Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Archived proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Simpler proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just give everyone the rollback feature; take it away or block when it's abused. Much less overhead, and it just makes editing quicker and easier for everyone. Why worry that easier editing means more abuse? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello friends and colleagues. One question. WHY are we numbering both 'support' and 'oppose' votes within the same list? isn't it fairly obvious they should be in separate lists? I'm adding new subsections. please feel free to move your answer(s), if you agree with me. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support (simpler proposal)[edit]

  1. Support Looks like most of the people opposing missed the "take it away or block when it's abused" part of your proposal. I'm having difficulty understanding the mentality of the original proposal - a pointless set of procedures and bureaucracy intended to make it harder for people to get hold of something that'll help them fight vandalism, because, y'know, we should discourage fighting vandalism, a somewhat thankless task at the best of times. I will not be asking for the tool: if I have it I'll use it, if I don't, I'll revert vandalism when it's either a single change able to be done via the Undo tool, or else if it's more complicated I'll just have to make the decision based upon how bored I am. If there ever was a final massive slap in the face to ordinary Wikipedia editors who do spend the time trying to deal with vandals, this is it. --Squiggleslash (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    "take it away or block when it's abused" doesn't prevent the damage. As we've seen in the past, despite rules and warnings, and even stern actions taken by admins, people still risk their accounts to do unsavory things. First-time abusers could pretty much get away with doing a significant amount of damage (well, not entirely "getting away," in that their account would probably be banned, but the point is that the people we're talking about - vandals - don't care; they only have to strike once to make a point).Ecthelion83 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Another thing crossed my mind - we could automate the WP:3RR rule using this feature; people trying to get around WP:3RR would have to put some effort in to it, making drive-by vandalistic reverts just that much more difficult. --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Support I support this too. Rollbacks are just as easy to fix as any other form of vandalism. I see no harm in giving it to everyone -- although I wouldn't be opposed to it being a feature users must enable themselves from preferences. That way, not everyone would have it right away, just the people who cared enough or knew enough to enable it. Equazcion /C 13:03, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Abusing rollback is just like abusing the Undo action in a diff or add-ons like twinkle, or just plain editing the page. Don't penalize the majority of editors (who are not abusers) because some people are abusers. If people are going to perpetrate abuse, that is a problem with the person, not the software feature. If we make it more efficient on the servers, we'll at least save the server resources, and make it easier to find the abusers and take away their toys. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    How is not giving editors an ability they never had to begin with a penalty?Ecthelion83 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support It doesn't take a rocket scientist to revert the last edit. I could care less if Wikipedia makes a sub-admin class of reversion hall monitors. There's not really anything significant that will change about Wikipedia one way or another, so why not just make the system more user friendly and let everyone do it? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. Give it to all registered editors. If everyone can have Undo, why not everyone have Rollback? Rollback is fast and easy, but let's do it in a way that doesn't create more bureaucracy and more classism. Also, the time saved by divvying out Rollbacks to select users means time lost by policing said selected users. Kingturtle (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. If we need to do something (and I don't think we do) this is a better idea than the above one. Far less disruptive.--Docg 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Qualified Support.From my (self selected and so not necessarily representative) experience, the pages that attract vandalism are a small minority of the total number of wiki pages. These pages may deserve a greater level of protection from malicious rollback than most. But then any extra controls are needed only for those pages. Maybe there the simplest solution would indeed be to specify that roll-back is only available to those with admin privileges. But for the majority of pages, written and consulted by only a handful of - often relatively expert - users during any given month, it seems gratuitously bureaucratic to restrict the roll-back privilege to those willing and able to apply themselves for enough hours to justify and support the administrator responsibilities. Charles01 (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Yeah, sure, why not? I'm fine with either proposal (though I'd suggest only giving the privilege to autoconfirmed users). I don't really expect this secondary proposal to pass at this stage, since most people who might support it seem to be treating it as a lost cause; if we'd known there would be multiple proposals, this poll should've been run as a proper approval vote from the beginning. But this alternate proposal still gets my moral support, and a strong recommendation to try again in six months if (as seems likely) it doesn't pass this time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support because it would make fighting vandalism easier for non-admins.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support even more than the above proposal. More libertarian, in my opinion. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. I have previously supported the granting of rollback privileges (should be in the "200 support votes" archive), but now I reconsidered the issue and support the idea to give it to all registered users at the time they receive the page move, editing of semi-protected pages and other abilities (was it 5 days after registration?). This sounds to be a satisfying idea for me. Vandals are usually IP addresses, since regular users get banned for vandalizing, so IP addresses won't be able to roll back. I don't see why there are so many opposers to this simpler proposal, saying that it will cause more edit wars. There's practically no real way of knowing it (it's like opening an umbrella when the rain is expected, but hasn't started). I say the roll back feature should be given to all users, at least for a trial period of a couple of days to see if there will be a lot of misusage issues. Artyom (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (simpler proposal)[edit]

  1. Oppose. No way. who needs it? It will create more problems, andf fewer solutions. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. I think taking it away from all the misusers will be a lot more work than grating it on an individual basis and will lead to WP:BITE-ing of new users unfamiliar with a one click rollback tool. Also impossible with current software. It can't be hardcoded into a usergroup and then removed on an individual basis. Mr.Z-man 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Somewhat possible, a bit of a hack. Mr.Z-man 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strongly Oppose. Making this feature avalible to everyone would create foreseeable chaos, and put a huge workload on admins, having to take priveleges one by one. It is much easier to issue this privelege to eligible users on a case by case basis. RSkyhawk (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. The idea of letting trusted member editors use rollback is to give vandalism fighters more power. If you gave it to every member, you would be giving more power to vandals also. Gopher292 (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose This was shot down before. What if somebody disagrees with, for example, all my edits? (I'm referring to my tagging of articles for merger, sources, etc.—some people don't like what I am doing.) They could just rollback all my work. Also, the proponents have not given an example of a large-scale vandal whose contribs needed a rollback that couldn't be/weren't stopped by other methods. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    They can already roll back all your work. This just speeds up each rollback by a few seconds. It sounds like you're thinking this affects more than one article; it doesn't; rollback is one article at a time, not "all your work". Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I'd say this is more work than it needs to be. It's just another implementation that'll take more work for everyone. Then there will be people who fight and want it back, and then discussions and arguments. --Dan LeveilleTALK 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Can anyone say "revert wars made easy"? I've said this earlier, but making erasing entries more efficient also makes vandalism more efficient. Because of that (and we all know that it will happen sooner rather than later; those who don't think so are either naïve or haven't seen a revert war or wars), the rollback feature should be limited to admins.Ecthelion83 (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'll also add at this time a comment I left on another user's page - this individual apparently doesn't think I understand what the proposal was about. Believe me, I understand, with crystal clarity, what the proposal is about, and this is what I had to say to him (her?):
    "Nonetheless, my point is clear. Despite everything admins might do to make sure a particular applicant for this ability is in the clear, there is nothing they can do to prevent a first-time vandal. Every vandal, as you might imagine, always had a first time. Some might have been more damaging than others, but the damage would have been done. This system is simply too dependent on the admins' judgment, when the implications for abuse are much more wide-reaching than any single admin's decision.
    You still fail to address my point, that even if a first-time vandal were caught, the potential for abuse is still too great. If, for whatever reason, someone else had gotten access to someone else's login information and then went on a vandalism spree (which is not totally unimaginable), do I need to say any more? There is nothing any admin anywhere can do short of reading minds to prevent this tool from being abused for the first time. For the most part, the tools to which Wikipedia users have access are limited in that in such cases, the damage is recoverable. This newest idea has the potential (and it's not highly improbable either) to be unimaginably damaging, and that is why it ought not to be continued past the drawing board." Ecthelion83 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    Only Admins? What about a user who has 4000 edits and has never been warned or had a conflict with anyone, who wants Rollback to save time so that they can revert more vandalism, but haven't memorized all of the policy pages or edited outside of the Mainspace? I see people like that have their RfAs rejected on a nearly daily basis. Do you have any idea how hard it is to pass an RfA? Admins represent a tiny, elite fraction of all users. If only Admins can use Rollback, then basically nobody gets it. Is it so powerful a tool that mere mortals can't be trusted with it? Can it delete members? Can it even delete pages? Please. There are hundreds, probably thousands of Wikipedians who edit 1000+ pages a year and have no hope of passing an RfA. All they want to do is edit. Rollback is an editing tool. Let the Administrators handle administation, and let the editors edit. DOSGuy (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Rollback is not an editing tool. It is a tool for policing the work of others, and so by definition an admin tool. An actual editor who writes or expands articles has absolutely no need of it--the need to revert arises seldom enough in normal work that there is no need for super-streamlining the process. Strong oppose. Freederick (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Per User:Ecthelion83. I couldn't have said it any better, ko-map-sumnida! Edit Centric (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose never mind revert warriors, giving rollback to everyone will put it in the hands of vandals. Some of them have already discovered TWINKLE, and they will definitely notice a nice "rollback" button sitting next to every edit. Hut 8.5 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    I absolutely agree. It shouldn't be given to everyone. People who are here just to vandalize are usually caught before they have enough edits to edit protected or semi-protected pages, so I think it should be based on whether or not you've established enough trust to be able to edit a page that is being protected from vandalism. You don't have to be an Admin, you just have to have established that you're not a vandal. We don't want Rollback to be a vandalism tool. DOSGuy (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Rollback would be a great tool for vandals, so don't give it to everyone. Weirdy (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Shouldn't give to everyone. --ClanCC (Talk) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Too much work for our already-overloaded Admins, if they've gotta keep watch on every single editor out there - much easier to simply grant the feature to the trusty editors. aJCfreak yAk 08:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose for all the above reasons docboat (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - way too risky for everyone to use, could be another vandalism tool, etc. --Mark Macmillan™ (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Really Oppose How about setting up curl_init on this article page and rollback? Or I may just get realy angry at the guy who reverted my edits 3 times and will rollback WikiPedia...with a cron job! Think then do. Igor Berger (talk)
  16. Oppose For every one helpful person there will be 100 who will abuse it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.24.31.152 (talkcontribs)
  17. Oppose as I did last time this was suggested. I recently reverted a date-warrior who followed me around reverting many of my recent edits. How much more damage would he have done with this tool? And how overloaded would ANI be with requests to remove it if everyone had it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Such people would be blocked, just as they are now, and ANI would be just as overrun as it is currently. Vandals are vandals and we'll always have to deal with them, the same exact way, even if they have a rollback tool. Rollback edits are fixed just as easily as ordinary ones. Equazcion /C 14:33, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Like giving hand grenades to monkies. --Charitwo talk 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - I am sure there are some vandals who would LOVE to build some sock farms and start using the rollback function. It is fairly quick and a flood of minor edits marked by vandals could make a mess that would be somewhat difficult to detect. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    They could do the same thing with the current tools, and their actions would be detected and reverted with the same degree of difficulty or ease as now. I fail to see the difference. Vandalism is vandalism. It produces a new revision in the article's history just as any other. Equazcion /C 15:53, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)
    I do not know if you are the developer of this tool, but being that you are such a stunch supporter of it, why not place yourself as one of the administrators involved in alocating access to this tool? This way you will have the authority and resposibilty for what your are advocating. Igor Berger (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not an administrator or a developer. I do support this proposal, but not "staunchly". I find that WP:TW fulfills my needs just fine. However I am trying to understand the arguments in opposition. They don't seem to make any sense to me. Equazcion /C 16:02, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)
    You say they can do the same thing with the current tools. This is true, but it is only a very small portion of the vandals who have the knowledge to set this up. Giving it to everybody would put this tool in the hands of even the stupidest vandal. Sure vandals have access to some tools now but it takes some degree of technical know how and an undersatnding at least on some level of this project. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about scripts. The vandalism tactics you described could be accomplished just as easily with the default user tools. Any vandalism edit, whether it be a rollback, an undo, a revision, or a raw edit, will show up the same way, be just as detectable, and just as revertable as any other. Rollbacks don't make vandalism any easier to perpetrate or to hide. Equazcion /C 16:07, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)
    Remember that this tool makes it easier to track abuse of WP:3RR, which the "Undo" button doesn't. A "stupid" vandal, who opts to do reversion (not exactly a frequent type of vandalism in my experience), will find themselves blocked pretty quickly if they try to use this tool. --Squiggleslash (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Strongly Oppose This would make it so much easier for vandals, as well as making edit warring much more likely and common. Just think of the massive load on Wikipedia and its servers if this happened. Also, given the issue mentioned by DragonHawk, namely potentially ill-willed edits to some of our elaborations on our opposition, it further adds to my oppose vote. Alloranleon (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    It would make it harder for vandals, as it would be easier for ordinary users to undo vandalism. It would also reduce the load on Wikipedia's servers given the system is more efficient and doesn't require the re-transmission of de-vandalized text back to the server. I'm finding it surprising that much of the objections come from people claiming they want to protect Wikipedia from vandalism - this is an anti-vandalism tool, it has very little use outside of that and offers few advantages over "Undo" outside of the context of undoing vandalism. --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Less overhead?? Considering the number of removals of rights that would be needed I think this would be much much more overhead. 1 != 2 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Not everyone should have it. Lawrence Cohen 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose as is. However, see #Counter-proposal below. - jc37 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose i'd hate for every newly created vandal account to have faster vandalism tools. i'd neither for nor against the original propoal above SJMNY (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Standards must be made. I suggest creating a board of strong editors to evaluate an editor to see if he is worthy or not. Marlith 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - Surely if you create that sort of criteria, then it just turns into WP:RFA? -Halo (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Strenuously Oppose per rationale advanced at Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators#View by Ryan Postlethwaite. Alice 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Sorry, I Oppose Wow. 'Nuff said. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Oppose - Potential for disruption. Wikipedia should become more closed, not open. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per 1 != 2. Samsara (talk  contribs) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Oppose there needs to be a confirmation system, however that system should be a quick system, not something like RfA. Its true that any vandal could install a script such as twinkle and abuse that rollback, however the vast majority do not know how to do so. Doing this would make it a built in feature vs. something the user has to learn about and install himself. --Nn123645 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Create more admins if that's what's needed. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Stick to the original proposal. No point confusing people who don't actually want it. Most newbies are confused enough already (just take a look at the help desk). Those who understand what they can do with the tool will ask for it. SpinningSpark 01:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. Too much potential for abuse and not needed. --Historian 1000 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. We already have the ability to undo the last edit with one click, which covers most simple vandalism, and the ability to undo the last N edits with a few more clicks. What problem does this solve? And it's another class of user to deal with. (If this goes through, that class should be called "Junior Woodchucks", the term Wikitruth uses to refer to RC patrollers.) --John Nagle (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  35. Oppose-I strongly disagree with this proposal; if everyone has access to the rollback feature, it would only bring more problems. Give it only to those who need it, no one else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachary crimsonwolf (talkcontribs) 03:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Oppose per Zachary crimsonwolf. ChetblongTalkSign 03:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. Absolutely Not Wizardman 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  38. Oppose - Giving everyone the feature creates too much potential for abuse by vandals.--Urban Rose (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Oppose -Way to much leadway for abuse. Dengero (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  40. Oppose - It is quite important that improvements to the system not increase the load on administrators. The main proposal here does not add significant load that is not (1) voluntarily assumed, no harm is done by an administrator not granting rollback rights, and (2) balanced by the increased assistance that the feature allows. Admins who don't like the granting of rollback can simply not grant it, and can also take it away at the drop of a shady rollback. Allowing all users this tool would increase the need for monitoring of it, and, given that all users can simply Undo or use tools for basically doing the same thing, would likely increase admin load. Abusive rollback is the same offense as abusive undo, only *easier* to undo. I see, also, the main proposal as being an experiment with admin-granted rights. Not being centrally controlled is a big plus for Wikipedia, this is non-centralized "bureaucracy," and most of our highly negative opinion of bureaucracy is based on centralized forms. --Abd (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - no. Rollback is too dangerous to be dumped into the hands of users who may (unintentionally) use it for undesirable purposes. Leave it to administrators and users who have passed the initiative test of finding WP:TOOLS. If anyone comments on or replies to this vote, can you please poke me on my talk page as I won't remember to check back here. —Vanderdeckenξφ 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. Oppose - per my comment above, easilly abused. StuartDD contributions 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  43. H*** no! - this would create a "Wikipedia Civil War", and nobody could be trusted. This would lead to an even newer form of vandalism that would be difficult to control. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  44. Users should earn it. Users do not just get automatic adminship and articles do not get automatic featured status. –thedemonhog talkedits 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  45. Oppose - rollback is something only experienced editors should be granted use of. Sting_au Talk 02:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  46. Weak Oppose While I support rollback for normal users... I'm not sure it should be given to the absolute newest use... --Falcorian (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  47. Oppose too easy to get into rapid edit wars; too easy for vandals to remove any reverts! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral (simpler proposal)[edit]

  1. Indifferent I can use an "undo", what do I need it for? Or am I missing subtleties, here? Also, no desire to be an admin, I've got enough headaches. Trekphiler (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I'm not sure if this is good or bad.–Sidious1701(talkemailtodo) 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Counter-proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In looking at the above, I wonder how people's perceptions of this would change, if there was a non-admin version of rollback which required an edit summary (from what I understand, this would be similar to what the current scripting tools do). I think I could support this for all editors with an account. (Since, AFAICT, it's very little different than restoring the last version from the edit history.)

I'd call this new version "rollback", and call what admins do something else (to make it clear that it's for vandalism only - maybe something as simple as: rvv).

This would solve the "overhead" problem, and should alleviate most, if not all the other concerns.

What does everyone else think? - jc37 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - as nominator. - jc37 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If there's no process involved, I would have no objections (although I'm not convinced of the need) - warm neutral, but in comparison to the alternatives weak support.--Docg 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    No process at all is suggested, just a limit to those with accounts. (I'm neutral on whether to restrict new accounts.) - jc37 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't this just 'undo'? What would the difference be? (Maybe that it would be available via contribs?) --ais523 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    The was a fair amount of discussion at the original proposal page about the several differences. I'll look for a link, if you'd like. - jc37 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    As I understand it, one of the differences is you can revert multiple consecutive edits in one go. Whether an edit summary is even possible for this currently I don't now Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Undo (a) requires the user load the entire page for editing and then resubmit it to the server and (b) does not automatically undo multiple revisions (ie, if a vandal has made changes to multiple sections using multiple, consecutive, edits. This is very frequent.) Squiggleslash (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    In that case, I support adding a simple and user-friendly interface to 'undo' to revert multiple edits directly from the history, so that it does have the same functionality as the suggested version of rollback would have. (There is an interface already, but it takes five clicks and is unintuitive.) --ais523 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm mistaken but multiple undos would still generate multiple edit summaries and require you to potentially load the same page multiple times, correct? At least this is the only way I know how to use it at the moment Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    No, it is possible. History, select two versions, 'Compare selected versions', 'undo', edit summary and save. Somewhat unintuitive, though. --ais523 11:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Merging rollback and undo (a further proposal) could be discussed, as well, but let's at least get this far (small steps : ) - By this, can we presume that you support the above proposal? - jc37 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Depends on the details. I support it in general, though, as I supported the main proposal. --ais523 11:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I too fail to see what the difference to undo is. I had to log out just to check undo was available to all since I was confused at this proposal. Hiding T 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Note also this current proposal - jc37 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - This, or the simpler proposal, seem reasonable to me. An edit summary strikes me as useful functionality regardless of the politics the proposal is trying to bypass. --Squiggleslash (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd support this over anything put forth so far. --Kbdank71 18:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no point in making a devs do a huge ammount of work when we have a viable tool that could be used anyway. What is being proposed is basically twinkle. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not Twinkle. Twinkle is just a tool that pretends to perform the rollback; it's still really opening up the edit form and saving the page. For a normal revert (like Twinkle), 5 page loads are required; for an admin rollback, only 2. This is particularly helpful for people with slower modems (it seems now that dial-up is out of the way, even DSL is considered slow). -- King of ♠ 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I refer to my original point - the devs are not going to spend a lot of time creating a new tool when we have just as good alternatives. One of the main advantages of rollback is the speed - this proposal removes that main advantage - twinkle is better than what is suggested. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I far I as I can see, this would add a new user right: "rollback lite." I have serious, serious doubts that those in power would allow this software change to occur. You'd essentially have undo, rollback, and rollback lite; currently, as far as I've understood, most developers don't see a major issue with giving rollback to more people (though I, of course, am only saying what I've heard / read). You're asking that this issue be made more complicated, and it doesn't seem to fall within the boundaries of usefulness that would be required for a software change like this. It's important to remember the MediaWiki runs many, many sites besides the English Wikipedia, including hundreds of other wikis part of the WMF and thousands of wikis on the Internet. Adding another user right for the simple benefit of being able to have an edit summary seems awfully silly, when rollback is already available and written. While I understand the points about consecutive edit-rollback and the other benefits of rollback vs. undo, my point is that the benefits of rollback lite vs. rollback don't seem, to me, to be enough for a software change; and I imagine others, who work on MediaWiki daily, would probably agree. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:Rollback_for_non-administrators#View_by_Tim_Starling. (I presume) this proposal essentially agrees with his. (Though I'll admit that I hadn't thought about rate limiting when proposing this, and he (rightly) did so.) The main difference is that I'm supporting keeping what admins now have as rollback, under a new name, since I think that as it currently is, it's useful for admins. (Under a new name, since it's been fairly established that it's been used for more than just rvv. And if we can be clear in naming, I presume that's a good thing.) - jc37 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Rate limiting's now available in the software, by the way. It's turned on by default for non-admins and off by default for admins, and therefore has now effect at present. --ais523 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rollback should only be used in circumstances where an edit summary is not needed. If you need an edit summary then rollback is not the right tool, just do a standard revert. Regardless, the current software does not support this option. 1 != 2 20:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ryan, a proposal based on software that is not actually developed yet is not a good idea. If someone actually codes it and Brion approves the code I might support as it could be implemented within a few weeks, but a minor feature request on Bugzilla might take months to get done. By that time public opinion could have significantly changed. Mr.Z-man 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite and others above. --Filll (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Why build anything, just use the admin rollback that WikiMedia has now. Have the admins alocate the user rights for this to trusted individuals, who they will be responsible for, and we are all set. You cannot trust them do not give them..:) Igor Berger (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'll tell you what would be better imho: increase mutual trust among editors, create more admins, but implement the "admin shootdown" functionality that was suggested a while ago, one of those times when an admin account went berserk (the idea was that admins could surrender their admin bit to "shoot down" another admin, and the case would be reviewed and the admin(s) found to be innocent would get their bit back; I've been away a few months, so do let me know if this has been implemented without my being aware of it - my oppose and suggestion to continue recruiting admins stand regardless). Samsara (talk  contribs) 00:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ryan Postlethwaite's original proposal is just fine. Xdenizen (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: if you have to load an intermediary page in which you can enter an edit summary, haven't you lost the one supposed benefit of rollback (its one-click operation)? --bainer (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same problems as the above all users idea. As far as the edit summary is concerned I doubt it would do much to cut down on abuse. --Nn123645 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the above comment. This creates essentially the same problems as the original proposal. --Historian 1000 (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is retarded. The only difference between this watered-down "rollback" and what we do now when we edit pages is that a summary is no longer optional, but required. What prevents a vandal from just typing in "asd;kfja;skdjf;asdfj" as a summary? Despite the speed with which such an individual may be caught, he/she already has a head-start on the damage intended. Not only that, quite a few pages already have something typed into the edit summary box (even though it's only the name of the section being edited), which is a built-in, highly convenient bypass for any budding vandal. This idea is as bad as the original and should never have seen the light of day.
Hell, I could see a vandal having multiple pages open, each having been defaced, damaged, or erased in some way that would further damage Wikipedia's already tarnished reputation as a reliable source of information, and for each, the edit summary would read like the vandal's signature or tag; something like "The Laughing Man Strikes!" or something like it, and the vandal could, having pasted that line in every edit summary box, click "Save Page" and the damage would be done, not to one page at a time, but several. I thought this was something we were trying to prevent.Ecthelion83 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What does people vandalizing multiple pages with a "signature edit summary" have to do with rollback? They can already do that but it would be pretty stupid as it would only make their vandalism easier to find. Mr.Z-man 07:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Because giving these folks rollback makes the damage they can do that much greater, and it makes their vandalism that much more efficient.Ecthelion83 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollbacks are not permanent, they can be reverted like any other edit, how would it do more damage? Mr.Z-man 08:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be Captain Obvious, but that would be because it's easier and more efficient to do, e.g. a would-be vandal would now be able to significantly deface a greater number of entries at one time (or delete many small segments of entries, making their edits more difficult to eliminate). I understand that you think that doing a single rollback is much like making a single edit or erasing a single line of text in an entry. However, if you were a vandal, the best way to slow down your pursuers would actually be to edit the same number of pages as before, but make many smaller edits per page (since you can do this more efficiently now) so that it takes longer to revert them.Ecthelion83 (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ok, apparently this proposal has been severely misunderstood (though I also note those in support of the main proposal, seem to be opposing this for that reason). When I suggested that there be an edit summary, I meant as we have now (which, I believe, is optional, though preferred). This is essentially the "two-click" interface described by Tim Starling (as I noted above). This could then be a user-right for those with accounts. In other words, it would be automatic for anyone with an account. In my opinion, this avoids all the drama, and provides all the wanted benefits. And it's doing exactly what was requested, performing a task (rollback) that TWINKLE currently provides. It doesn't give "rollback vandal", which doesn't have an edit summary, and which, in my opinion, should be restricted to admin usage (or at least be something granted by bureaucrats). But anyway, it looks like nothing is going to come towards consensus on any of these proposals. I now return you to your regularly scheduled squabbling bickering debating discussion. : ) - jc37 11:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.