Right now, if a User or IP Address has repeatedly vandalized, the only way for it to be blocked is for it to be reported to an administrator.
When someone is given rollbacking rights, doesn't that mean that the community trusts them with their vandal fighting abilities? Can't they be given some rights? I propose that rollbackers should be allowed to block IP addresses for set periods of time. They won't be allowed to block Users, or IPs indefinitely. Is that fair? Does that allow Rollbackers some more liberty while still letting administrators control most things? Admins can still revoke rights if they believe a rollbacker is being unfair. According to the page, 4,670 editors have rollback rights, of which 1,689 are administrators. That is only giving rights to about 3,000. Reasonable?
I am sure there are Rollbacking users who want to block vandals, but don't have enough time on wikipedia to become an administrator. I estimate about 3,000 of them.
- Do administrators trust rollbackers enough to do this?
- Are rollbackers "responsible" enough?
- Will this accomplish anything?
- Fewer new Rollbackers? Currently we dish out rollback to users who have demonstrated that they know what vandalism is. If we also gave rollbackers the ability to block that would up the ante, and reduce the number of new rollbackers as they'd first need enough AIV reports to give confidence in their judgement as to who should be blocked.
Do you have a thought about this proposal? A suggestion? Discuss this proposal by going to Proposal talk:Give Rollbackers some blocking rights.
Want to work on this proposal?
- .. Sign your name here!