Forums: War Room → Rollback nominations

Per a recent forum, the idea leadership has been revoked from usergroups. I know most of the community will disagree with the following proposal, but please consider it at the least. The proposed concept on the wiki is known as equality, meaning that we are all equal (ranging from anonymous contributors to bureaucrats). We all have no extra say-so in any topic, discussion, or consensus. All of your opinions are considered to be congruent to one another's. I propose that we start voting on rollback nominations. The idea isn't to execute the bureaucrat's user rights management, rather to promote the idea of equality, something that I believe the current method of rollback nominations is disallowing us to do. Usually, one might say rollback isn't a big deal (because usually it only comes with an extra button to undo vandalism). However on our wiki, our rollbacks have the extra tools to delete, something that an administrator has. I think rollback on this wiki is something that should not only be earned by certain contributions, but by a community vote of trust. This will aid our itinerary to attain adequation.  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  03:20, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Speakingas a current rollbacker, my question to your proposal is this. If this where implemented, would it affect my current status. Would I have to have a vote taken, for myself, to remain a rollbacker? fruipy oaty bar это курам на смех 03:32, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

I myself am a current rollback, and I say this in a truly unbiased way, no. The current rollbacks rightfully earned their status through the current method that rollback nominations are processed. This would not effect the rollbacks that have already been approved, but a new process would be proceeded for future rollback nominations.  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  03:35, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

The right given of rollback is best left to a proper investigation to see if the tools would be properly used. This can even be performed by using tools to check deleted contributions, etc.

Also; this would only lead to further weekly never-ending voting for right changes all the time. This could end up letting in further drama, as well as users who did not deserve the rights to be received. Vulmen (talk • EoK) 03:38, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

While the principle is admirable, this is a highly impractical proposal. There are forty rollback users. There is a huge volume of new requests each month. It is not beneficial to the wiki to have votes on the subject every other week, especially when many will turn controversial. It's far more practical and causes far less disruption to the wiki to simply say that the War Room, as always, can overturn a bureaucrat decision to approve/not approve a request. This maintains the same level of "equality" you suggest (basically by having oversight) without escalating the regular tension engulfing the wiki. Not to mention that there is a significant gap between the size of the problem and the proposed solution, as rollback rights should never be a big deal.

If the world's biggest wiki, Wikipedia, doesn't think this is a good idea, we should take heed. The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:41, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

(EC) That leads me to the question: What is the difference between rollback nominations and administrator nominations other than the amount of different tools one of those gets? The idea of proper investigation can surely be performed by the rest of the community. The consideration of voters and voting might be a factor as well. Perhaps a valid reasoning must be required as well as a certain amount of time and contributions on the wiki, for voting.  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  03:43, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

It is not a terribly bad proposal, however, as 888 stated, it just would not be practical to hold elections for every new possible rollback induction, as nominations do occur frequently. The Ultimate Waterbender 03:45, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'm against this. In theory, the proposal may have its merits, but having such frequent elections would be too burdensome. And choosing rollback users comes down to a judgement of contributions and character, which I feel our bureaucrats are more than capable of carrying out. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 03:47, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Tech, the difference is that adminship nominations rarely happen. It happens once, twice, three times a year, if even that. There are seven admins, but forty rollback users. It's not a good comparison. And you know... rollback users have three additional rights. Not a few dozen like admins. What this proposal would essentially create is a storm over nothing every time someone is nominated or requests rights. This is not what a wiki that is already reeling from drama needs. The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:49, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-rollback user, I think that voting would be a bad idea. If 888 and Vulmen choose, that makes it so users who deserve the rights can get them. Voting would only make it bad. Popular people who barely have any edits in the namespace could get elected and therefore not use their rights very well. Do you see what I mean?HenryJh 98 (talk • Avatar:The Sole Woodbender • Fanon Detective!) 13:14, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

(EC) While I do admire Wikipedia's systems, I think that we should be more original and possibly be a role model to other wikis. Our practices don't necessarily have to be exact and punctual to Wikipedia's. Rollback nominations occur quite often, which is something that would be considered a difference between administrative nominations and rollback nominations. However, why do we allow so many rollbacks? We aren't going to need 100 rollbacks one day. I think that 50 rollbacks would be enough for the wiki, making the frequent election note invalid.  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  03:50, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

That suggestion is for a different thread. Vulmen (talk • EoK) 03:51, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't create rules like this for nothing. It's because the volume of requests is sufficiently high that voting every single time – voting every week – over something as small as this is not a good idea. We establish no limit on rollback users because, as I mentioned, it shouldn't be a big deal. The difference in trust required between an rollback user and an admin is exponential. The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:54, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Setting a finite limit on rollbacks would be counterproductive. As the wiki grows in articles and users, it requires more oversight. If this requires 10, 20, 30, 40, 100 rollback users, so be it. Let the number set itself. There's no tangible benefit for a rollback limit, plus getting rollback is an easy way for those who have joined more recently to start actively helping the site. A rollback limit would also limit our choices in future admins. No real upside, several downsides. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 03:54, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because, Technology Wizard, it's far easier to become a rollback and there is actually no limit to the amount of rollbacks that can sign up. An admin is a trusted user there for the long haul, and it's actually very hard to become an admin. Thus a comprehensive vote must be taken. I see absolutely no reason to make rollback rights any more complex than it needs to be or the introduction of more bureaucracy. There is already a set policy in place that should be followed.

Plus, you must take into account that not everyone in the community will know those people who want rollback rights, unlike in the admin nominations. Not only is it counterproductive for the entire community to vote, but it's also unnecessary.KettleMeetPot (wall • contribs) 03:56, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Just like the linked forum above, there can be more than one topic on the same thread if it leads to it.

I don't understand why we don't limit the amount of rollbacks, but we limit the amount of administrators. I understand that they are 2 different user rights and each requires the responsibility of different tasks, but if we have a trusted enough user, then why should we not let them be nominated for administrator?

There is also a counterproductive case when it comes to leaving certain users decide who should be promoted or not — equality.  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  06:11, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

"Equality" really isn't the problem here. Like I've said above, there is in fact equality. If you really don't like a decision that has been made with respect to rollback rights, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from challenging it. (In virtually all cases, this should not be done anyway because it's simply a waste of time. Vulmen and I generally have what I regard as very sound reasons; we don't reject people because we don't like them.) The only difference between giving this task to bureaucrats and just opening the doors and letting everyone vote every time is one of process and efficiency. Just imagine the ridiculous situation if site traffic was rising rapidly, as occurred earlier this year, and it took at least a week to approve each new rollback user because a vote was needed. Unnecessary bureaucracy is unnecessary.

We've had this debate over the limit on admins repeatedly, Tech. It's counterproductive to have more admins when the demand on admin tasks isn't high. The tasks which actually require admin rights on this wiki are completed as quickly as ever. On the other hand, there really aren't enough rollback users, even now. A disproportiately small number of users take care of RC patrol, and one only need to wade through the comments to see how many tasks there are for rollback users. The 888th Avatar (talk) 06:26, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

The number of rollback users needs to be flexible based on the wiki's needs at the time. When there was much less traffic, there were only 5-6 rollback users. When the community grew larger and more active, we had about 20 or so rollback users. When The Legend of Korra came out, the community has grown once again and we currently have 40 rollback users. The fact is that adminship is much more significant a step than rollback, so there's a lot more reason to have community input. Regular votes on rollback would take too much to implement. The fact that we limit the number of administrators is not a reason to limit the number of rollback users. When it comes to reverting and deleting comments, it can be helpful to have more and more users around depending on the size of the community and the need for more administrators doesn't come as often. Adding more bureaucratic hurdles to gaining rollback would slow down the process by which the wiki needs to adapt to changing times - regarding the number of rollback users and the amount of activity they need to oversee.

You claim that doing things the way we do it now is not good for "equality", but let me ask you this: how does limiting who can become rollback or not promote "equality?" If a certain user is capable and willing to become rollback, but we already reach your proposed limit, they wouldn't be able to help out in that department until someone else is demoted or goes inactive. A limited number of rollback users would become like an impenetrable clique rather than something one can help with once they have accomplished enough. Ultimately, the larger the wiki, the more activity and the more rollback users are needed to oversee it (the administrator need is less elastic, so if time comes, it's safe to wait and change that through a forum.) You say we only need a certain number of rollbacks now, but how do you know what a good number is? We can't predict the future. When there were only five rollbacks I bet it wasn't anticipated that we might need 10 or 20 in the future. Now we have 40 - and there is plenty of activity for them all to oversee now, with the size of our community. We should allow the needs of the wiki to decide on rollbacks, not based on a certain time and place. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 06:29, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

What you are confusing, Tech, is that admin nominations are more about trust than anything else. Ofc, community trust plays an important role in the nominations, but you are forgetting one other thing: efficiency. The admins are a group with maintenance tools that are specialized but also aren't too widely used. To have a disproportionate number of admins solves absolutely nothing. And with that little comment at the end, how "leaving /certain/ users decide", do you forget that no system will ever be viable without some sort of organization? That if this wasn't the case, administrating this wiki would be more chaos than anything? And, that this detracts from the efficiency from the prime purpose of the wiki, to collate information, by having everyone vote on every little thing? And plus, the people who oversee the rollback nominations make these decisions on behalf of the community because they are trusted to do so - other forums have made that point abundantly clear. I don't get where "(in)equality" comes into all of this, especially when it is both used without context and exaggerated. KettleMeetPot (wall • contribs) 06:40, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I see now that the issue is not only about the large amount of elections that would take place, but since the community grows so much all the time, these elections would take a lot of time and might possible create unneeded drama.  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  06:45, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Plus, it would quickly turn into a popularity contest. People are already nominating their friends for rollback. You can see how implementing votes would turn out. ― Thailog 09:20, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask, however, if it's ok that the bureaucrats regulate the requests for rollback on the wiki, then why can't it be ok for a specific member of a user group to do the same?  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  18:10, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose, per everything above. Bureaucrats are trusted users who have been elected by the community to appoint rollbacks. Thailog makes a good point, allowing users to vote gives them a a chance to simply vote for their friends. Annawantimes (Talk) 18:42, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

I also oppose. The Bureaucrats are meant to have the eyes for this kind of thing, it is why they were chosen as Bureaucrats in the first place. Voting would take too much time, unnecessary drama, and per Annawan and Thailog, just more of a friend vote friend deal.Iceland77 18:46, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Per everyone above - all this would do is just create extra, needless, time-consuming votes with the way requests are coming in these days. Why not trust the 'crats to make the right judgment? Katara and Bolin Fanboy Send me a messenger hawk 18:48, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I don't trust them, of course I trust their judgement, and I have already concluded that changing the current nomination process isn't needed. What I want to know is why user groups can't have a similar system to that of which our rollback nomination systems work.  Technology Wizard  Wall  Contribs  18:53, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

The community chooses certain users to trust with the role of bureaucrat to hand out extra tools for the maintenance of the site. User groups don't need such maintenance, and user groups choose their own new members, not members with extra buttons to push. It's a very different scenario. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 19:06, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Per everyone else. The idea has merit, but overall is just impractical. Prince James 00:42, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for discouraging the idea that admins are more important, in that sense, but this proposal just adds more layers to the already bureaucratic system that we have. Rassilon of Old ^{(Wall - Help)} 04:58, August 5, 2012 (UTC)