[WikiEN-l] A six-day roll-back poll?

[Chris Howie]

To paraphrase my oppose vote on the discussion page, if it were up to me...

On Jan 4, 2008 4:36 PM, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> 1) The wastes of time in creating a new "request process"


There would be no new request process; everybody would just have it.
(Possibly limit to users with autoconfirm so that rollback can be used by
anyone who can edit a semiprotected page.)

2) It will lead to at least some disputes, ANI traffic, wheel wars and
> arbitrations. If I think user x should get it, and you don't....so?
>

See 1.

3) If user y thinks I removed it unjustly, where do they appeal?
> [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review]] - I predict, not in jest.


There would be no way to block rollback privileges, just block the account
as usual.  The way I see it if we can't trust you with "rollback" we can't
trust you with "edit this page" either.

4) It occupies developers' time: have they not more pressing problems to
> solve?


It would be a one-shot change.


> 5) Instruction creep. Endless discussion over adjustments.


I raised this point too.  Less bureaucracy is better.

6) Abuse of the tool - and the drama that creates


It could not be abused any more than rollback scripts.  As for a "faster
editing rate" consider tools that do the work for you... just open each
rollback link in a new tab.  You can open tabs at the same rate as admins
can click the rollback link, so your average edit rate is going to be pretty
much the same with or without access to the tool.

So, on a cost/benefit analysis, this makes very little sense to me.
>

As proposed, I completely agree.

-- 
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers