Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Sweepstake

Count

How do you get a count? I see the link to list rollbackers/admins, but short of counting each name in the list manually I don't see how to get the totals. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:35, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Keep changing the limit untill you just get the Next X - I'm sure there is a better way though. Tiddly-Tom 16:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:26, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

It already has

Since all admins have rollback, the number of people with rollback was greater than the number of admins as soon as one person was given the right. While there certainly "should" be more people with rollback than there are admins, I see no reason why there "should" be more non-admins with rollback than there are admins, which is what you're actually talking about. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins may have rollback but that doesn't necessarily put them in the rollback group. Admins need to explicitly add themselves to that group, I think, and most of them haven't since there's no need. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:13, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The page doesn't say "people in the rollback group" it says "people with the rollback tool". That includes people in the rollback group and people in the admin group. --Tango (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics. This "sweepstake" is meant to compare the number of admins to the number of non-admins with the rollback privilege. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:03, 13 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just disagreeing with the "as it should" comment. I don't see where the idea that half of people trustworthy enough to have rollback aren't trustworthy enough to have sysop comes from - seems plausible, but it's just a guess. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "should" is just a realistic prediction of what will happen, since the criteria for granting rollback is much more relaxed than for admin. Rollback is only classified as an admin tool because of the way MediaWiki was originally coded. It's a relatively benign tool with not much potential to cause damage. Whereas other admin tools, like interface editing, page deletion, page and user blocks etc. could potentially have worse consequences. Besides which, RfAs are rarely accepted for RC patrollers or in general for users trusted enough to warrant rollback. If they were, perhaps there would be no need for RfR. Though I do disagree with you. I've never vandalized a page on Wikipedia and I often roll back vandalism, but I don't necessarily think that makes me admin material. Not that all present admins are admin material either, but still, there should be tighter standards for granting adminship than rollback. I don't think the two are remotely equal. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:09, 14 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Table

How about we put everybody's estimates in a neat table, date estimate in one column and sig in the other, and strike out and/or shade the cells of the ones that have already expired. Then as it goes on, it'll become clearer who's still in the running and who's not. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and rearranged it. I checked the numbers of rollbackers/admins on past days by carefully backtracking through the user rights log from the current numbers. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 16:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there!

Hmm. I think Darth Vader is going to win the sweepstake! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe Rudget. Unless MBisanz wants to disqualify them both for having two guesses? Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 to go now... :)

Running tally: (auto-updated)

Admins: 846

Rollbackers: 6870

SQL ^{Query me!} 18:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just promoted User:BJ to rollbacker, causing rollbackers to pass admins in number! :) SQL ^{Query me!} 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]