From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so.

Shortcut: WP:RFR WP:ROLL

Note: This page is not active, please do not nominate yourself or anyone else on this page. If you'd like to support, oppose, or discuss this proposal, please see the talk page!

[edit] Proposal

The proposal is to give rollback privileges to users who are not admins. The process is simple:

1. A user wanting rollback privileges makes a request here.
2. A period of four days is given for comments (no voting, no poll, just comments).
3. At the end of the four days, a bureaucrat will decide whether or not to grant the privileges.

A Bureaucrat has given their support to this proposal and said the workload would be manageable. A developer, Rob Church, is planning to work on an improved user rights interface which would facilitate this change.

Contents 1 Proposal 2 Suggested page appearance 2.1 Rollback uses 2.1.1 Misuse of rollback 2.2 Requests for rollback 2.3 Procedure 2.3.1 Removal procedure 2.4 User requests 2.4.1 January 6, 2006 2.4.1.1 Foo user 2.4.1.2 Bar user 2.4.1.3 Baz user 2.4.1.4 Argy sample 3 New sections on other pages 4 Replies to common objections

[edit] Suggested page appearance

Requests for rollback privileges is the place to ask for the rollback privilege, for fighting vandalism. Fighting vandalism and watching recent changes for unencyclopedic changes is a large but unrewarding task. It is made easier by the "rollback" feature which creates a one-click process to revert to the latest version of an article not edited by the last user to edit the page. The rollback appears in the edit history as a minor edit.

[edit] Rollback uses

The rollback tool should be used strictly for reverting vandalism (what is vandalism?). It should not be used for other changes that are not clearly vandalism, such as a differing point of view (for example, if someone changes 'communist dictatorship' to 'socialist state', this should only be reverted without using the rollback).

[edit] Misuse of rollback

Users with rollback privileges are expected to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Revert. Rollback does not allow explanations of the reversion rationale and is thus considered highly aggressive and inappropriate when dealing with a content disagreement. Misuse of the rollback feature in a content dispute is grounds for the removal of rollback privilege.

A user who is misusing rollback privileges should be reminded that they are operating outside of the guidelines. The template {{rollback}} should be placed on the user's talk page after a misuse.

A user who again misuses rollback after being given a warning may be listed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, and will have the privilege removed if a bureaucrat finds it to be abuse. Any user may report rollback abuse. The reporting user should list the diffs of alleged misuse and confirm that the user has been adequately warned. A monitoring administrator who finds the report to be valid may put a short-term block on the user to prevent further misuse of rollback while it is under bureaucrat review. The blocking admin should place {{rollback2}} on the user's talk to explain the reason for the block. If the reviewing bureaucrat finds that the report of misuse is valid, the bureaucrat will remove rollback privileges, remove any block, and place {{rollback3}} on the user's talk informing them of the decision. If the bureaucrat disagrees with the report, he or she will simply remove the block. In either case, the bureaucrat will note the action taken on the bureaucrat's noticeboard.

Egregious misusers of rollback may have their privileges immediately revoked by a bureaucrat, at the bureaucrat's discretion. After the privileges have been revoked, the bureaucrat should note the action taken on the bureaucrat's noticeboard.

Users who have had rollback privileges removed may reapply.

[edit] Requests for rollback

To request access to the rollback feature, please follow the instructions below. A history of positive contributions to Wikipedia, ranging from article edits to interactions with other users on talk pages, will be expected. While access to the rollback feature will be given out liberally to Wikipedians who request it, misusing the rollback feature may result in the permission being revoked.

[edit] Procedure

• Request permission (see below).
• After four days, a bureaucrat will grant the rollback permission if he/she is satisfied that the user will not misuse rollback.
• If you think that a candidate is unsuitable to be given rollback, please leave a comment explaining why.

[edit] Removal procedure

In the case that the rollback tool is being misused, a bureaucrat may, at his/her discretion, remove the rollback ability. If someone has their ability to rollback removed, they may reapply to be granted the permission.

[edit] User requests

Note: This page is not active, please do not nominate yourself or anyone else on this page. If you'd like to support, oppose, or discuss this proposal, please see the talk page!

Add an entry for your request using {{subst:reqrollback|User name|Reason}} ~~~~.

[edit] January 6, 2006

[edit] Foo user

Foo user (talk • contribs) – I fight vandalism! Foo user 01:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bar user

Bar user (talk • contribs) – I do recent changes patrols! The Bar man 04:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baz user

Baz user (talk • contribs) – signed, Baz 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Baz?! No way. Was blocked for 3RR two times[1]. Caz 4:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argy sample

Argy sample (talk • contribs) – Argy sample 09:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New sections on other pages

New section "Non-admins with rollback privileges" at Wikipedia:Revert, but that page will require a substantial rewrite

Users who have established a record of good edits may pass Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges (RFR). Use of rollback should only be used in cases of vandalism. In the case of content disputes, reversions should be done manually. In rare cases, users may be forced to use rollback if questionable edits were made to a large number of articles, such as external links to marginally useful sites by a well-meaning user who is not aware of the Wikipedia:Spam. In such rare cases, the user utilizes rollback should leave a message on the user's talk explaining the reason for the use of rollback.

Users who abuse privileges granted by RRP will be warned that they are acting outside of guidelines. Continued abuse can lead to further warnings and being reported to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, where a bureaucrat will review the evidence presented and decide if the privileges will be removed.

new section for "Misuse of rollback privileges" at Wikipedia:Blocking policy

Administrators may block users who have been granted rollback privileges at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges while a bureaucrat reviews a report of misuse. Per the guidelines at RfRP, if a user continues to abuse rollback after being warned a user may submit a report asking that rollback privileges be removed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. An administrator who believes the report to be well-founded may block the user to prevent further misuse while it is being reviewed.

new section "Instructions for review of rollback misuse reports" at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

1. Reports of rollback privileges misuse are made to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
2. If the report does not include diffs of alleged misuse or the user is question has not been adequately warned, note that the report is invalid. If an administrator has placed a block on the user to halt possible rollback misuse during review, remove the block.
3. If the report is valid, check to see if the user has misused rollback, e.g. in content disputes, after being warned.
4. If the report is justified, remove rollback privileges from the user, as well as any blocks. Note your decision in the report and inform the user by leaving a {{rollback4 or 5}} message on their talk.
5. If the report is not justified, note your decision and remove any blocks on the user.

[edit] Replies to common objections

There are already scripts which non-admins can use (e.g. godmode-lite).

A javascript implementation of rollback will not work for all editors, due to lack of browser support for javascript or unwillingness on their part to use third-party scripts. The javascript implementation is still a manual revert - that is, it involves the loading of the following pages:

1. diff page
2. specific revision
3. edit page for that revision
4. submission of the edit page
5. new content page

Assuming each of these is a 20kb page, this adds up to 100kb to do a manual revert. For users on 56kbps modems and other slow connections, this is time-wasting and often frustrating. Given rollback, steps 2, 3, and 4 are omitted (there is a rollback button on the diff page). This lowers the amount of data transferred to 40kb. This is a significant reduction and is not only more friendly for contributors on slower connections but for the servers. MediaWiki developers have also found bugs with the implementation of the script and do not approve of it (Brion Vibber, Rob Church (anonymously)).

Overall, the rollback which admins currently have is better for both contributors the servers and than a workaround implementation, as it is faster and uses less bandwidth.

This will introduce extra bureaucracy / is feature creep.

It is correct to say that this proposal will introduce a small amount of bureaucracy. However, this proposal will also increase the number of editors who will be able to swiftly remove vandalism from articles. Admins who did RC patrol before they became administrators will know how much easier it became with the rollback tool. Granting rollback to trustworthy contributors to enable them to do RC patrol more effectively is well worth the extra bureaucracy.

Some have suggested that the rollback privilege be given out automatically when someone reaches X edits, or has been registered for Y months (or be granted at the same time the ability to move pages/edit semi-protected pages is permitted). This approach is flawed for the following reasons:

• If a user suddenly gets access to rollback, and find out it's a quick revert, they will start to use it for normal reversions where they should give an edit summary (for example, POV edits should be removed with a comment). Rollback should strictly be used for vandalism, if they have to specially request it they will be aware of rollback usage policy and so will be more likely to use it appropriately.
• Both the "move" and "edit this page" links are pretty self-explanatory. "Rollback" is not at all. Rollback should never be used in content disputes. If new contributors who aren't familiar with our policy on usage of rollback start using it then it's going to be very difficult to keep it that way. Removing people's contributions requires communication because people will undoubtedly feel hurt that their additions have been causually disregarded with no explanation in the edit summary. Access to rollback should only be given out to people who have demonstrated they understand how rollback should be used.
• This kind of thing needs human oversight for granting, otherwise it is exploitable by vandals and trolls. Yes, it's possible to block someone misusing rollback but it's better to stop the problem arising in the first place.

If someone misuses rollback, the only way to stop this is for a steward to remove the privilege.

The bug which allows admins to use admin tools when blocked (rollback, protect/unprotect, delete/undelete) has been fixed. Blocking an admin will prevent them from using rollback, protecting or unprotecting pages, deleting or undeleting pages. They will see the undelete page in the same way a non-admin would. Blocking a user with rollback would prevent them from using them. See bug 3801.

This proposal would give bureaucrats the ability to grant and revoke the rollback privilege individually. It is not a significant change from a technical perspective, but developers are reluctant to make any changes to MediaWiki until there is a consensus on what to do.

Bureaucrats may not want the extra work load.

Appoint more, then! Bureaucrats have commented already that the load will not overwhelm them, but a few extra hands might be useful.