complete novices. Thank you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Give it up man, the thought police have spoken. No dissent allowed. Hiding T 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I was pretty surprised that the draft page was shut down. That was pretty fucking stupid, if you'll pardon my french. I believe we're supposed to now use this talk page instead. I don't know why. Equazcion /C 21:42, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
It was a meta-poll, for the love of Pete. Terrible process wonkery if you ask me. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you come to the conclusion that it was a poll? It was a discussion on how to make a poll. How else are we supposed to create polls where people won't change the options while people are already voting? --Conti| 21:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We revert them. Honestly, if people can't use the talk page instead of being dicks and mussing up a poll in-progress, then I fear for us all. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine in theory, but it hasn't worked before, which why the draft poll page got created in the first place. --Conti| 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
So we make it work. We tell users that if they don't like the options available they can take a hike (to the talk page where we'll carefully and respectfully consider their opinions and modify the poll as warranted), or we agree on a poll before holding a vote. But I don't like that as much. No, scratch that, it may be too late for that. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You do know that the draft poll page was the page where we were about to agree on a poll before holding a vote, right? Your first option resulted in an minor edit war, so that's why the second option was tried, which was now shut down, too. So now what? --Conti| 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Make a better poll. Question: Do you like the status quo? Yes/No. Gauge responses, and narrow it down to what people want to change, if anything. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You know, someone might disagree with you whether that's a "better poll". I, personally, don't think that's a good question to ask, for example. What's the status quo? Giving users rollback per WP:RFR, or not having rollback for non admins at all? The question might confuse people, and is therefore, in my humble opinion, not a very good one to ask. There was a splendid page to discuss these things, but it got closed down recently. I had my own proposal for what to ask, which as almost as simple as yours, but it's gone now, of course. --Conti| 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That was just an example. Of course we would want to be a little more explanatory so users understand the situation better and can make an informed decision. And the status quo would be WP:RFR (I don't know how many admins have granted rollback outside of that). --Merovingian (T, C) 22:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
So why don't we set up a page where we can discuss these things and come to a consensus on a good wording that we will ask the community in a big poll eventually? Seriously, what's wrong with that? And I personally think that calling something "status quo" that got introduced under lots of controversy just a very short while ago is.. well, not quite right. But that's besides the point, anyways. --Conti| 22:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to that. But we should keep it goal-oriented, which is where I think Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote failed. You had too many people chiming in with their own ideas and not working together, and the page became much less than the sum of its parts. Let's try to focus on developing something stable on which to vote. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Yes, Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote failed, but I'm talking about Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Draft poll. But I agree, lets focus on making a good poll (and not on adding silly pictures of cats). So, should we set up another page, or should we discuss here? --Conti| 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just go for a new subpage. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's fine by me, I guess, but why the heck got the first one closed in the first place? And who says that another admin isn't going to close that page, too? That seems somewhat likely to me right now, and greatly diminishes my motivation to work on this. --Conti| 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Nakon closed the draft poll, which was admittedly out of process. As long as we can make progress, I'll stand up to anybody trying to close it. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of peace and quiet how about waiting until tomorrow or even Sunday? There seems to be a slow down in the number of new promotions (just an estimate from reading the log - it is subjective and I could be wrong...) so maybe this will turn out to be a non-issue once the last obvious candidates have been promoted. EconomicsGuy (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I had noticed that myself, actually. I made the point a couple days back that things were beginning to slow down and that some big process would become unnecessary. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we made good progress on the draft poll page. Oh, well, I think waiting a little bit is not a bad idea. I'm just afraid someone will do something bold in the meantime, be it reopening the discussion or poll, or closing it, or declaring consensus either way, or setting up watchlist notices for.. well, whatever, which all would result in even more chaos. --Conti| 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And who asked you? Or anyone? This new practice of one person taking it upon himself to just shut something down based on absolutely no discussion is really aggravating and disheartening. Equazcion /C 21:55, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
So re-open the discussion if you think it was closed prematurely, and make a decent effort to improve that discussion. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Reopened. Equazcion /C 22:06, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
For the betterment of the project, the /draftpoll and /Vote pages shall stay closed for at least the next three months. There is widespread consensus among administrators to do this, and frankly, it is the most common sense approach. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Where is this widespread consensus being reached? Because there sure as hell weren't widespread consensus earlier today on any forum. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the decision (three months sounds a bit much, tho), but where is this "widespread consensus among adminstrators"? I am an admin, too, and I must've missed the memo. --Conti| 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite possibly IRC, but no-one is allowed to mention that because of cabal rules. Hiding T 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Someone go remove Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Draft poll from the See Also. ALLSTARecho 21:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. It must seem very confusing to people who are stumbling upon this mess for the first time. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Lolrollback.jpg Now, someone go put rollcat back on there! ALLSTARecho 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Equazcion /C 22:04, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Not done. No. This isn't a humor page, and it makes us look foolish. --slakrtalk / 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Allstar, that cat picture is getting irritating now. Yeah, we all agree we like it and we can't agree on much else, but this joke is starting to run out of steam IMHO. There's a whole bunch of stuff to do round here and the cat thing is kind of low on the list. Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The cat diminishes from the seriousness of this. Bstone (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that's exactly what we need. And I disagree that it's lost its humor, I disagree that it makes us look foolish, and I'm not even sure who we're trying to impress. I think everything else that's happened here makes us look foolish, if anything. I think constantly closing discussions every two hours is truly foolish. I even think Jimbo is foolish for suggesting to have the community re-vote after we just made them do that already. But hey that's just me. Equazcion /C 22:14, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
It's just a little bit of silliness. We don't exactly come across as human when we try to stamp out any vestige of humor. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A bit of humour is nice, but when the image is used in half a dozen pages concerning rollback already, it gets kinda lame. --Conti| 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If you've got a better image, I'd be glad to put it in the userbox. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
But if people find it offensive/inflammatory, and it's a high-visibility page, I don't feel that it needs to be there if it's non-constructive. --slakrtalk / 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's just a cat Slakr, who's gonna be offended? Mice? ;) Xdenizen (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (multiple ec) This total disaster of implementation and discussion makes us look foolish. Let's not add to it with people that think this is some kind of internet game. My Space, Facebook, You Tude and all that crap are a hyperlink away. I'm going to drop my usual civility here. Fucking around with a pointless tired internet meme about a cat is not improving the encyclopedia. Shame on editors that think their input on defending something so utterly trivial is a good thing. If it's honestly that important to you to reinstate a poxy picture of a cat can I respectfully suggest Wikipedia is not the best place for you. Sorry to be rude, but let's fix this whole sodding mess like adults not children. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Party pooper! ALLSTARecho 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the point. This isn't a party. It's an enyclopedia. What do you not understand about that? Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the same thing you don't understand about lightening up... ALLSTARecho 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you don't understand that repeated rubbish about a joke picture is not the reason we edit here. I'm all for WP:COMMUNITY but you seem to think this site is some kind of social networking web 2.0. Per Kim below, RC patrol is a better use of your time please. Pedro :  Chat  22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say the ratio of noncatposts to catposts is a good 15:1, at least. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The thing with the cat mirrors the thing with the poll: we're acting out disagreement, hurt, disappointment and frustration. I don't believe anyone in the last two days has shown bad faith, all have been trying to do their best. But in the absence of an authoritarian parent figure to control us (or unite us in opposition to it), and in the absence of any other effective power structure, that's inevitable from time to time. In a radical experiment in decision-making like Wikipedia, there are bound to be times when it all goes tits up: this was one. My suggestion would be that we do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for a week. No polls or metapolls, no calls for the cat to return/be humanely destroyed. Let's just see what happens with these buttons. If disaster strikes, I'm sure there's a big red reset button somewhere that can be pushed. Let's chill out, edit some articles, revert some vandalism, patrol the new pages and come back in a week and see if we're still here. I'm off to pour a Laphroaig. Cheers! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but there are people in real life who don't think the same way you do. I wish they did, but they see well-intentioned jokes as mockery of either themselves or their hard work. It's not our place to force them to lighten up. --slakrtalk / 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Improving an article to featured status is hard work. Bickering about policy minutiae isn't. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

Kim, I agree with the week wait thing. I brought a big red button for you; don't worry, free image --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And once again it degenerates into flame war. Look, I like the cat, I keep an image of the friggin' cat on my user page but this really isn't helping the greater cause which is to unite the factions here without being shut down. And yes, I was among those who opposed the process wonkery but at least I'm trying to seek a comprimise. All I see from above is the usual silence the people with your admin bit tactic. How do you think that makes Wikipedia look? EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect - 1} This is not a flame war. 2) Where did I mention an admin bit? 3) How is this helping? Let's drop this and move on. This is just pointless and not relevant. Pedro :  Chat  22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
With due respect - 1) can you not see the incivility in the above debate? 2) That wasn't aimed at you and you should know that if you read this thread in its entirety. The reference was to the shutting down per widespread consensus among admins. 3) My point exactly. Reread my comment. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
1)&2)&3) Yep, let's move on. Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. I think we are all worn out by this now. I'll follow Kim Dent-Brown's example. Let's just drop this whole thing. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Instead of a blank page, how about we restore the last good version and archive it? It certainly seems worthy of being included in the archives. Bstone (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in the history. No need to archive something that may be restored to its original state. If it's decided not to continue the vote in its original state, then it should be archived. ALLSTARecho 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It does not seem that this will be reopened any time soon. Thus, until then, please archive the page instead of leaving it in a blank form. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.