Jump to content

Wikipedia:Adminship poll/I

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is rollback rights considered a success?

[edit]

Initially there wasn't much community traction to go ahead with it, but it did anyway. Do you consider it to be a success or failure now? Any lesson we can take from it in future policy-making regarding UserRights?

Yes, it is a success

[edit]
  1. It works better than I thought it would. J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think I initially opposed it when it was first brought up a couple years ago. But it was set up perfectly, and it's worked great. Grandmasterka 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It hasn't turned into a bureacracy, it hasn't seen more than a few isolated incidents of misuse, and it hasn't turned into a clique of trusted users. Mr.Z-man 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A complete success, excepting a few drama queens who think Twinkle is the same. As I said above, we should have RfAs like RfR. Majorly (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Successful, but for the 5 rollbacks a minute limit which is too few. EJF (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Has been very good. Wizardman 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Successful. It should be granted roboticly to established editors but revoked if the editor shows he can't tell the difference between vandalism and a good faith edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Has worked much better than I thought it was going to. Davewild (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bibliomaniac15 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Definitely a success. Captain panda 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes, it seems to be working well. I think the lesson to be learned from it is don't afraid of trying new things. the wub "?!" 21:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. It's settled down. It's making Wikipedia better (well, it's not -but it's helping to make sure Wikipedia doesn't become worse). Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Unqualified success. I wish we would roll out a similar proposal with a +EditProtectedPages or other limited adminship rights. --JayHenry (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, and I agree with JayHenry: more atomised rights would be good, e.g. edit-protected, auto-patrolled. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agree with JayHenry; I'd appreciated EditProtectedPages etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Seems to be running smoothly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. It's been excellent. Acalamari 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Generally so, but the 5/min limit makes it useless for reverting spam. MER-C 02:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Works fine, but I reserve the right to object later. MBisanz talk 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Amazingly. shoy 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Andre (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Seems to work well. Everyking (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Seems to be going along quite smoothly. SQLQuery me! 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I like it. It gives me a quick tool for simple vandalism without the burden of doing administrative tasks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. [Note, I have +rollback, so I may be biased!] I think it's working fine. No misuse that I can think of. I am glad that it hasn't become another bureaucracy though! ><RichardΩ612 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yep. When I remember to use it over Twinkle, which is 100x more functional. Alas... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. It is working fine. (1 == 2)Until 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I think rollback was a good idea and it seems to be working fine. Useight (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. No problems for me. - Philippe 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I requested +rollbacker a couple days after it was first implemented, and since then, I have found it very useful and have not seen any abuse of it that would not have occurred without rollback. The process is simple and efficient, avoiding bureaucracy or drama. Keep rollback as is; it's just another good counter-vandalism tool. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Big success IMO. Other user rights should follow suit (deletion/restoration, blocking/unblocking, etc). RFA is hopelessly broken, but perhaps we can return to it "not (being) a big deal" if we give out the rights slowly and in an orderly fashion (start people off with rollback, over time give them the ability to delete/restore a page if they show interest, and ultimately give them blocking/unblocking). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. It is obvious to me. Malinaccier (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Nakon 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. — Werdna talk 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. It didn't cause any internal chaos. :) Looks to be doing well. Singularity 04:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Absolutely. A clear case of the success of WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. As a proud rollbacker, yes. Editorofthewiki 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Being a rollbacker, my opinion is obviously biased; I do think, however, that non-admin rollbackers should be allowed to do more than 5 rollbacks per minute. At least 10, probably 15 would be better. 5 is just too few for applications such as Twinkle and especially Huggle. J.delanoygabsadds 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Never really saw a problem with it in the beginning, and I still don't. The whirlwind has died down and editor's use it and misuse it - just like any other script. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. - SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. A bit of a controversy at the start, but I think its worked brilliantly in the end. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Yes, it has been a good idea, I find it very useful. I also agree with Locker Cole's ideas above. Noble Story (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Yes. Separating out a tool that makes anti-vandalism easier from the other, more powerful, tools that are rightly reserved to admins has benefited the project. Would like to see further incremental moves in this direction (e.g. some increase in the throttle limit, possibly giving rollbackers access to Special:Unwatchedpages). Philip Trueman (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Yes. I could never put myself through the public hazing of an RfA, but thanks to WP:RFR I was able to gain rollback rights without any lengthy bureaucracy, and I have found them very useful. As far as I am aware, the same is true of many others; the number of cases of 'rollback abuse' is extremely few compared to the number of people who have been granted the right. That, to me, is a sign that the current process works well; I would support extending it with a similar process for gaining the right to edit protected pages. It's about time Wikipedians gave up their newbie-biting attitudes and accepted that the encyclopaedia would be improved if many more people had limited admin rights, not less. Terraxos (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Yes, works fine but really isn't that big a deal. It saves a keystroke or two in reverting obvious vandalism but the inability to leave an informative edit summary is a limitation. Cases of misuse seem rare, and anyone with ill intent can cause just as much damage by typing the extra keystrokes as they could if they had rollback available. A small and very limited tool that offers small and very limited benefits. Happy to have it, wouldn't miss it if it was gone. Euryalus (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Yes ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 09:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I was initially opposed to adding rollback, but now that it's here I'm surprised by how well it's been working. While it's nice to know that I can quickly remove it from users who abuse it, I wouldn't mind having a central location where non-admin users could report abuses as well. --jonny-mt 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Wikipedia did not fail apart because of this; it got stronger. The same thing will happen when protection is given out. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:49Z (UTC)


No, it is a failure

[edit]
  1. -- Naerii 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask why you believe it to be a failure? ><RichardΩ612 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Twinkle offers a much better service with no prior registration. ...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But does that make it a failure? Or is there just an easier way? Malinaccier (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do use rollback a lot, but Twinkle does provide a sufficient replacement, not to mention Twinkle allows for different edit summaries in case the edit is not specifically vandalism. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 22:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others

[edit]
  1. Abstain. I think it's too soon to tell. And I think that it's a tool such that misuse isn't "immediately" obvious. - jc37 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've seen a couple of problems; some editors see it as a "step in their WP career", which is probably a bad thing. A few editors use it inappropriately. that's only a problem if they continue to do it and it's never taken away from them. But then I see similar problems with scripts (which aren't always upto date with policy, or which make biting easier than welcoming.) I dunno if it's actually achieved anything, I'd like to see some statsDan Beale-Cocks 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too hard to tell. Some people are clearly playing MMORPGs with Wikipedia, and think this is just the first reward they get for slaying orcs. --Haemo (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abstain; I don't touch rollback largely because if I give it to a user who ends up abusing it, it reflects badly on me for trusting him/her. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko)
  5. DGAF. Dorftrottel (bait) 03:50, April 21, 2008
    Um... what? Stifle (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] Garion96 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, also plausible, WP:DGAF. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should known that there is a redirect & essay for that. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Harmless, but also useless. Not needed for anyone at all, admin or non-admin. All it takes is to restore the unvandalised version.DGG (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Definately not useless. If you don't believe me, look at my contribs before and after I was given rollback. Two clicks vs. three clicks (absolute minimum, most of the time more, plus scrolling down and clicking on "save page") = no contest. J.delanoygabsadds 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A useful tool, but bad in that it is considered another "level-up" by the growing army of social networkers and roleplayers we have to endure here, as demonstrated by the "This user has rollback rights" userbox George The Dragon (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with that one, but only because of that daft cat picture in it. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Dorftrottel. Meh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Abstain. I think it worked perfectly fine when it was limited to just administrators. At least preventing further editing from 'bad' accounts can be dealt with quicker that way. Saying that, rollback has worked towards a more positive note than I had previously thought. Rudget 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I too am disappointed that it's becoming a coveted "rank" that people work for, rather than just a tool - this "WP as an MMORPG" culture really needs to be quashed. krimpet✽ 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm not sure yet. I've seen bragging and userboxes/badges on the userpages of users who have been granted rollback which rub me the wrong way, but that's a separate issue from "is rollback working?". For me, the jury is still out. KrakatoaKatie 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have to agree with the userbox thing. Rollback is simply a streamlined version of undo-ing, and anyone can undo edits, so there is no reason others need to know you have it. Admins, on the other hand, can do things that other users cannot do no matter what, such as delete pages. I almost think that admins should be required to at least have the little sysop symbol in the upper right corner of their userpages. J.delanoygabsadds 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminship_poll/I&oldid=1145512843"