Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Draft poll

This is an attempt to poll the community as to whether some form of rollback for non-admins be granted. Jimbo has indicated [1] that the community should decide on a poll, then poll, then ask arbcom to discern the consensus. The community therefore needs to build a poll.

Questions

What questions should we ask?

• ^ That one. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:33, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we need to also poll on how to implement? Hiding T 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested questions

1. I support rollback being given by administrators, using the Wikipedia:Requests for rollback format.
2. I support rollback being given to autoconfirmed users. (do we mean autoconfirmed as such, or autoconfirmed as in, after a month or after a certain number of edits?)
3. I oppose rollback being given to non administrators.

• Support this version. Lawrence Cohen 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Version A of extended 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

Could be done in stages instead of all at once. Proposed by Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

--

• Oppose this version, too much. Lawrence Cohen 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Good questions? Bad questions? Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Time

How long should the poll be open?

Arbitrary two weeks. Plucked the number out my head for starters. Seems a long enough period that most people would see it. Suggest it could be closed early if no vote cast in a 24 hr period. Hiding T 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks - agreed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks. No reason to do this longer than we need to and those who care will vote early anyway with all the noise this has caused. A notice on the watchlist will help speed things up if we do it right this time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• One month. Not everyone logs in each day. Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • One day in 14 seems as likely as one day in 30. Hiding T 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Then whats the harm in 30? We're in no rush. Do it right rather than having to do it a fourth time. Lawrence Cohen 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • How long are arb-com elections open? Hiding T 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Two weeks. Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • How long was the Main Page redesign poll open? GlassCobra 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • 18 days: "The final election ran from 1 March 2006, 00:01 (UTC) until 18 March 2006, 23:59 (UTC)." Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Right, sorry, got EC'd by your reply. :P This should go at least 14. GlassCobra 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal ran two weeks. Hiding T 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Suffrage

Who gets to vote? Anons, anyone, editors with x edits and so on.

:O so many choices... better have a poll on it

• I'd suggest users with an account over 30 days and 100 edits. I think bots can check suffrage. Hiding T 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support on Hiding's suggestion. If not possible just semi-protect all related pages, and be done with it. Easier. Lawrence Cohen 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting method

Approval? Ranked choices (in which case, how should it be counted? Instant Runoff? Condorcet method?) ?

• Straight vote. No one can bitch or complain about pure numbers on this scale. Lawrence Cohen 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Theoretically arb-com are to discern consensus. Maybe we should just poll and let them work it out. :) Hiding T 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have a straight up poll on whether to have non-admin usage of rollback. That would determine consensus on that. The rest is process related, and can be achieved as much in practise as theory. Hiding T 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

the problem with that is that there are people who DO want non-admin rollback but would prefer not having it to having a bureaucracy for it. We need to let people specify what their second choice is, if nothing else. —Random832 14:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Who judges consensus

Should an independent arbiter be selected/asked to judge consensus? Bureaucrats, ArbCom, Jimbo? Carcharoth (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Whomever it is, more than one please. Either the cats or the Ac. Or a mix, but more than one, since no one person can call this. Lawrence Cohen 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)