Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges/Archive 2006-08-08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Discussion

Discussion

Support, Middle Ground

This would be a useful middle ground between the average user and the administrator, for those who wish to fight vandalism yet not take on the other responsibilities of greater power. --Emersoni | Emersoni 02:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely - but the discussion appears to have stagnated. However, I think there is fairly broad support for the idea (or at least not strong opposition), and agreement that users with a certain number of edits should get this shortcut pretty much as a matter of course. BD2412 T 23:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Support. My thoughts exactly. --Bruce1ee 06:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Support if technically possible. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- A dirty little secret in computer science is that everything is possible, it just depends on how much work you're willing to put into it. Luckily it shouldn't take a lot of work to confer rollback privileges. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Not true! You can't write a program that can prove a program terminates. :) —Daelin @ 2006–01–07 14:03Z
  - The technical power to confer has been supported in MediaWiki since version 1.5, that is, since at least October 2005, and given the fact that Wikimedia's wiki farm runs on a version higher than the current release, we've had it for longer than that. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Support Per BD2412 Prodego ^talk 15:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Support --NaconKantari 00:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. Definately. --ViolinGirl^♪ 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Support, in case this is a poll and no one told me. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Support per Titoxd. ;) —Locke Cole • t • c 07:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. Absolutely, if possible.--Dakota ~ ε 18:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Support Why not? - Darwinek 18:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Support, especially since the "god-mode light" scripts already give non-admins the rollback-ability without any sort of process. My only concern is, will the these 1/2 admins be able to revert after being blocked (like admins are, isn't the right?)? Broken S 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, this bug was recently fixed. All admin abilities, apart from blocking/unblocking, cannot be used when blocked. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong support from me. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 06:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong support per Titoxd and bbatsell. :) // Pathoschild 06:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)]
Support ... it just makes sense --Nick Catalano (Talk) 13:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Utmost oppose. Firstly, this poll is completely illegitimate, as it hasn't been advertised anywhere. Secondly, it reinforces the misunderstanding that adminship is some kind of "higher responsibility", and further pedestalises it - when adminship is and always been just a mop and a bucket. Rollback is the mop. If you want rollback, become an admin - it's as easy and as simple as that. Ambi 13:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- But you can't request adminship just for the rollback button – adminship implies other responsibilities as well. --Bruce1ee 13:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, nowhere does it say that this is a poll. It's just people making comments. I believe it will be in the signpost next week. Broken S 18:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- As BrogenSegue says, this isn't a poll; it is just people who support this proposal making their views clear. And of course, a large number of admins believe that adminship is a "higher responsbility" as shown by recent comments on WP:AN and WP:AN/I w.r.t. newbie admins not following admin "tradition" and policy. This policy isn't making a stand on either position, that adminship is a "higher responsibility" or that it's a mop and bucket, but it's taking practical steps to ensure that we have as many good vandal fighters empowered to remove vandalism as easily as possible. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Someone (I forget who) described adminship better as "a mob and a double barreled shotgun". I fail to see the problem with handing out mops more liberally, there's no shortage of people who would find them useful, and certainly no shortage of work for them. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 18:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Support and strongly. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 20:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose --Peace Inside 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
~~User has only 12 edits --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~~
- This isn't a vote, so I'm "restoring" the comment. But I might ask, why? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I believe that edits should be done with the peace inside that comes from working out problems with our brothers and sisters. Rollbacks are confrontational, aggressive, and sometimes even hostile. Anyone desiring this power assumes that others will not act in good faith before they have even acted. This belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we assume the worst in others, they usually confirm our assumptions. I would like to see it easier for people to work out their problems with each other instead of making one the cop and the other the vandal. We all have value if we believe in each other. --Peace Inside 03:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    - You are making this way more contriversial and philosophical than it needs to be. I trust a lot of people and thier edits, but there is a lot of stuff that goes on with Wikipedia that needs to be fixed IMMEDIATELY... Reverts are going to happen no matter if it is "quick" or not... might as well give the tools to the vandalism fighters who are already reverting. Also, if you have only made 12 edits, I have to bring into question your ability to understand why vandalism is a problem and how we deal with it. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 10:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      - I understand completely why vandalism is a problem here at Wikipedia. When you give some people tools to advance their POV while denying those tools to others, vandalism becomes one of the best ways to reacquire balance. Anyone who has ever read a history book knows that. *Peace Inside 00:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        And anyone who has ever done RC Patrol knows the shitstorm of vandalism we face. The tools are not for advancing POV, rollback is specifically not for that and never has been. That is why we are discussing making it easy to remove in cases of abuse. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 02:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Support; regarding Peace Inside's comment: note that the rollback button is intended only for reverting vandalism. Any revert due to content disputed is supposed to be explained in the edit summary, which is not possible using the rollback button.
Beside, since there seems to be a lot of support for this proposal, it may be time to sumbit it to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). - Liberatore(T) 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Support; if adminship is "no big deal" (--Jimbo) then this should be even less of one. I'd like to see a bit higher threshhold (10 net supports, perhaps, or a change to a percentage with a ten vote minimum) and a proccedure for removal, rather than a blanket authority for b-crats to remove, but that can be argued out later. -- Essjay · Talk 11:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Support; As per original. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The pi pirate (talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 January 2006.
Support - it makes easier an effect that editors can already achieve with less stress on the server and those with slower connections. This short process should be gone through to ensure that users give the rollback function know the rules. --Whouk (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Support this being availble any of the procedures sounds fine to me. If the procedure doesn't work well it can be tweaked later. Maybe we should start out with one of the more restrictive procedures and look at it again in three months--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Support --Ghirla | talk 12:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Support Gblaz 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Support - Make sure it is made clear that it is only to be used for reverting vandalism. - Chairman S. 12:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Support as per above. Polonium 00:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a poll open to gauge consensus for this - see Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Support ILovePlankton 02:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed request section

I have boldly changed the request section to look more like RFD than RFA. Why? Because by framing this as not a vote (something we should extend by default) we avoid the problem of merely duplicating RFA's issues. Adminship is not a big deal (though opinions vary as to what that means) and this certainly should be even less of one. Anyway, it should be granted by default except for those cases where a solid objection is raised, in which case it shouldn't be. Organizing the requests in this way make it easier to handle that workflow (and is more conducive to discussion-based consensus, should it be necessary) rather than an RFA-style election where one needs to garner support votes. The standards here should be different than RFA--it is the entire point. Oh, and MediaWiki 1.5 has separate rollback privileges, but they currently have to be granted by stewards, so a little more work needs to be done. Demi ^T/_C 15:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, not too shabby. It should be liberally given and this way is less voting, more consensus building. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been bold and uh, made some (hopefully minor) changes. Specifically, a template can be subst'd to make it easier to create a request, and requests are given their own subsections (easier to navigate if this sees a lot of use). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, the navigation could be easier. What is the reason for? There is pretty much only one use for the rollback button. Demi ^T/_C 21:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So if someone actually believes it's for something else it'll be obvious? =) E.g. - reason=I revert a lot of stupid peoples edits because I disagree with them, give me rollback to make this easier! Seriously though, it could also be a brief explanation of why people should trust you not to cause trouble with it– I think it's inevitable that people will want to make a statement, even if it's brief. Having said all that, I'm not married to the concept, and would be fine with leaving it out. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

I strongly support this, as well as assigning other specific rights as appropriate. It would reduce the number of new admins needed, while insuring that "administrative" tasks can be performed by enough users to avoid creating a backlog. I'd also support having a permission bit individually settable to allow someone to edit protected pages. One technical comment. This needs to differ from admin rollback in one way - a user with this flag that is blocked by an admin should not be able to continue to use it while blocked (IIRC, rollback currently counts as an admin power and thus isn't affected by blocks) (updated own signed comment) Triona 16:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's correct; see bug 3801. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to lend my strong support. This is a sort of middle ground between normal editor and admin and as long as it is awarded judiciously I don't see a problem with it. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal also. Rob Church's idea above is the simplest; someone messes up with the rollback button, they get chewed on WP:AN/I, and if it is really egregious or repeated abuse, they lose it. This also tells us which users could be not well suited with the complete set of admin buttons. As for it not being coded yet... well, look at WP:SEMI. :) Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The technical ability to grant this power currently rests with the stewards. In terms of technical obstructions still in place, we need for bureaucrats to be able to grant it. Not a problem, since I was pondering over tweaking our existing promotion pages to make them more like the standard user rights page shipped with MediaWiki. The issue of preventing rollback with blocks is also in hand as I speak. I'm quite willing to look at any technical challenges getting in the way of this policy. Rob Church ^Talk 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't this fixed in CVS HEAD already? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bugger me sideways if it wasn't. And guess who did that? ;-) There're still other issues we need to sort out, but those will come, in time. As in, next week when I've fewer exams and can commit the updated code. Rob Church ^Talk 01:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:D What needs sorting out, development-wise? (I might be able to offer a few ideas). Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Interface to assign it. I'd like to go the whole hog and let local bureaucrats assign and remove the bot flag and sysop flags at the same time. Basically, a hacked Userrights page for Wikimedia wikis that can't grant the steward flag. Rob Church (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, couldn't you just make sure that a user cannot promote users to the steward group if the user's ug_group = bureaucrat? That is, to allow bureaucrats to access the Special:Userrights interface, just prevent them to assigning permissions higher than the ones they possess? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into a couple other things at the same time. I'd rather not implement a really hacked-up version, although if I must, I can always improve it later. I'm going to chat with Brion about it, too, since interfaces are his forté. Rob Church (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Support, because I hope this encourages more people to revert vandalism, which would give other people who are not into vandal hunting more time for other things. I support this proposal as it is, but would like to see some minimum number of edits as a criterion.--Fenice 15:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Support, Fenice took the words right out of my mouth. -- §Hurricane ERIC § archive -- my dropsonde 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support

I would like to show strong support to this idea. It is very time consuming to go through the recent changes, find vandalism, and follow all the steps to revert it. This tool would make it easier, and it would be easy to take away if it is misused. Link9er 14:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The users above have stated my sentiments exactly. Extremely Strong Support. -MegamanZero|Talk 14:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I support as well. People are coming up on the mailing list with all sorts of arguments that adminship should be a big deal. However anyone on RC patrol will realise that vandals couldn't give a damn about such matters. Rollback should be granted liberally, moreso than it is at the moment. The CVU would be a good group to help with this. If I remember rightly granting rollback seperately should be easy to set up from a technical point of view, and is basically implemented in software already. It is also a better solution than god-mode lite since it is more traceable and faster. the wub "?!" 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC) We may want to think about who can grant these rights as well, there are a limited number of bureaucrats. I should also point out there should be an easy way to take rollback privileges away, that doesn't involve having to go to the stewards or developers. the wub "?!" 20:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could grant admins the ability to give and revoke the rollback privilege?(although this would likely be much harder to implement) Prodego ^talk 20:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support it as well. I really like the proposal. However, my only concern is that at least initially, a vote will be a mess as there will be (in my estimate) hundreds of users asking for this feature in the first week or so. Later on, it would naturally calm down and the voting system would be more practical. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support, with the same reasoning and caveats as the wub. [[Sam Korn]] 16:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I support this also --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong support from me. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 06:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have little to add. Support from me. I feel this could be extremely useful for Counter-vandalism. I used god-mode light for a while until it somehow stopped functioning, I guess because of a problem in my monobook.js -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 12:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. This seems better than users having to sort of discover god-mode lite, in terms of server load, client-side speed, and regulating access to the feature. I also like the proposed procedure/form. (I don't think the god-mode script(s) should be "retired" - nothing prevents people from developing their own anyway.) AvB ÷ talk 21:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I support. appzter 17:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. Given that the possibility to grant this privilege is there separate from admin privs, and given that anyone can roll back an edit manually, keeping the rollback privilege for admins only effectively gives them a tool of convenience that mere mortals are not allowed to have; they are meant to waste more time to do the same thing. That's the sort of arbitrary privilege that creates class differences in wikipedia, and that is against the principle of adminship being "no big deal". Biot 10:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. The Wookieepedian 01:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. I realise the poll has ended, but I've only just found it. I am frequently rv vandals and it's tiresome. A simple safeguard is to grant the rollback privilege to anyone who has done a certain amount of vandal rv. and has shown that they can do that responsibly manually first. Tyrenius 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Support concept, oppose procedure

I've never considered rollback to be a "real" admin tool. While the other admin tools (deletions, blocks, protection) can't be reversed by a non-admin, rollbacks can be undone by anyone. I support giving rollback to a much wider population of users, but I strongly oppose any "Request for rollback" procedure. There's no need to increase the bureaucracy or appearance of a hierarchy.

I'd prefer a system where users were automatically granted rollback after a certain period of activity and/or edits. For example, a user would be able to peform rollbacks after 1 month of activity and 250 edits (just throwing some figures out). If they abuse this tool, any admin would be able to disable their rollback privilege. Carbonite | Talk 14:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support this excellent idea. Stifle 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. Even better than having to formally request rollback. --Bruce1ee 14:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Unsure. Well, this would be fine, but even edit war-ers can get to high levels of editing and we might need to have a way to disable it. So perhaps instead of a Requests for rollback privileges, perhaps grant it to everyone and then have a Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privilege revocation for those using it incorrectly? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, an admin should be able to disable a user's rollback privilege very easily. The mechanics of it should be even easier than blocking a user (no need to include a length). Any admin could reinstitute rollback for a user and there could be a central location for users to request their rollback privilege back. A general rule of "Abuse it = lose it" might help to reduce the temptation for revert warriors to use rollback. Carbonite | Talk 17:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking someone prevents them from using rollback. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but what about the common case where we want to allow a user to edit, but not rollback? There needs to be some sort of separate mechanism for toggling this privilege. Carbonite | Talk 18:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I discussed this with Jimbo when I was talking about this proposal. I raised this idea, that it would be automatically granted when user X hits Y edits, but we both agreed that requesting it was the better method, 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.
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.

The first reason is clearly the most important one. There are already many admins who use rollback for reverting non-vandalism (I'm probably guilty of it myself occasionally), and if it is just automatically given out this problem is going to increase. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You raise some valid points, but I'm very concerned about the amount of bureaucracy this new type of "request" would introduce. They'd be hundreds of requests every week and we'd need to have a huge pool of admins/bureaucrats/whomever granting these privileges. I think it would be a better use of our time to revoke the privileges of those abusing rollback, rather than making everyone request it first. If automatically granting this privilege is not an option, I'd prefer that rollback remain limited to admins. Carbonite | Talk 18:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have an automated message sent to the talk page of people that get rollback telling them what it is used for? That way, they just don't go about using it haphazardly (Revocation still available). ??? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's very much along the lines of how I envisioned the process to work. Basically, every day (or every X days), a script would identify all users who meet the criteria for rollback. The script would then enable the privilege and place a message on the each user's talk page outlining the rules. Carbonite | Talk 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

To go into a bit more detail: To prevent misuse, admins would be able to set a "rollback disabled" flag that would prevent a user from performing a rollback. This flag could be set at any time, therefore a problematic user wouldn't be granted access even when they met the criteria. Of course, this would all require some coding, but the concept is pretty straightforward. Carbonite | Talk 18:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good plan, but also a lot of work. Are there developers that would be able (and willing) to write those scripts and automations? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a lot of work - the major problem with it. Getting this rollback feature implemented has already been around 6 months of badgering the developers to do it. The features Carbonite suggested are unfortunately more complicated and I believe will take longer. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think "coding creep" like this is more 'harmful' (I don't mean this as strongly as it may come across) than "bureaucracy creep" ever will be. Wikipedia is a huge community and getting more bureaucrats is not a problem. I for one am quite happy to help out with this page, seeing as it's largely my idea :) Extra coding and features, on the other hand, is a drain on the server, and since this problem can be avoided by a different manner I think it should be. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The benefit of automating this would be that the development would only be a one-time effort and it would scale well as Wikipedia grows. Talrias mentioned that 6 months of badgering the devs has led to the implementation of "this rollback feature". What specifically has been implemented? I'm assuming it's some sort of access control for the rollback privilege. In that case, a good portion of the work is already done. The remaining steps would be to code a select query for identifying the eligible users, a stored procedure for enabling the privilege and a script to add a talk page message outlining the rules. While none of these are trivial, they're also not a project that would take months to complete. Carbonite | Talk 19:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As for being a burden on the servers, the updates wouldn't be performed in real-time and could be run during low-traffic periods. The coding itself would obviously require some development time (see above), but wouldn't negatively affect the servers. Carbonite | Talk 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The bug allowing admins to use rollback (and other admin tools) while blocked is now fixed, and the system to grant/remove rollback is currently being developed. I think the major reason why this hasn't been coded before is due to general passiveness from the developers in adding in feature requests. When you've persuaded them it's a good idea, they'll do it (after all they are volunteers), but getting the features you develop is going to be another uphill battle. What we do have is the system I have proposed near to completion. I think we should work with that, with a possible aim to expanding it to automatically granting rollback to all users who have been here for X months and/or have Y edits, depending on how this works out. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness! -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Should be the same as the requirements to edit semi-protected pages. Gerard Foley 17:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Both the "move" and "edit this page" links are pretty self-explanatory. "Rollback" is not at all. Rollback should be strictly used for reverting vandalism. 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. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with users with autoconfimed permissions to automatically receive rollback privileges. Rollback is a significantly powerful tool, which could be extensively abused by a POV pusher (or a vandalbot, in an even worse case!) who waits 4 days for the account to be confirmed. It should be given liberally, true, but there should be a little bit of review of the user's contributions, to make sure they won't abuse it. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think this (as the project is now) is intended only as a way to be transparent in handing out rollback. As Talrias says, rollback shouldn't be given out automatically. There should be someone checking the requestors history/contributions/blocks to determine if there's any potential issues, and then handing it out. As well, there should be a section to issue a complaint against someone with rollback (perhaps a subpage of this, formatted similarly to WP:AN/3RR). In any event, admins should not be the ones handing out rollback privileges. It should be a bureaucrat that handles both giving it out and revoking it. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, that would be a huge amount of bureaucracy, time, and effort! I'd prefer that we keep the current situation of only admins having rollback, rather than introducing all these new processes. Carbonite | Talk 00:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the proposed nomination format listed would work well. It's not very bureaucratic, people can leave comments about the suitability of a candidate which the bureaucrat will take into consideration when deciding whether to promote. Any complaints about rollback abuse could be taken to WP:AN/I where a bureaucrat could deal with it. The general principle on this page should be grant liberally - but remove if there's any sign of misuse. It's not bureaucratic and it will give many more people the ability to fight vandalism quickly and effectively. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

By "bureaucracy" I mean the number of new rules that would have to be implemented. What's the criteria for promotion? For removal of rollback? Is there an appeals process (for people who disagree with not be granted access or having their access taken away? Who will handle the promotions? How many people are going to be needed to handle the all the requests for access? Most importantly, is it really going to be worth the effort? I see the debates that arise over the course of 20 RfAs per week. I'm pretty scared at the thought of having potentially hundreds of RfRs per week. Anytime some users are getting access to a tool and others aren't, there's bound to be conflict. I'm not 100% opposed to this plan, but I do think more thought needs to be put into the potential pitfalls. Carbonite | Talk 00:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it is if no one opposes, then promote. If the opposition seems trivial in the bureaucrat's opinion, then promote. If there is significant opposition or cause for concern, do not promote. Rollback privs would be removed if the bureaucrat found evidence that the user was using it for reverting edits which were not vandalism, and the editor had previously been warned against it. And you're right to say that there will be plenty of requests at the beginning. Yes, there will be bureaucratic problems, at first. But I believe this will pay for itself as the community (and unfortunately the amount of vandalism) grows. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot less bureaucracy than RFA, and it pretty much leaves the decision up to the bureaucrat (rather than having any sort of vote). Otherwise, Talrias covered my response better than I could have. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 00:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think I agree with Carbonite on this. I can see a little bureaucracy built up around this and we just don't need another one. I've supported this in the past on an easy come easy go basis. I’d support it again if it were turned on automatically or on request by admins or bureaucrats without an RFA style request page. I think we need to have better response time in the case of abuse than to rely on being able to find a bureaucrat to switch it off. I’d oppose an implementation that limits it to bureaucrat activation and features an RFA style request page. I like this idea, it’s just a shortcut for an action anyone can perform now. I just don’t want to see it bloat into another bureaucracy when it doesn’t need to. Rx StrangeLove 05:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem with automatic activation is that it is too easy to be gamed - there needs to be human oversight of who has the tool and who doesn't. Besides, there's always a bureaucrat or two available on IRC, so that isn't much of a problem, and if there isn't anyone, a simple block will do, as rollback cannot be used while blocked any longer. As for it becoming a mini-RFA, perhaps it should be more appropriate to say that it would be more like RFD. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your point about automatic activation, I mentioned it more to underline my attitude that it should be easy to obtain. I wouldn't stand on that though, we could work up a few simple standards that editors would have to meet before a request would be honored. Once we have a RFA/RFD style page then we'll have a guide to roll back nominaton, roll back candidate standards..etc you see what I'm getting at. I don't think we need it and it's just another place for instruction creep and bureaucracy to take hold. As far as bureaucrats go, most editors don't use IRC and it was just a few months ago that RFA fell behind and successful nominations weren't being processed (it should be in the archive). This would create a lot more nominations to process. We trust admins some pretty intrusive tools, I don't see any reason not to trust them with this. Rx StrangeLove 05:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we want it to be easy to give, and that's why the threshold is low, at five net support votes (I'd like personally for them to be more, probably ten, but that's another issue). As for standards, there shouldn't be much to look into - mostly, if the user has committed vandalism or if there's other issues that make them prone to abuse the privilege. Edit summary statistics and all that crap should be discouraged by the closing bureaucrat. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like we both agree about the low threshold in getting the rollback button (and revoking it I assume). We disagree about how we carry it out, I guess. The thought of bureaucrats going through hundreds of edit historys looking for 3RR's and conflict doesn't seem practicable to me, and not necessary. And I agree it shouldn't be like an RFA, I'm just saying that it's the way it will turn out, things have a way of turning bureaucratic here. Anyway, we trust admins with a lot more than this so I'm not sure why we wouldn't here, and I haven't actually heard a specific reason for not letting admins do this. I may have missed it though, is there a reason admins shouldn't be trusted with this? In any case, like I said, this is just a shortcut for something anyone can do now so we shouldn't hang too much process on it. Rx StrangeLove 06:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edit histories, they wouldn't be looking through that to find 3RR violations: they'd be looking through the requesters block log. And if their block log is so long that finding 3RR vios is difficult, it's probably a good indicator that this person shouldn't have rollback, heh. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right in saying that this has its downsides. More bureaucracy is the key downside. But I think in opposing this because it will introduce more bureaucracy you aren't looking at the benefits of this proposal. More vandal fighters, better equipped to do it. The small amount of bureaucracy it will increase is going to be far less than what it will give us. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflict and Firefox decided to eat my response so I'm going to be more terse) I'm strongly opposed to admins having the ability to give or take this privilege and believe it should be delegated to b-crats. The issue of abuse being quickly solved is explained by Titoxd above; just block them and they won't be able to use rollback until unblocked. And no, this should be nothing like RFA, it shouldn't be a vote, just an area for comments with the decision being left entirely to the b-crat (so not even consensus will really matter that much; and the b-crat should closely examine the block log for the requesting user for things like 3RR violations, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I fit in this category. I've proposed an alternative that addresses concerns raised here. However, let's stay away from discussing this suggestion until this policy is decided upon, so that we don't have an overlap of considerations. Sarge Baldy 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I support the idea, but the process/execution here leaves a lot of questions unanswered still. -- nae'blis _(talk) 04:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Utterly oppose

There is a reason why we have an RfA process for administrators. It's for the general community to have a period of time to review and discuss a person's qualifications for the job of vandal hunting and maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. This is an end run around adminship with few eyes to watch and basically no chance to say no. So, if there are five yes votes and 95 no votes, the 5 votes win? What ever happened to consensus? Who will grant this privilege? How will the community review the people who have this privilege to make sure they do the job correctly? Where will the central list of people with this privilege be maintained? What happens when (not if) a user begins abusing this privilege? Will they have to submit to the 3RR, or does it now apply when they're figthing vandalism? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR does not apply to anyone reverting vandalism. Rollback is pretty harmless and and real abuse would be rather obvios.Geni 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say there is no chance to say no? The bureaucrat chooses whether to promote or not. What bureaucrat would promote if there were 95 no votes and 5 yes votes? Bureaucrats will of course grant the privilege,. This is all written on the main proposal page and explained here and in the talk page archives. There will be a list of people with access to rollback in the same way there is a list of people with adminship - by going to Special:Listusers and selecting the "rollback" category. In reply to your second last question, my current thinking on this is that abuse incidents should be reported on WP:AN/I, and a bureaucrat may at his discretion remove the person's access to rollback privileges. This is under discussion in the section just above this one. Your last question has nothing to do with this proposal. You're of course entitled to your opinion on the values and merits of this proposal but from reading your questions you don't appear to be that familiar the discussions already taken place - or indeed the proposal itself - as some of your questions are answered by reading the proposal. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this page is an excellent example of why adminship should be no big deal. Making it a big deal has led to this. While I wouldn't oppose this, I can't say I like it either. Johnleemk | Talk 06:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand why vandalism is a problem here at Wikipedia. When you give some people tools to advance their POV while denying those tools to others, vandalism becomes one of the best ways to reacquire balance. Anyone who has ever read a history book knows that. Rollback privileges will create more vandalism problems than they could possibly ever "fix." --Peace Inside 00:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your comments are misplaced. This proposal would give rollback to be used in accordance with our policy on rollback. This wouldn't change anything on how it is used. If you disagree with the rollback policy, you should discuss it on village pump or on the administrators' noticeboard. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, like adminship there is no procudure for the removal of rollback privileges, unlike adminshuip the user doesn't need community support to get access to the tool.--nixie 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The procedure for rollback removal is being dicussed below. And you would need community approval, how do you not see the community approval requirement? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, there are too many users who have a propensity to jump on their high horses and hair trigger revert as it is, something like this will, as said above, simply generate many more edit conflicts and 3RR accusations. At least admins have to undergo some form of community vetting.--ElvisThePrince 15:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, any misuse would result in editors quickly losing the power, either through bureaucratic intervention or automatically through a block. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats the theory I just don't think it'll work in practice. --ElvisThePrince 19:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

General comments

I have a script in my monobook.js which produces the rollback link. That works OK. What is needed in addition to that? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the rollback javascript function only automates the process of loading and saving the old page, while the "real" rollback button only requires sending a single HTTP request to the server (without sending the page content at all). If this is correct, the real rollback button would be much faster especially on large pages. I remember someone pointed out this in the mailing list. - Liberatore(T) 13:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 13:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was actually previously asked on this talk page. See Low Bandwidth User Interest in the archives. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And, God-mode lite won't work for some people. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And is prone to failure. [[Sam Korn]] 16:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And is taxing on the servers, and the developers hate it because of that. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about God-mode lite

If this becomes policy, does it mean the God-mode light will be disabled, and people who use it will instead have to apply for the rollback privilege? Some people may be too shy to want to request it, seeing as how rfa can sometimes be taxing on the self-esteem. (Sorry if this question has been addressed elsewhere!) delldot | talk 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no need for this to be disabled. I'd encourage people previously using godmode-light to switch to using admin-style rollback as it has many advantages, as is mentioned above, but I don't see any problem with people carrying on using the rollback emulator if they wish. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I fully support the proposal. delldot | talk 02:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A reminder about what rollback is

Just a quick reminder. I've noticed it said a lot on this page that rollback is akin to revert, or seen comments which lead me to think the poster believes this.

It's wrong. Rollback is a much more powerful form of revert, and technically speaking, it's applied to an article, not a revision. Rolling back an article causes all of the edits by a particular contributor to be undone; reverting to the last version of an article that wasn't created by the current user.

Example

Joe User creates an article
Joe Anon edits the article
Joe User edits the article again
Joe User edits the article
Joe User edits the article
Joe Admin rolls back the article

At this point, said article is returned right back to step 2, i.e. the version from Joe Anon. That's what the edit summary a rollback inserts actually means.

People need to take this into consideration. It could be prone to abuse, and it is not a straight revert of the last edit. Rob Church (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why that makes a difference. Forget about administrators; Bob Regularperson can still go into the history of the article at any time, select a previous version (such as the one in step 2), and save that page, which would seem to have the exact same effect as a rollback by an administrator. I'm not an admin and don't have rollback privileges, and I've done that where needed to restore a non-vandalized version. --Metropolitan90 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- This has been explained before, by people better to explain than I, but I'll give it a shot. Yes, the end result is the same. But the process is different. Rollback does not query and load all the pages involved. So people with slower connections don't have to wait nearly as long. Hunt around this page some more for a better, and more technical, explanation. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

removal of privileges

I would like to re-raise the topic of removal or privileges. (See previous discussion). The proposal currently states:

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.

It is unclear to me how this would work in practice.

Questions about the procedure: How will the 12 bureaucrats we currently have be notified of abuse? Will we leave message on their talk pages, which seems to be less than transparent? Will this require a separate subpage to report alleged abuse that all bureaucrats will be required to monitor?
Questions about removal guidelines: How many non-vandalism rollbacks is "misuse"? Is it a no-warning removal? Must a user be warned before having their privileges removed? Will something like the {{rollback}} template be created (or modified) for this purpose, and do users get more than one warning?

There is the deadlock over desysopping procedures because nobody thought through the worst case scenarios before people who already had admin privileges had something to lose by a change in procedures. (I'm a pessimist because I like to be pleasantly surprised.) I ~~strongly~~ oppose the implementation of this guideline until the community's expectations of bureaucrats in deciding when to remove privileges and process by which bureaucrats are informed of abuse are clarified. - Banyan Tree 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we simply use WP:AN/I to report rollback misuse. Plenty of admins and I would imagine bureaucrats read the page regularly and should be able to handle it. In the event a bureaucrat isn't around, an admin should be permitted to place a temp. block on a user misusing rollback until a bureaucrat can remove the privilege.

In reply to your second question, I think it should be up to the bureaucrat to determine it, rather than having a rigid procedure. If someone is going through recentchanges and hitting "rollback" (assuming this is possible), then I would personally remove it straight away without a warning. If it's misused once and then the person stops, I would be inclined to leave a warning about the usage of rollback. If the user then misuses it again, I would give a stricter warning, and on the third misuse I'd remove it. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Talrias.

First point, the use of AN/I seems a little fuzzy. Given the relative numbers of admins and bureaucrats, an admin will normally see a report of alleged abuse before a bureaucrat. Your wording seems to imply that a block is considered appropriate only after no bureaucrat takes action and discouraging admins from blocking for rollback misuse, which would then be removed by a responding bureaucrat also stripping rollback privileges. Am I correct in reading this? In any case, the addition to Wikipedia:Blocking policy would have to be clearly worded.

On the second point, one can approach this from either end of access-removal spectrum: making it harder to remove privileges makes the (re)granting of them a bigger deal. Making the removal guidelines liberal makes granting them a smaller deal. It appears that removal of rollback access is fairly involved (three warnings, notification to AN/I, and bureaucrat intercession), which increases the rigor candidates should be evaluated under greater than for example, Carbonite's scenario above where any random admin could unilaterally remove access. I do not disagree with the guidelines you've outlined, but they need to be stated up front so two months from now you don't see somebody complaining, "If I had known how hard it was to remove privileges, I would probably have opposed that user."

In any case, you've obviously been been thinking about this for a while. I would just ask that you detail how you think a removal mechanism will work, and interact with existing procedures/policy, so people can comment. What needs to be avoided is leaving an ambiguity now that will cause, when we have 500 non-admin users with rollback privileges, the sort of divisiveness over what a guideline actually means that leads otherwise rational users to use more than one exclamation mark in RfCs. - Banyan Tree 22:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I initially created this proposal 6 months ago, so it has been quite a while. :) Yes, my proposed ideas are a little fuzzy, mainly because I didn't want it to appear as though no different suggestions were permitted. I have thought about creating a new page specially for reporting rollback misuse but this proposal has already been criticised for "instruction creep" and having a whole new page just for reporting misuse will make the cries of bureaucracy even louder. You're right in that an admin is more likely to see it before a bureaucrat. To this I say: that is a social problem and is easily fixed by creating more bureaucrats. I prefer to take the liberal approach to both removing and granting them - but we should have good faith in people using rollback and wait for them to explain their actions. Maybe three warnings before revoking is too much. I'd prefer to leave it up to the bureaucrat. The idea of any admin removing rollback is an interesting one, but admins weren't chosen to do this kind of action while bureaucrats were. Your explanation of my wording is almost what I'm saying: if someone is misusing rollback and they have been sufficiently warned, an admin will post a message, detailing the evidence, on the appropriate page and block the user until a bureaucrat reviews it and chooses whether or not to revoke the privilege. At the same time the bureaucrat will unblock the user. That's my proposal anyway - if people have better ideas I would be glad to hear them. I'll make some changes to the proposal page to detail the revocation procedure. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget about WP:BN– WP:AN/I and WP:AN have way too much traffic (though I suppose an admin could block the abuser until a b-crat can take a look and remove the privilege). Or we could make a subpage of RFRP to deal with abuse reporting (if a b-crat is already keeping track of RFRP, it's likely they'll also keep an eye on any subpage dealing with abuse reports). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A subpage of WP:BN (for example, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Rollback misuse) is a perfectly sensible idea. One of my concerns with this and one raised previously is that this would be "yet another" administration page to watch. Given the traffic on AN and AN/I, however, this may be a good idea. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:BN has hardly "way too much traffic". Have you even seen the history there? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting just using WP:BN rather than a subpage? Talrias (t | e | c) 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that would work just fine for the time being. BN is hardly used, and until it is getting a little out-of-hand, why create an entirely new page? I imagine AN was the same way (I have no idea for sure, I wasn't here when and if it was split 8^D ), but it seems it would remain workable for the time being, at least. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Draft (admins only, shot down)

Alright, let me sketch out some possible language.

Removal procedure (for this page)

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 templates {{rollback1}}, {{rollback2}} (and maybe {{rollback3}}) should be placed on the user's talk page after each misuse.

A user who continues to misuse rollback after being given the complete set of warnings may be listed at (WP:AN/I/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Rollback misuse/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/other, hereafter known as the "Reporting Page"). Only an administrator may report rollback abuse to a bureaucrat. The reporting admin should list the diffs of alleged misuse, confirm that the user has been adequately warned, and put a short-term block on the user to prevent further misuse of rollback while it is under bureaucrat review. If the reviewing bureaucrat agrees with the blocking admin, the bureaucrat will remove rollback privileges and remove the block. If the bureaucrat disagrees, he or she will simply remove the block. In either case, the bureaucrat will note the action taken on (Reporting Page).

Users who have had rollback privileges removed may reapply.

at Wikipedia:Revert

The section "Admins" needs to be renamed "Admins and users with rollback privileges", or possible a new section to clarify matters

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

Admins 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 an administrator may submit a report asking that rollback privileges be removed and block the user to prevent further misuse while it is being reviewed.

I'd like to bounce these ideas off to the policy pages mentioned, but does anybody see anything ridiculous here or an ambiguity that will cause misunderstandings later? - Banyan Tree 03:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the Only an administrator may report rollback abuse to a bureaucrat. passage. Otherwise, it looks good. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too... why only Admins? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, can people that have gone through RfA successfully have rollback revoked, or just people that have been through this process? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]] I thought I was repeating what Talrias wrote with "if someone is misusing rollback and they have been sufficiently warned, an admin will post a message, detailing the evidence, on the appropriate page and block the user until a bureaucrat reviews it and chooses whether or not to revoke the privilege". I had originally assumed that anybody could report as well, but I thought this was an attempt to cut down possibly unfounded reports and simplify the chain of reports and block. I may just have misunderstood. I'll try another draft if consensus is that the "admins only" line is a red line. - Banyan Tree 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to limit reporting to admins-only; more eyes = better oversight. Other than that it looks pretty decent. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't misunderstand what I wrote, I just didn't proofread! The text was coming straight from my brain into Wikipedia. I think I wrote admin because I then went on to talk about blocks. Obviously a non-admin wouldn't be able to block. I agree with the guys above in that any user should be able to report misuse of the rollback privilege; though your point about simplifying the chain and cutting down on unfounded reports is a fair one. I think we should start off with allowing anyone to report, and review this bit of the policy at a later date.

Another topic for discussion is "grey area" reports (and blocks) by admins. It's conceivable that someone uses rollback on an edit which people disagree whether it is vandalism or not. If a user is blocked by an admin for reverting what he/she sees as vandalism but an admin disagrees, then we have a problem as both people were acting in good faith and both believed they were following policy on the issue, and the result is that someone has been blocked. Obviously the blocked user in question would needed to have done this a few times, but it's a possible scenario. I think we should word something into the reporting misuse policy which says something to the effect of "if you believe that a rollback performed by a user is not reverting vandalism, but you believe others may disagree, consider asking another administrator to review the edits." It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that if a user ignores a warning from an admin to not use rollback on a particular type of edit that they are being somewhat unhelpful.

One related issue which I'd like to bring up is what happens if admins misuse rollback. The rollback privilege cannot be revoked independently of the other admin actions so the only ultimate result of this is removal of sysop status. This means that sysops are more likely to "get away" with misusing rollback than people who have just rollback. A possible solution to this which I thought up just now is separating the rollback privilege from the "sysop" privilege group, and granting all current sysops the privilege. Then bureaucrats could revoke that independently of the others. Thoughts on this idea (I haven't considered all possibilities of this yet) are welcome. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Admins abuse-- I don't think Admins should have their rollback privleges revoked. They went through the tough RfA process and earned it. I'd say the only way they lose it is through complete de-sysophood (and we know how often that happens). Plus it's less work, so that's cool. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just brainstorming on the issue to throw some ideas out. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 21:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this draft for removal privileges as well. It seems we're all set? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This draft or with a change in Admin reporting? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This draft with admin reporting changed, better known as the second draft. :) Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Talrias, I think you are reading my mind. I had actually started and then abandoned a section asking if this page meant that rollback was being diassociated with adminship and was thus no longer considered a "sysop power". If left unstated, I figure somebody would have tried to report an admin using this process to see what happened. As long as the process and whether it is possible is clear, I'm not too fussed either way. On a tangent, it'll be interesting to see if there are any social effects now that admins can't be identified by their rollback edit summaries.

Going to your prior point about "grey area", it's certainly possible. However, the fact that one has to go through a number of warning suggests that there is probably an issue with the user. Finally, the bureaucrat has a final say and will hopefully have enough distance from the dispute to make reasonable decision over whether to disregard the report. - Banyan Tree 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Draft 2 (anyone can report, current)

OK, taking the responses to Draft 1 above and Ilyanep's comment below, let's try another draft. Again, this is possible language. In particular, check to make sure that the language is consistent from the various points of view as I didn't do nearly as many previews as I did from draft 1.

Removal procedure (for this page)

A user who continues to misuse rollback after being given the complete set of warnings may be listed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. 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 {{rollback3 or 4}} 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 {{rollback4 or 5}} 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 BN.

Users who have had rollback privileges removed may reapply.

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 (RRP). 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

Reports of rollback privileges misuse are made to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
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.
If the report is valid, check to see if the user has misused rollback, e.g. in content disputes, after being warned.
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.
If the report is not justified, note your decision and remove any blocks on the user.

OK, again - anything ridiculous in this? - Banyan Tree 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the idea about invalidating the report if it is not done properly. Is that consistent with other policies on WP? If I (or any user) do not follow the guidelines on reporting someone, the situation should still be looked into, regardless of my ignorance of the guidelines. Pepsidrinka 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the report should not be summarily thrown out and put on the back burner, but definitely the bureaucrat could ask the reporter to provide diffs. After all, it might be difficult to find the misuse if the user reverts 200 pages a day... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That was the point that I was thinking of. It needs to be the responsibility of the reporter to report the diffs. Bureaucrats aren't elected because they have a lot of spare time to search through contribution histories. Besides that, a report without diffs vastly lengthens the time to do a review. Being blocked can't be the most pleasant experience in the world especially for a regular contributor, and I am leery of anything that extends the time of the block. It is vastly simpler to review a report of "User:Foo was warned on 2 January to stop using rollback inappropriately [diff] and on 16 January again rollbacked in a clear content dispute at Foo Article [diff]", compared to "User:Foo is totally misusing rollback and needs to be blocked now!" I'd be willing to weaken the language, to "..., you may note..." so a bureacrat can opt to review a report by somebody who hasn't bothered to do their homework, but not much further. - Banyan Tree 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Reporting abuse of rollback should be identical to reporting WP:3RR abuse at WP:AN/3RR (that is, provide diffs with timestamps). Any report not meeting the diff/timestamp critera may be ignored/not acted upon (at the discretion of the b-crat who happens upon it). Obviously if the b-crat wants to go trolling through the alleged abusers contribs, that's their perogative but the onus should be on the accuser to provide the evidence necessary to take corrective action (just as you wouldn't waltze into a courthouse and say your neighbor murdered someone and then walk out without providing evidence/proof to back up the accusation; you shouldn't accuse someone of rollback abuse without providing at least some evidence). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but I don't see the need for a {{rollback1}} (etc.) template. As with admins, the user should know what they are doing, so perhaps a warning is enough before reporting, and even if we allot them multiple ones we don't need templates (admins sure as heck don't have {{admin1}} (etc)). The reason we use many templates with anons is becaus they are new and possibly not know policy, so we give them a chance (and make it easier for warning users). — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see rollback abuse happening, so perhaps just one warning? {{rollback}} as the first and only warning? After that, report? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

People seem to make templates for any message used more than once, so figured they would do so in this case as well. I am happy to act as if they won't in these drafts if it's a point of contention. More thoughts on what constitutes "adequate warning" before I try a third draft please. - Banyan Tree 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't have templates for warning people of 3RR abuse (that I'm aware of anyways); but in any event, if you don't warn someone about 3RR, I've noticed admins tend to not block for 3RR violations (but do leave a terse warning notifying them of 3RR and not to violate it). So maybe the warning is implied ("if you don't warn, we won't block but will instead warn them ourselves")? As with LV, I don't think a single warning template is such a bad idea (and unlike 3RR or vandalism, someone utilizing rollback ought to be able to chill out after a single warning). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts! I think 3 templates for warning is definitely too much, and I would argue that just one warning is sufficient, in accordance with my "be liberal in granting and revoking" thinking on this. I note you've changed the TLA for referring to this page to "RRP" - when I originally created this page I called it "requests for rollback", I later added "privileges" to avoid any possible confusion. I still think the primary redirect should be RFR, in line with RFA and RFB. Other than that, it looks pretty good! Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My Opinion

As a bureaucrat, my opinion is that this proposal looks good, and that letting just the bureaucrats do it is a good idea (and we might be able to use one or two more bureaucrats but it won't be a big issue). Discussion for removing the privelage can be directed to the dusty old Bcrats Noticeboard. As for the rest, I don't see any major issues coming up from this. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and help, Ilyanep. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur that this is a good idea. Rollbacking is no big deal, and I would not even mind if the 'crats used their discretion in handing out and retracting the rollback tool at will. R adiant _>|< 10:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we should have some assurance that the BCrats will hand it out very liberally (and probably take it away without a ton of hassle, too). --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well AFAICT this will be affected more by policy than us in most cases. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So, now what?

I recently had a conversation with a developer, who said that the only impediment to making the interface to hand out rolbback privileges (which is the only thing that we're lacking to actually do it, as the backend support is already coded) is knowing if we really want it. It seems that we got strong support, so what do we do next? A straw poll? A vote? I know polls are evil, but there already has been 6 months of discussion and we seem to be all in agreement now. So, I propose sending this to the Policy Village pump, Proposals Village pump, and to Requests for comment now. I guess it is time to gauge consensus. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's ready (and overdue). --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that its ready and overdue, I'd suggest from a technical side, the interface be made extensible - such that stewards can configure which bits can be granted/revoked by admins/buracrats via the interface. This would make it easier for future permissions to be broken out, ultimately allowing for just the permissions someone actually needs to be granted. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have exams until Monday, so is it possible to delay it until then? I'd like to be around to help out! This will also be after the Arbitration Committee elections have closed, which means that it would be possible to announce it at the top of the Community Portal, on watchlists, etc. I know some people are going to raise objections we've already replied to, so I think we should set up our own "replies to common objections" page for this. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you were intrumental to this, NO! Just kidding of course. Next week works fine for me. A "common objections" page where? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehe! I suggest at the top of the voting page. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I recommend updating the Project page before the poll/vote/whatever starts, though. We could place it above the "Common objections" section we're planning. That way, we just ask people to read what is going on, then they can come discuss it. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added some "replies to common objections" to Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "Rollback privleges would not give anyone something they already couldn't do if they wanted to. It just shortens a process people already have the power to do.". I don't understand what point it is trying to make. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's trying to point out that rollback really isn't a big deal. It's not like we're trying to hand out blocking or page protection privs, for example. (I'm neither for or against the passage, just explaining why it might have been useful). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see now! Thanks for explaining. I don't really feel this argument is relevant to the section it was placed in (that it creates extra bureaucracy). That it isn't a big deal is an argument for granting access to this liberally. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I put it under "Feature creep" because I didn't know where else to put it. I think it needs to say somewhere that it's not giving something that people can't already do the long way. It is just a shortcut to a power they already have. I'm not sure how clear that is, but if removal is what you want, I understand. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's Monday, so... should we start? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be appropraite to wait until Talrias says he's ready. Until then our horses we will hold. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys, this is much appreciated. I have finished my exams now and in fact I was just about to set up the appropriate pages for this. If you're on IRC, please could you /msg me? Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

B-crats only?

We only have 12 active B-crats. If we did this it might strain them (I really have no idea how many people would apply, 10s, 100s?). Why not let all admins do the promoting job. It seems like a pritty trivial change to give people the rollback button. Just a thought (of course it would increase the likelihood of wars). Broken S 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the Crats are the right people, and here's why. We already elected them to promote people, trusting their judgment. We didn't do that for Admins. (How many rogue BCrats do you know of?) But anyway, BCrats only real responsibility is promoting Admins and doing user name changes. Since multiple BCrats have commented that this wouldn't be impossible to handle, I'd say we just keep trusting their judgment. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with LV, this is absolutely not something admins should be handling. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ilyanep commented above saying that he thinks it is a good idea to make it bureaucrat-only. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And as someone who objected on these grounds, I've seen that bureaucrats don't have a problem...if they don't then I don't care. I'm thinking that there will be hundreds of requests at first and thus a backlog but if people are patient then it's all for the best. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, besides, maybe this'll put a stop (even if temporarily) to people voting oppose on RFB's with the reason "already enough b-crats". ;) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. This kind of thing, though minor, requires a special amount of discretion (the word I edit by). Bureaucrats are less likely to put personal emotions first. This would also reduce the possibility of bias. The B-crats handle it. Crats, I bow to you ;). -- §Hurricane ERIC § archive -- my dropsonde 05:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll on consensus for this proposal

Please vote on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll as to whether you support or oppose this proposal. If you're opposing, I'd be very grateful if you would leave a reason as to why you are objecting. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How long will the voting last? -- §Hurricane ERIC § archive -- my dropsonde 00:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll#Finish? for discussion on this. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

clearing something up

if the rollback will come up as a bot type of revert there should be 2 groups of it with one group of users able to do both rollbacks (bot marked and not) while the others should not be able to, this allows for differnet levels of it. --A dam1213 Talk + 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Um... what? That doesn't make any sense. Rollbacks are not marked with bot flags by default, the only way to make them appear like that is to play around with Special:Contributions. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollbacks would not be marked as bot edits, i.e. would not be hidden from recent changes. There are significant and common-sense reasons for this. Rob Church (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for rollback privileges poll closing soon

The requests for rollback privileges poll, a poll to gauge consensus on whether good contributors who are not admins should be given the rollback privilege, is closing at 00:00 UTC on Tuesday, 7 February 2006. If you haven't weighed in, please do so! Talrias (t | e | c) 11:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal

Am I the only one here who wants to give the rollback function to all registered users? Come on, it's harmless - vandals can achieve the same thing much more covertly by using edit with misleading edit summaries, and use more server load while they're at it. It would be convenient for everyone to have. Let's spread power to those who need it, not restrict it on an ill-founded theory of security with no basis in reality. And we don't need a new class of user to do it. Taking away this so-called "power" makes about as much sense as taking away the preview button. Deco 11:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the second entry of the replies to common objections? If so, what part do you disagree with? Talrias (t | e | c) 11:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument just isn't very strong. You're saying people will be tempted to use it in content disputes, resulting in poor edit summaries. Poor edit summaries simply aren't a big problem. I also argue again that rollback is an exceedingly poor tool for vandalism - it enables more edits per second, but they're all very obvious vandalism and once you find a few you'd go and revert the whole user's work. If the name is unclear, we can change the name to, say, "Revert vandalism". It's obvious why admins are the only ones to have delete, protect, and block, but rollback has no serious deleterious effects whatsoever. Deco 12:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be just as simple to give everyone rollback permissions, and allow bureaucrats to explicitly deny it. Rob Church (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

General comments on the poll and how to proceed

This poll has gone on for almost two weeks now and I think that while there are clearly more supporters than objectors some people still remain unconvinced as to the merits of this proposal. I'm glad to see the large number of people contributing to this poll. Where to take the proposal from here? I think enough people have misgivings about it to mean that it should not be implemented permanently, without further discussion. However, I think there is sufficient support for a short trial run. To that end, I propose that when Rob Church has finished the development of the new bureaucrat interface, we should take the proposal as it stands for a spin. For a period of three weeks, we should let bureaucrats grant and revoke the rollback privilege as per the terms of this proposal. During these three weeks and after they have come to an end, we can discuss the effectiveness of the proposal, with a view to either adopting as a full measure, modifying the procedure to reflect how it is really used in practice, or dropping the concept. By having a trial period, we will be able to see the merits of the proposal far better than we can by discussing hypothetical scenarios. We've done the thought experiment. Now let's see if the benefits of giving out rollback privilege liberally to help in removing vandalism will be greater than the concerns about another rung on the heirarchy ladder or the amount of instruction creep this proposal includes. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be difficult, but no. It doesn't make sense to take a proposal with nearly 100 well-reasoned objections, decide it has insufficient support at present, and then press ahead anyway. If the community isn't with you, then you need to find a proposal they are with you on. Several possibilities have been suggested, and a better way forward would be to dissect those rather than plunge on in the face of substantial opposition. Consensus is not merely numeric remember: anything with such large quantities of opposition from many reasonable editors cannot go ahead, more or less regardless of the numerical balance between support/oppose. -Splash^talk 02:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

True. However, there is also widespread support for the idea, while most of the opposition comes from the implementation. There is an argument that the way this proposal is worded it will cause bureaucracy creep, and in fact, several users wrote "support idea, oppose procedure". That's why I consider that simplifying the proposal, then doing a trial run, would be the best way to go from here. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Well reasoned"? Most of the opposes seem to fall into one of two categories–

Oppose because they believe the person should just run for adminship instead — there's not a lot we can do to accomodate these people. Like it or not, RFA is a big deal, and people are routinely opposed for the most immature or illogical reasons ("has too many userboxes" (WTF does that have to do with their ability to handle the sysop buttons?), etc).
Oppose because they think everyone should get it — while this might work, I am strongly against this and would seriously oppose an attempt to make this automatic (as with page moves). An automatic system would just encourage revert wars IMO.

With the latter group I don't see how we could make this any easier than it's being proposed. I think there's enough of a consensus in favor of this to go ahead with a trial run as Talrias suggests (perhaps after some modification to the instructions; maybe fewer days to allow opposition?). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, but I don't see where there's consensus to move forward with this in it's present form. I think the opposes have more objections than the 2 bulleted above and many of the supporters included conditions to their support. I think this can retooled to a point where it could gain enough support but at the moment there's just not consensus either by percentage or by weight of argument. Rx StrangeLove 06:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Another reason that people vote to oppose is that they don't support the poll per Wikipedia:Polls are evil. They are commenting on the poll, not on the idea or procedure. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone among the opposers citing that as a reason. It's important to actually read what they said, rather than imagining what you think they thought. Don't try to dismiss the opposition in single sentence rhetoric; that's deeply unfair. -Splash^talk 19:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Radiant's and Inter's votes; Radiant's vote linking to "voting is evil" and Inter's saying "I agree with Radiant". I imagine they are what King of Hearts is referring to. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is about 2/3 support for the proposal which in a lot of contexts would be called as consensus enough to implement the whole thing, so taking that as good enough for a trial run seems about right as a compromise. - Taxman ^Talk 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No. No brand new policy has ever passed at such a low threshold. However, focussing merely on numbers overlooks the substantial amount of opposition. As I said, a proposal facing reasoned opposition from nearly 100 editors cannot possibly claim "good enough". There is no position on a trial run since that was not part of the discussions surrounding the poll, or the poll itself. Don't push this onto a community that didn't support this. Find something they do support. -Splash^talk 19:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Splash, if you'll read what I wrote at the top, I didn't say this policy had "passed", but that it had enough support for a trial run. As you can no doubt see, many of the oppose votes are philosophical in nature (i.e., they don't believe another layer is worthwhile). However, over 160 Wikipedians have shown their support of the proposal (a pretty rare number in itself) and how you can say that the community doesn't support something when in fact around twice as many people did in fact support, seems insincere - especially given you were the first person to oppose, shortly after the poll was created. I know you're opposed, but please don't try and say that "the community" believes something when it is in fact you who believes it. Over 160 votes is a fine show that this has support and a short trial period to see if the proposal works well or not will be very beneficial. If it works - great! If it doesn't work, no harm done. We can't see what works if we are going to be so timid about trying out new ideas. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect I don't think it makes sense to do a live trial with a proposal that didn't reach what is generally considered consensus. There was a fine show of support but there was a large oppose presence as well. Like Splash said, there hasn't been a proposal that was accepted with this low of a threshold of support, at least to my knowledge. I think this would be better off if it was tinkered with a little and presented again, there are some recurring themes in the oppose votes that can be addressed. I'm not sure why you think Spash was being insincere, he's always a pretty straight shooter from my experience. Rx StrangeLove 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. There's enough opposition to not go forward and implement it as-is - however, there is more than enough support to let the proposal die or tag it with {{rejected}}. The proposal is still alive, it just needs a bit of tweaking. Mav's idea had much support, so we could contact him to try to implement some of his ideas (not all of them - I'm strongly opposed to giving out automatic rollback privileges to any editor under any algorithm) but we can certainly simplify the proposal so it can count on more support. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you found a middle ground between automatic granting of rollback privileges and a RFR page it would answer concerns about increasing bureaucracy. It would probably swing enough support to have a real consensus on this. So for example (and I'm just blue sky thinking out loud here) what if there was just a page that people would add themselves to, bureaucrats could just grant it to those who they feel need it or wouln't abuse it. They could work at their own speed and there wouldn't be any conversation about it. Sort of like WP:CHU or the checkuser page. Rx StrangeLove 21:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:CHU is brilliant. I'd love for the procedure to look like that. However, it should be said that regular users can still give out reasons to not grant rollback, right? After all, bureaucrats are humans, not bots, and they still need help. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... how would that differ exactly from what the current proposal is? Someone puts their name up, the BCrat decides if they deserve it. There is already no voting and it is at the 'crats discretion. So what would the difference be exactly? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea.. I keep seeing comments about "making it simpler", but it's already as simple as it's going to get (without giving it out automatically of course). The only alternative to not giving it out automatically is having people request rollback from b-crats directly on their talk pages; but that seems messy and hard to track for people who might be concerned with editor-x or editor-y, hence this proposal for a centralized location. Further, asking on talk pages would become easy to abuse (b-crat Zyz turned you down? ; just ask b-crat Abc instead). Unless the idea is to dispense with the waiting period, I'm not a big fan of that either. However, I'd embrace a shorter waiting period (no less than two days). The current 4-day period is a bit on the long side. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a 4 day waiting period while people make comments about the request. WP:CHU for example people put their name on a list and a bureaucrat gets to it when they can. So that's the difference. Rx StrangeLove 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

But is having a mandatory minimum waiting period a bad idea? I think it just ensures there are no hidden promotions. Having something there for 4 days gives other editors time to comment. I don't see the issue there. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There wouldn't be any difference. Those who've done good work on this project for some time appear to be having illusions that they can proceed with the project regardless of the straw poll they just held that didn't give the answer they had hoped for. Please stop assuming that it is somehow ok to take that poll and say "oh, well, what people really meant was" <insert brand new proposal for anything from the old proposal to a trial period>. I hate to be loud about this, but RfR as it stands does not have the support it needs. You have to come to realise that. There were many good suggestions made in the course of the poll, such as mav's, which received reasonable support. That suggests you should look into those ideas rather than continuing happily with a proposal that does not have the support it needs. -Splash^talk 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Talrias in that we should modify it slightly and begin a trial run. There's enough of a consensus to go forward with this IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to where the modified version has been supported and where there is consensus for a trial run? -Splash^talk 14:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's what they are doing now... building consensus for a trial run. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They are claiming consensus for a trial run. That's quite different. -Splash^talk 14:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh... yes. I getcha now. But this discussion is good to build consensus if it exists. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, look at the response I got when I tried to suggest a compromise. Rx StrangeLove 15:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's on the poll page. Personally your attitude here seems like sour grapes... —Locke Cole • t • c 14:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I said this once but I'll say it again, it doesn't make any sense to give something a trial run that hasn't gained consensus. Rx StrangeLove 14:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sour grapes? No. I opposed, clearly. So did nearly 100 others. The proposal did not gain consensus. The trial run was never mentioned or discussed. The suggestion here is to conjure support for something (trial run, new proposal) from a no consensus result on something. As The Good Doctor says, it doesn't make sense. -Splash^talk 14:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

165 people supported the proposal, that's nearly double the amount of opponents. Do they just not matter? That is very close to consensus. I think a trial is warrented. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 17:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some of the guys here clearly need to learn to respect consensus. That's one of our main problems with admins today - they don't care what the community thinks... --Ghirla | talk 17:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we all calm down for a bit? I'm as interested as the next guy to get this implemented, but there isn't need to get heated about this. There was consensus, but not enough - most policy proposals need a 3:1 margin to pass, and even then, it's not about the numbers. The part that got most of the complaints was that it was too much bureaucracy. Well, that can be fixed - no votes at all, everyone gets rollback at the bureacrat's discretion after 36-48 hours, given two conditions:

The user has to request the rollback button himself at the RFR page (to keep discussion centralized); and
There are no "killer objections" (such as being blocked for 3RR, vandalism, etc...) that anyone can voice.

The first condition is necessary to not give automatic rollback to everyone (something I would strongly oppose, as well as many others), as it is a much more powerful reversion tool than an ordinary "edit and rvv". The second condition is to help bureaucrats on the decision. It must be made clear that if there aren't any valid objections, the user gets ug_group = rollback in the database. It is very similar to the current proposal, but simpler. The removal guidelines would still apply. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Simpler how? That is basically how the current proposal would work. What is the difference? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Two main differences: clearer wording, and a reduced waiting period. People hate bureaucracies because they're slow. If rollback is going to be given and taken away liberally, there's no need for a 96-hour waiting period. This isn't adminship, nor it is intended to be. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see prominently among the objections "unclearly phrased" or "too long a waiting period". This addresses problems that were not at the root of the opposition. I'm beginning to sound like a scratched record: your proposal did not get the support it needs to go ahead. You even said so yourself. So why simply reproprose it with tweaked grammar and a different time-delay when neither of those show any sign of bringin the 100-or-so opposers on side? I'm afraid you chose the wrong proposal for the straw poll. You need to find another one that has support: e.g. mav's suggestion, or something else. Then you need to let the community know you're itnerested in what they think about that. -Splash^talk 02:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, mav's suggestion did not have nearly as much support as the current proposal. In fact mav's suggestion has had a lot of people opposing that type of rollback handout. So maybe the "something else" you mention? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but then it was never actually developed or explored. I'm not offering mav's suggestion as either a)something I necessarily support or, more importantly, b)something has support. It doesn't, since it's never been discussed. A little bit like this trial some are mooting. I do not have an alternative proposal; it is not incumbent upon me to. -Splash^talk 02:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unclear wording and too long waiting period were not what people were talking about when they said "too much bureaucracy." How about no waiting period and no new pages...just turn on the feature and let the bureaucrats use it. Presumably, they are trustworthy? If the rollback feature is dangerous enough that we can't simply trust bureucrats to grant it, it should probably just remain part of the admin package. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible solution. The current wording on the proposal page doesn't have much bureaucracy as it stands, but there is some, and cutting it down as suggested is a fine idea. As long as bureaucrats have the ability to remove it and can do so easily, we shouldn't be too concerned about who our bureaucrats give the permission to. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is bascially what I was suggesting above, except that editors would need somewhere to express their interest. I'm thinking people could just put their name on a list and let the bureaucrats take from there. Rx StrangeLove 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

For which you could use a new page or the bureaucrats' noticeboard. This is a good idea, as bureaucrats were going to make the final call anyways, so just getting rid of the intermediary period is all right. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course. The bureaucrats' noticeboard is the ideal place for this. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That, or any of the bureaucrat talk pages, or on IRC, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I don't like about doing it on Bureaucrat talk pages is that it encourages cherry-picking. I'd really would try to avoid "Oh, Bureaucrat C didn't approve you? Go to Buraucrat I and he will!" and similar situations by just having everything centralized in one page (either WP:BN, WP:RFR, WP:BN/RFR or something different). Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, a simple page that editors add their name to. A page modeled after WP:CHU at WP:BN/RFR would make sense to me. I hate to say this but I think there's going to have to be a way to judge consensus of the new process. Rx StrangeLove 07:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The basis of this proposal is that if a bureaucrat trusts you to use the rollback feature, it's okay for you to have access. And because rollback is not especially dangerous, it's not a disaster if someone aquires it without the scrutiny one would see at WP:RFA. So I don't really see the problem with being able to ask multiple bureaucrats -- presumably the bureaucrat who changes the permissions is, in doing so, noting his belief that the individual being promoted probably will be okay using the feature. That seems good enough for me; there doesn't seem to be a desparate need for centralization here. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(de-indent some, but not as far as Titoxd) You know, at first I was dead-set against doing anything off-wiki, or in a decentralised area, but now I'm not sure I object. We already let people run rampant with the god-modes that they can install at their own leisure, so the only difference here is asking a Crat to give them the full one. People can't comment on a user before they install the god-modes, so why put this added restriction on this? And again, easy come, easy go. At the first sign of abuse, the Crat can revoke the privilege, and they have to go back to reverting the old way. I think I like it. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(carriage return) Well, it has been too little time since the old poll. We'd better think about this for a little while and then submit it for approval. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have another huge vote for this like we just did. We've got the feedback, most people think it's a good idea, but others have concerns about bureaucracy. So what we should do is slim down the bureaucracy as much as possible without making it anarchic, then get some feedback on that with a view to implementation if people do not object. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is rather half-baked. The changes appear to be that people will still have to list their names, but there will be no opportunity for dissent. But of course that cannot be enforced. The proposals for removal also appear to have received no reform. If as Rx StrangeLove says above, there has to be a consensus judging bit, then all you have done is reconstruct the old proprosal in its entirety without any useful change! Out of the box, people. Not trying to squeeze the box into a fractionally different shape. -Splash^talk 23:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going around in circles. We can talk forever, but when do we know we have consensus?--The Scurvy Eye 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not a thing that is always reached. Thus we have the notion of "no consensus". -Splash^talk 17:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that's true...a bit frustrating perhaps, but true -The Scurvy Eye 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Splash, that didn't make much sence. You think that consensus has not been reached because consensus in not always reached? What? -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 16:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think (imho) what he meant was that when consensus is not reached we call it "no consensus".--The Scurvy Ey e ^{a note?} 18:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

TheScurvyEye understands me correctly. The question I was answering was "when will consensus be reached", my answer was that it may never be. This is the state of affairs that, in Wikispeak, we know as "no consensus". -Splash^talk 17:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't really answer my question though (probably my own fault; I should have phrased it better). I meant something more along the lines of "How do we know if we have consensus or not.". -The Scurvy Ey e ^{a note?} 03:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand what Splash is saying

I'm curious what the usual way of "resubmitting" a proposal is. This one, perhaps uniquely, received objections from both ~~liberals and conservatives~~ those who thought the proposal was too bureaucratic, and that it wasn't fully-fleshed enough.

Is this something that should now be restarted at Wikipedia:Expanded rollback access, or elsewhere? Which concern was greater, the too-much-bureaucracy or too-little-process? I just found out about the poll today...*smacks self with salmon* -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixing Automatic Procedures

I wonder if there isn't a way of fixing automatic procedures so that they fix the objections. So imagine that we automatically grant the facility to anybody who a) has done more than 1000 edits and b) has been editing for at least five days.

instead of automatic after 1000 edits, it becomes automatic after 1000 edits after last block
any admin reset the edit count (and possibly remove the facility if that fails)
the user has to opt in by setting a user preference (and get's a warning message when they do so)
instead of a page for applying, there's a page for discussion stopping or removing the privilage
if the facility is abused for normal reverting then admins are instructed to reset the edit count

I think this leaves the automatic process intact whilst answering, at least in part, all of the objections to an automatic system listed in common objections under This will introduce extra bureaucracy / is feature creep. Mozzerati 13:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So after 1000 edits I get rollback privledges automatically? xerocs 17:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support an automatic process of giving rollback privileges, perhaps at less that 1000 edits. As for monitoring the use, I think admins should be able to suspend the privilege for a period of time, as opposed to a period of edits. First offense, 24 hours, repeated blatant offenses, with warnings, a month or more. Not suggesting solid numbers here, just some ideas to make this work. --Measure 00:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Automated granting of rollback has drawn some of the strongest objections, I think if this has a chance down the line it probably won't include an automatic process. That's my impression anyway. Rx StrangeLove 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The only way I can see this being approved is if bureaucrats are given granting and veto power over the automatic priv-setter. With the insane amount of wheel warring over pages, I do not trust admins with the capability to actually affect the privilege settings of other users. That's why we choose bureaucrats to begin with. Also, this proposal requires admins to have to manually reset edit counters; that promotes the dreaded editcountitis, and in my opinion, it's even more instruction creep than the old proposal. Also, it is technically more complicated, as it requires an extra field in the preferences, and perhaps the addition to an edit counter to the user database table. The simpler the proposal is, the more chances we can get a developer to code it. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Current Rollback Procedures vs. Automatic Rollback

Currently, any user who wants rollback privleges needs only to install a piece of software, be it greasemonkey or popups or godmode. Given this, why would it be a bad thing to give users a fully integrated rollback feature automatically? --Measure 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback_privileges#Replies_to_common_objections

Yes, I've read that over, and I understand why integrated rollback is better than the workarounds. However, what I do not understand is the objection to automatically giving integrated rollback to experienced users when the workarounds are so easily available. --Measure 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Because with the rollback button you also get the ability to bot rollback, something that cannot be done with the javascript tweaks. Bot rollback in the hands of a malicious user could be extremely disruptive, and I won't mention any scenarios to not cause any bean-stuffing. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. Thank you for explaining this again, I'm sure someone said it somewhere else and I just didn't see it. --Measure 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Rejected

This proposal failed to gain consensus; a very active membership split 191/97 (hardly a thumping endorsement) and discussion has stalled. It's time to move on. John Reid 00:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But hardly a ringing rejection. ~~I'll be reverting you as well~~ It's inappropriate to mark it rejected ~~since~~when people were voting in the poll just today (so it's far from dead, IMO). BTW, it's at a hair over 66% accept right now. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (amended 00:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

Well, the poll has to be considered closed, probably no harm in people voting I guess but it is closed. Generally 2 weeks is about it for these sorts of things. and back in January/early February people settled on 2 weeks [1] I think. You can't just keep a poll open until you get the result you want. Rx StrangeLove 01:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's been a steady stream of oppose and support votes since this poll was supposed to have ended, and as we work off consensus (which can change over time), I think it's kind of silly to close something that's this "close" to being accepted. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a democracy and this isn't a winner-takes-all vote. At this moment I count 201 in favor and 101 against. Perhaps more importantly, comments on both sides are often lengthy and well-reasoned. Consensus demands that we respect both sides. Certainly we cannot wait until the precise moment that one side or the other gains some arbitrary supermajority, declare the other side crushed, and the proposal official. To do so will antagonize a large segment of the community.

If you don't close a poll, naturally editors will continue to participate in it. The community has given its evaluation of the proposal: Close, but no cigar.

As a rule, I don't believe in reverting registered editors for any reason. If it must be done, someone else may do it. I do ask that you consider restoring the {{rejected}} tag. Formally close the poll and let's move on.

There are expressions of support. If you are convinced the proposal has merit, you might want to try rewriting it to take into account the concerns of the sizable opposing population. John Reid 05:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with John Reid here. The current proposal has not gained a significant amount of support for the proposal (with respect to those opposed) and has not been implemented; as such, the current proposal should be tagged as {{rejected}}. Remember, though, that being tagged as {{rejected}} does not mean the proposal is dead. After all, this is a wiki, and if the community consensus changes in any way, the tag can be removed or changed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that rejection. I'd call it abeyance. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This proposal has not reached the level of acceptance that most policies require (for instance, semi-protection's poll had approximately 100 supports to approximately 4 opposes. I was one of the opposes and have been pleasantly surprised with the results, but I digress...). Therefore, it is rejected; it does not appear that anything significant will occur that the community will come to such a consensus required for policies. Thus, until then, it should be tagged as {{rejected}}. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because we're working on computers doesn't mean we have to think in binary. "Rejected" means that's it, it's done, all's over. Rejected must mean that there is consensus for something not to happen, not that there is a lack of consensus that something should happen. Clearly there is considerable support for the principle, so it is wrong to label this "rejected". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The proposal as it stands was not accepted and implemented, ergo it was rejected. What the poll demonstrated was that there was "no consensus" for the proposal as it stands. Those are the crucial words: as it stands. The poll does not reject all possible incarnation of all possible versions of RfR ever. Just this one. -Splash^talk 23:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read what I just said. This does not have to be binary. There can be a state between adoption and rejection. Adoption is an action. Rejection is an action. We haven't done either. Perhaps a new template (gasp) {{notadopted}} would be in order for circumstances like this, where the principle meets with approval but the implementation is still being thrashed out. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good template suggestion. I created it. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Eek. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus to reject. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. Please don't patronise me, Sam Korn. Of course I read what you just wrote. I am afraid I must be aboslutely dead-set against your notion that the principle is approved by that poll and we are merely waiting for implementation. That is patently wrong. Rejection or not aside, that simply is not the case. -Splash^talk 23:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems clear that if there should come a new proposal, it would need to go back to the community in the way that this did. -Splash^talk 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. It was not my intention to be patronising. It was just that your comment didn't even mention my point, so I assumed you hadn't read it. I'm sorry. Anyway, principles cannot be approved by a poll. Polls can demonstrate approval, but they do not approve by and in themselves. I think it can reasonably be said that there was very general agreement that the basic principle was fundamentally sound. Or do you disagree with this? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the poll probably only dealt with the actualy proposal as it stood. Some people object to the philosophy, others to the implementation, others to a bit of both or more one than the other. Since the poll didn't ask "do you support RfR in whatever form it might take", it's difficult to say that it can be used to answer that question. It demonstrated "no consensus" on the particular proposal made. It doens't pre-approve, reject or anything else a new proposal. It would seem to indicate that a different proposal may well exist that would acquire support. But I don't think it grants a license to create some new scheme and implement without returning to the community at large on the detail of that scheme. This is what I was after saying originally, and so I didn't particularly deal with your point head-on: to a (fairly large) extent, whether the original proposal is "rejected" or "no consensused" is academic since the poll doesn't allow us to pre-judge a new proposal that could be made. All that is clear is that the proposal as it stood didn't reach a necessary level of support to go forwards with it. -Splash^talk 23:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is general agreement that RFR cannot be implemented as-is, but isn't this entire discussion moot as there is a new proposal already? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean in the section(s) below? Yes, it looks like something is being formulated gradually. But the project page doesn't appear to have been amended substantively, and I think (think) that this discussion originated on the question of whether that proposal is rejected or not. -Splash^talk 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you thought I was advocating passing the policy on the basis of the poll, you were mistaken. I apologise for the lack of clarity in my writing tonight - four hours sleep in 40! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good $DEITY, go to bed! -Splash^talk 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and while I was also one of the opposers, I think there's enough common threads amoung the opposers that some new formulation could be written that would swing a fair number of editors. There's some discussion along these lines above. Rx StrangeLove 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're debating a moot point - after all, it's just a tag. :-) Even though I feel that it should be tagged as {{rejected}}, I don't mind if it's tagged with {{proposed}}. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Reviving discussion

Well, since it appears that most of the problem is a lack of discussion, here's another idea, along the same lines as some of the opposing suggestions. Mav suggested that all editors who haven't been blocked for a determined period of time and have met certain criteria with respect to time and number of edits be allowed to have rollback. This proposal asks for editors who want rollback to ask for it. How about a hybrid? If an editor waits 3 months and has 1000 edits (or another arbitrary value), MediaWiki would set his permissions in the "rollback" group automatically, but if the editor doesn't wait, he can ask for it like in the old proposal. Also, if a user with rollback is blocked, his rollback button would be disabled, unless a bureaucrat reestiblishes his ability to rollback due to the block being unjustified or another reason of import. Thoughts? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the automatic granting of roll back drew some pretty strong objections (though you set the bar high enough to maybe ease some of those concerns), I think that a simple list editors can add themselves to, letting the bureaucrats take it from there might work. It wouldn't involve a lot of bureaucracy, but there would be some control over it. There could be a page where violations are entered and bureaucrats could take them away if they felt it was appropriate to do so. Anyway....I think that might have a chance... Rx StrangeLove 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the automation part (as Rx said), but the rest sounds to be a very sensible suggestion. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The number should be high; rollback is oriented mostly for vandal-whackers, and regular editors who want it can just ask or write their name in a list at WP:RFR (no voting), like in the other proposal. However, automatic removal with blocks should take care of the violations. There were more complaints about too much bureaucracy than for automatic granting, and I'm one of the editors who opposed automatic granting the most; however, with some bureaucrat oversight, it should allay most fears. The problem with automatic granting is that it can be gamed, which is much harder to do when you have a human supervising the process. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the things that might help allay the fears of the oppose voters is if rollback privileges are really easy to lose, i.e. if you use it for anything other than reverting vandalism, you lose it, and you'd have to re-apply to get it back. --Cyde Weys 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's always been part of the original proposal. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... part of the problem is that some editors believe that rollback should not be restricted only for vandalism, as WP:AAP showed. That said, it was generally agreed that using it in a content dispute is a no-no, and part of the original proposal would change the blocking policy to allow blocks for misuse of rollback (as Bug 3801 is fixed now). This proposal would cause a block to disable the user's rollback bit while he is blocked and for a rather long period of time, unless the bit is reset by a bureaucrat. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, there is plenty of quick rollback script...hehe. True rollback is faster, but I think it best that only admins have it. The godmode that they have is a version of mine that does not have contribs rollback, only diff rollback, as it is easier to abuse that. I would rather see how people handle script, and then just let them be admins later on. Less seriously, remeber JS is fun...JS is your freind! How can I revert 2000+ edits with a few clicks? Sysop status + javascript....only useful against Willy though...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 19:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Server-side rollback is superior and faster than Javascript. Also, it requires three page hits instead of only one, and is a much more powerful representation of a user's ability to use administrative tools. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Interface

Without having to dredge through this page plus numerous other discussions about this; could someone tell me whether or not it is worth me going ahead and writing a possible interface to facilitate this? I'm prepared to start one soonish, before I hit the blocking mechanism, but I need to know if it's worth it; I don't want to waste my time if it's needless. Rob Church (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go for the block interface first. There's still no consensus on the proposal. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. This is not a priority right now, so if you have other things to do, do them instead. This may be used in the future, but consensus is not really for this right now. Thanks for your help though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there was enough consensus to give this a trial run to see if it'd work; but there's no way to move forward (or even try moving forward) until the interface is complete. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

An interface wouldn't take long to code, as I said; but as I also said, I don't want to put in the effort if there's no need. We now have the problem of interpreting consensus, and that's something I don't want to do, and shouldn't have to do. Two people state that it's not worth it; one person states it is. Rob Church (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

bureaucrat workload

I actually don't see why bureaucrat intervention should be needed to turn this flag on and off. It's low enough impact that absent arguments to the contrary, I think ordinary admins should be able to turn it on and off. Policy would stay about the same (privileges granted after request and brief discussion period, revocable (at least temporarily) on evidence of abuse, longer term revocation subject to discussion on WP:AN or elsewhere). That gets rid of the bureaucrat workload issue. Phr 01:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Bureaucrats are selected to handle user right promotions, so it would be more natural for them to do so; also, admins have a nasty tendency to wheel war, which would be highly undesirable for user promotions. Also, the "brief discussion" period is what has been considered the most unnecessary part of the proposal before. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a "promotion" since it doesn't create authority to do anything the user couldn't do already on the client side a little less conveniently. I'd put granting rollback as an admin function on a par with doing a speedy deletion, not with creating a new admin. I'd even be ok without the brief discussion (a notice posted somewhere by the admin would be enough), but in that case there'd have to be more policy against wheel warring (1RR then discussion). Generally a lot of RFA's that I consider marginal could be shifted over to this. Phr 01:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current sentiment is to make granting the rollback flag much easier, even automatic; revoking in the short-term is easy, as a user cannot rolback while be blocked. However, that would make the revocation even more controversial; as a result, it should be carried by the most trusted members of the community, who are bureaucrats. Besides, there really isn't a bureaucrat workload issue; a bureaucrat has said that he doesn't mind doing rollback promotions, and there can always be more bureaucrats promoted. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I share the widespread sentiment against promoting more bureaucrats unless really necessary, so I see anything that creates more work for them (and thus is likely to require more promotions) as suspect. The ideas of "automatic grant" and "need bureaucrat involvement" seem contradictory to me. Revocation should also not be a big deal, but if needed, that could be reserved for 'crats, since it would be less frequent. I don't think blocking users will usually be the right remedy for incorrect use of rollback since most of that incorrect use would probably be in good faith. So I'm imagining a process like speedy deletion, granted at first at admin discretion (based on reviewing user contributions) but subject to review and discussion on request of another user (DRV-like process). It occurs to me also that rollback operations can be logged and audited more easily than use of client side scripts, so getting more reverters using it instead of scripts is a good thing accountability and transparency-wise. Phr 02:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Many users have previously said that they do not want admins to have promotion powers, at least when it comes to RFR; however, to make it easier, some users have proposed giving rollback to users who have not been blocked for a considerable period of time (at least half a year) and have had at least an arbitrary number of edits. I agree with you more in that I think revocation and granting rollback for users who fall outside the automatic requirements would be given to bureaucrats. Withing that automatic window, I don't think admins are even needed. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But I don't see rollback as a promotion since it doesn't endow the user with any powers they don't already have. It's just a UI button that could be dangerous if misused, so I'm not keen on granting it automatically to all users. I'd be fine with automatic grant after N months with K edits in each month and no blocks, automatic 2-week revocation on any block, permanent revocation (restorable/resettable by admin, or by bureaucrat if you insist) after three 2-week revocations. Since admins are able to both impose and release permanent blocks on users, I think stuff like rollback should be well within their area of discretion, but it looks like that's just me. Phr 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We select bureaucrats for their ability to decide bureaucratic things (like giving out sysop access; basically manning the janitor's closet and handing out mops). We select sysops/administrators because we trust them to use these tools, but we allow the bureaucrats to interpret consensus in the discussions. Similarly, I think we should defer to bureaucrats to hand out rollback (or maybe we should call it a "broom"). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I'm not convincing anyone; but as I see it, the most fundamental tool available to users is the ability to edit, and admins can already turn that on and off by blocking. Turning rollback on and off is no big deal by comparison, since any user who can edit can already rollback, although maybe with 3 clicks instead of one. I don't have much more to add--I'm sure you folks will work out something reasonable one way or the other. I'd just like to see more users with rollback, since that means easier review (as described), fewer rfa's by RC reverters who mainly just want rollback, thus fewer admins and fewer wheel wars, etc. Phr 21:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in the fact that I would support an N/K implementation or similar, as well as utterly oppose any implementation that would give unrestricted access to rollback. The only thing that gives me pause in giving the power to grant rollback to admins is the tendency of 900 administrators to disagree and wheel war. Perhaps granting it would be an admin duty, but revoking it a bureaucrat duty? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of automatic revocation (at least temporary) on any admin block. Since rollback would be given out fairly casually, there likely would be cases of users going berserk with it (even in good faith) when there's no bureaucrat around. Another idea is dual control: require two admins to enable and/or revoke it, if you think one admin isn't enough. That would slow down wheel warring, and would be "bureaucratic" without getting actual bureaucrats involved ;-). Phr 03:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dual control is much more difficult to implement, from a developer's point of view; having a single user determine the status is already built into MediaWiki and can be adapted fairly easily. An admin block causing the rollback bit to be disabled is part of the proposal I outlined above, and if a user goes berserk with rollback, the user can wait behind a block for one of 20 bureaucrats to come. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dual control can't be that hard to implement--just have two rollback bits per user, don't let any admin set more than one of them, and require both bits set to enable rollback. I thought there were nowhere near 20 active en b'crats. And I'm concerned about keeping otherwise-good users blocked for long periods just because they screwed up with rollback. Better to disable rollback and let them keep editing normally. Phr 03:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with having rollback automatically disabled after a block, but I'm just not sure how that hard that would be to implement. Two bits may require a db schema change, but I'm not a developer... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that adding bits doesn't require a schema change, but if it does, that's maybe needed already, since right now rollback is reserved for admins, and this proposal is to separate rollback from adminship, thus adding a bit. Anyway, as Brion likes to say, policy shouldn't be designed around technical fine points. If implementing the right policy requires a little more code, then so be it. Phr 04:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rollback is already split from "sysop". See Wikipedia:User access levels (see also: m:Help:User rights). OTOH, making it possible for sysops to revoke rollback (but not grant it) is something that hasn't been done (and FWIW, I don't think should be done; bureaucrats can handle granting and revoking it (one of them even participated in the early drafting of this, IIRC, and indicated there'd be no issue with backlogs). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now we're making 1 or 2 new admins per day; I'm imagining granting rollback (if it's done manually) maybe 10x that often, and at least 100x as often if it's done automatically. That's why I see noticable workload if B's are involved, especially if each grant requires even a cursory check of user history. Do those estimates (10x,100x) resemble yours? Phr 12:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(belated reply) There might be an initial flood for the first few months, but I think it would slow down eventually and probably be equal to or less than the number of RFA's we have. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Rollback should not be given out on the basis of edit count. There are political and technical arguments against this. The technical side is that adding all users above a certain edit count to an implicit group would require at least one extra query on page view; this could turn into an unreasonable performance demand. There's a workable solution to this, however. On the political side of things; this is one of the wikis where "editcountitis" is discouraged and in some cases, condemned. An edit count is not a valuable indicator of a user's trustworthiness where rollback is concerned, nor is it a good indicator of the value and quality of their contributions.
Administrators should not be able to give out rollback. This is because there is traditionally no high standard required prior to administrator promotion; it is given out in a liberal fashion. I would state that, in my opinion, it is not advisable to add this particular decision-making role to their responsibilities and powers. Our bureaucrats are promoted on the merit of their abilities to use their common sense and also gauge consensus; hence the reason I feel the task should be left to them.

I should point out that point #2 does not mean administrators should not be able to prevent users from using rollback. Indeed, a block on a user prevents rollback from being used, so an administrator can suspend a user's abuse of the tool if needed. Rob Church (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need this?

There is code for your monobook.js to give you a rollback button, so what is the point of this proposal? I Lov E Plankton 16:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges again. Rob Church (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To do it much faster, much more efficiently, and to help the servers a bit. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all users use JavaScript, or even JavaScript-enabled browsers, and not all users who do use Monobook as a skin. Rob Church (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

But those who do already can have this button without any process of approval, if they can find it. Why would they apply? If they did, what would be the benefit to anyone in rejecting such users, given that if they have found the page, they probably already have it? If we agree that there is no point in rejecting a person with the right software, how could we then justify rejecting a person without the right software?

So I have to agree I don't get it. Why not give the rollback to anyone who can find it, which is how it is now for many, if not most, people anyway? Could it not be, for instance, a parameter to Special:Recentchanges (et al) but with no link to it? This parameter would then be documented at least on the RC Patrol page. This is something like the way the 'limit' parameter on that page is now: you can edit the URL to set it beyond 500, but there's no button to do it. -Dan 04:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A script is not equivalent to rollback.

Well Rob, what matters to people who are concerned about abuse of the feature, and I hope they will forgive me if I put words in their mouths, is the ability to revert/rollback with one click, (or perhaps more to the point, without comment), and not any of the resource or reliability issues, nor even the distinction between the single last revision and all the last revisions by the same user. Therefore, from the perspective of possible abuse, yes they are equivalent. So, unless we are proposing somehow barring all the script versions, which I understand we are not, then I'm afraid I still don't get the point of the request-for-privileges process. Like the script, why not give it to anyone? Or at least anyone who can find it? -Dan 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)~

There is one major difference: bot rollback. That cannot be done with the current scripts, that I know of, and if it is done, it is much, much slower than being able to click on a server-side rollback link. There's several situations where it can be disastrous to have someone with bot rollback go awry, so that's why there should be some sort of filtering. For this reason, it should emphatically not be given to just anyone. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you're arguing with me. I didn't bring the proposal. I'm just the developer who's likely to implement the changes needed to facilitate it. Rob Church (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you had also expressed an opinion on it that I disagreed with. This was my misreading, and my apologies to you. Cheers, -Dan 03:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The only opinion I will acknowledge expressing is that the existing implementations using JavaScript are a little fragile, apparently breaking whenever the contributions page changes. Rob Church (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What language are you planning to give the roll=back feature? If it explicitly said vandalism, that might answer some worries. !Septentrionalis 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I imagine the link would produce an edit summary such as MediaWiki:Revertpage, but part of the proposal defines unacceptable use of rollback (in edit disputes) which would trigger removal. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be identical to whatever the existing wording is, because it would be the same code doing the work. Rob Church (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_rollback_privileges_Archive_2006-08-08_5f59.html"

Category: Wikipedia talk archives