| abstract | - I know there's probably been a discussion about this already, but since it seems that nothing has taken effect I'm going to start a new one. I do not believe that we need as much community input on rollback requests. I think input from bureaucrats and possibly admins should be enough. What do you think? --Bleeh(talk) (blog) 17:15, August 31, 2011 (UTC) I agree. If a bureaucrat doesn't feel that someone would be capable of using the rollback rights correctly then I strongly doubt that a bureaucrat would give them to the user in the first place. Plus, having rollback isn't as much of a leap forward from being a user as much as becoming an admin is; rollback only requires someone to show that they do want to improve the wiki and fight vandalism and I don't think a community vote is required to judge that, whereas it's a different story when it comes to admins and bureaucrats. Lost Labyrinth Image:Flag united kingdom england.svg • (c) • (b) 17:25, August 31, 2011 (UTC) I agree as well. DanPin (Talk) 17:43, August 31, 2011 (UTC) Yes, consensus for admins and bureaucrats could be enough. --RoseGuiFile:Thanks rose.png (talk here) 19:03, August 31, 2011 (UTC) As it stands, only Bureaucrat applications receive a community "vote" of consensus. Administrator requests technically can be processed by a bureaucrat the moment they're posted, but usually as a courtesy and to allow for community discussion, the requests are left open for an acceptable length of time. Honestly, the only time it's ever necessary to give feedback on a rollback nomination/application is if there's some compelling reason why the person shouldn't be in that position. For what very little a rollbacker can do above a regular user, we put a lot of weight in that position as being sort of a stepping stone to administratorship, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. As it is, I think we put way too much scrutiny into rollbacker candidates; not every user gets much of an opportunity to do anti-vandalism work, since most of the time the admins are the ones that undo vandals and issue blocks (obviously, in that case). I think as long as a user shows they've been around for a bit of time (like, a month or more) and shows that they're at least moderately comfortable with wiki controls, then they should be free to receive rollback status. I wouldn't go so far as to say that user feedback on rollback applications should be prohibited, but I would say that it really is unnecessary - if a user thinks a candidate for rollback shouldn't get it, they should take it up with a bureaucrat, or even address the candidate to try and work out why. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:22, September 1, 2011 (UTC) I will say I agree with the scrutiny part. I remember some time ago before the requests for administratorship page was opened, the candidates for deletion page was pretty active and I remember myself leaving messages for administrators when we had mass vandals. Now that we have more administrators, unnecessary pages and vandals are usually caught on the spot and dealt with in a relatively short amount of time, meaning that someone who is willing to help revert vandalism and nominate pages for deletion may not get much of a chance to do so. Like LiR said, if someone wishes to request for rollback rights who has been about for a reasonable amount of time, worked to improve the wiki and has not caused/participated in disruptive behavior then I don't see a problem with giving them the rollback flags. Again, another good point is that if a user has doubts about another with the rollback tool then they are free to voice their opinion as long as it's used to try and guide the user in the "right direction" (and if it's of a sensitive nature then they can email a bureaucrat of PM one via IRC). To sum things up, I agree that rollback requests shouldn't rely as much on a community discussion unless there is a reason why someone shouldn't be given the rights and that we could loosen the requirements for the rights as rollback isn't as much of a big deal as administrator/bureaucrat rights and they can easily be removed if a bureaucrat sees fit. Lost Labyrinth Image:Flag united kingdom england.svg • (c) • (b) 14:48, September 1, 2011 (UTC) That sounds fair to me. If a bureaucrat approves it, chances are it's a good decision, and if need be users can contact the crat who made the decision. ―ฬђ talk 06:58, September 2, 2011 (UTC) We may as well try and wrap this up. I think the best way to go about this is to put less emphasis on anti-vandalism work when it comes to approving rollback requests and when a user requests, I think that the community should be allowed to ask questions to the nominee, which is an optional process as some users may not find the need to ask the nominee any questions, and if someone is aware of a recent issue regarding that user, they should be able to ask about that in a question to the nominee about it. A user may also mention why the user shouldn't receive rollback rights on the nominations page (with a compelling argument) and in a more severe case, they can contact a bureaucrat via email or IRC. Feel free to suggest something different if you think it would be for the better but I'm just offering this so that there would be less scrutiny and community input on rollback requests. Lost Labyrinth Image:Flag united kingdom england.svg • (c) • (b) 16:40, September 9, 2011 (UTC) i think, we must look at the history of the user when they apply for rollback. i think this is the number 1 priority when deciding to give that user this right beside community support. For example User:The Black Scorpion his history show he is perfect to have this right, good correction and anti vandalism record! so he got this right. Another example is User:OMDlovescats, she have anti vandalism record but i dont think she ready with this right because according to her history, she dont have enough experience yet. i think she made a good start and must improve her contribution on this wiki first so she can apply again and get this right. Wir.wiryawan 09:55, October 28, 2011 (UTC) Seeing as this section is almost dead and somewhat out of control, I'm going to try and make it more understandable. I agree that rollback requests don't need community consensus like if we're promoting someone to an admin/bureaucrat and I'd say if the user who wants rollback has worked constructively and not caused disruption, a bureaucrat should be able to make an honest decision. Besides, if any user has doubts about a decision they can always take it up with the bureaucrat who made it. Therefore I support the proposal. Lost Labyrinth Image:Flag united kingdom england.svg • (c) • (b) 21:43, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
|
