Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators

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


It has been announced that non-administrators are to be given access to the previously administrator-only rollback function. This has the ability to significantly change the way edits are reverted on Wikipedia.

There are several options available that should be examined.

  1. Following the original configuration through and allowing the rollback feature to be enabled as planned
  2. Deciding to change the configuration but still permitting non-administrators to have access to the rollback feature, either by new user groups or by limiting the access to autoconfirmed users only.
  3. Not making any changes to who has access to rollback, leaving it for administrators only.

Please feel free to create your own view, or endorse other proposals. Before commenting, please take a look at the following pages;

Currently planned implementation[edit]

The currently planned implementation is as follows.

  • FIVE rollbacks per TWO minutes for new users
  • FIVE rollbacks per ONE minute for autoconfirmed users
  • NO limit whatsoever for administrators

View by Diligent Terrier[edit]

I don't see why some people want to make this non-admin rollback feature so hard to get, especially since we have scripts like Twinkle which can be installed by anyone. Why should we make this so hard to get if anyone can get Twinkle? If the Rollback for non-admins is enabled, it should be easy to get. A time limit or use limit for the new feature is a not a good idea, because if everyone who is the feature will be experienced anyway, they will be fighting vandalism and not vandalizing. Those experienced users will be fully capable to use it without making mistakes often. And who wants a time limit when you are fighting vandalism? That would get annoying. We wouldn't have to worry about vandals using it either, because most vandals are newbies, and they wouldn't know about non-admin rollback, much less how to sign up for it or use it. They also would not get approved for use of the feature. I believe non-admin rollback should be enabled and easy to get for experienced users. DiligentTerriertalk |sign here 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. Me of course DiligentTerriertalk |sign here 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


View by Titoxd[edit]

  • Have the process remain the same, but add a method to remove rollback capabilities temporarily or permanently. (Although I imagine blocking works...)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  • Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As long as there is a method to take the tool away short of blocking, I don't see the problem. --B (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Orderinchaos 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • With the same caveat as B. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • DuncanHill. I would add that I profoundly object to the proposals below to have admins deciding to give or nominate rollback to certain users. That would increase the workload on admins, would further undermine the principle that "admins are ordinary editors", and tend to divide the community. All editors should have as many tools as possible, and restrictions should only be made when they can be shewn to be necessary to the efficient functioning of the Wikipedia. If this proposal is implemented, there is nothing to stop appropriate action being taken against editors who abuse the tools, there will be an increased number of editors with more power to counteract vandalism, and if it really really doesn't work, I'm confident that it could be un-implemented through consensus. DuncanHill (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Antelan[edit]

Giving such tools to non-admins (such as myself) could be useful or could be harmful, but it is extraordinarily difficult to know a priori. Therefore, I am proposing this meta-plan: I suggest that we use whichever plan that Wikipedians find most agreeable. With that plan, do the following:

  1. Implement the plan for two weeks.
  2. Turn the rollback feature back off for at least two weeks. At this time, open a new discussion.

The evidence that we will accumulate over the 2 week period will be useful in deciding whether this should be a long-term feature for regular users. The 2 week window, likewise, will minimize the amount of "damage" should there be an unexpectedly 'vandalous' response. This process will allow us to have a more evidence-based discussion instead of a purely theoretical one.

Users that endorse this view[edit]

View by Ryan Postlethwaite[edit]

The rollback button is quite an important tool, and in the right hands, it's extremely helpful in reverting vandalism. In the wrong hands however, it has the potential to do some serious damage to the project;

  1. It could easily be used by a vandal to go on sprees of mass reverting random contributions - due to the fact that they are simply roll backs, they may well go unnoticed for quite a length of time. An edit limit of 5 per minute would still mean that the average user would be able to opperate at much higher speeds than normal, and therefore cause damage much quicker. I mean, imagine a mass rollback of User:ClueBot??
  2. Rollback is marked as minor, therefore doesn't show up in all RC feeds, so therefore edits made by new autoconfirmed users would not be checked as rigourously - this ties in with the theme above that vandalism would be less easy to detect.
  3. It is also highly likely that this tool would be used in edit wars which has a couple of implications; 1) Users could edit war at a much faster pace at one click of a button - it would most likely lead to edit wars escalating exctremely quickly into blind reverts. 2) An automated edit in an edit war (which would not be accessible to everyone) would just make the situation worse, and antagonise the opposite side.

All in all, I think giving rollback to autoconfirmed users is a bad idea, maybe some way that admins could give it to trusted users would be a good idea however - but obviously there would have to be an easy way to remove it as well.

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Redrocketboy 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Undo is sufficient, and there's a load of anti vandal rollbaklike tools out there. Seriously, no need for us lowley non-admins to have it :) Cheers, Redrocketboy 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Ryan sums up my concerns pretty well. I like the idea of giving it out, but dislike the idea of doing so automatically and without review. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. This is almost exactly what my concerns are. I too like the idea of giving the feature to trusted users, but not without a review as Luna Santin has noted. -MBK004 02:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. I get the shakes just thinking about it. If this goes into effect, I hope someone is already writing The rollback wars of 2008. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Pretty much exactly my ideas on the topic. Orderinchaos 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yes, I do agree. I would hate to have a rollback-war with a squad of vandal-sockpuppets. Acalamari 03:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Indeed, automatically giving it to everyone would be absurd. Twinkle and popups are just fine for those of us who are occasionally held back by our non-admin access. The Hybrid T/C 03:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Daniel 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Yeah, this is about right. I think it has too much potential for misuse, and it's easy enough to install Twinkle or popups. On the other hand, a rollback usergroup would be perfectly fine. Let admins hand it out or remove it at will, and it's just a feather duster handed out by those with mops, great for cleaning the wiki. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Giving absolutely everybody some amount of rollback would be a very bad idea, for these reasons. Dreaded Walrus t c 03:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Agree entirely. Twinkle gives pretty much the same functionality while asking for an edit summary. I can only imagine the havoc that could be caused by vandals with a rollback button. —Travistalk 03:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. I think using Twinkle and other tools like it is good enough. As others have indicated, they are easy enough to install, and already have some hoops to go through in order to get them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Húsönd 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. I could see this, but only if it's Bureaucrats granting/removing as it is an admin ability. (Which is apparently how it would currently work, per talk page. - jc37 08:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Yes, it should not be automatic. I think we should grant it on demand to anyone who is not a disruptive user, but having it be automatic would just cause problems. --B (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Yeah, give it to those highly trustworthy users who can make the right decisions and these that are trusted by a group of admins/crats who will decide who is to get the tools and who isn't..but I have seen this tools been used on Wikia, and though its abused, it can easily removed via Special:Giverollback "Grant or revoke rollback rights" by a Bureaucrat easily...--Cometstyles 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Agree with The Hybrid. -- LAX 23:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Mmmmmaybe. Not necessarily a horrible idea. DS (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. I agree that giving rollback to all is a bad idea. Captain panda 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. What if somebody took exception to one of my hundreds of reliablesources tags? They could roll back all my work! AnteaterZot (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Rudget speak.work 19:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Caknuck (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! 08:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. At least with twinkle and the like, admins have the ability to take it away (I believe). J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Yeah, rollback privileges should not be given automatically once the account becomes autoconfirmed, but through a simple approval process. —Animum (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Not comfortable with giving rollback to absolutely everyone. It would be sweet if I had the power to give people rollback, though... Like knighting them, or initiating them into the cabal, or something. :-) Grandmasterka 09:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. -- lucasbfr talk 10:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Before I was an admin, I never had a problem reverting vandalism even without rollback capabilities. What is gained by allowing rollback for everyone is much less than what will be lost by vandals going on sprees.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Every bit of that.   jj137 Talk 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Too much risk with little benefit. Everyone's edits should be able to be easily seen and reviewed. I don't use it because I don't believe admins should be above review. Royalbroil 05:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. (), 05:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Way too much risk. We already have vandals using undo and causing problems that way. I started using Twinkle before I had the extra buttons, and I still use it for rollbacks. I prefer that it opens a window for an edit summary. Stable users can apply for that or something similar. I was never a vandal, but I don't think I would have wanted rollback before I was familiar with when and when not to use it. - Kathryn NicDhàna 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Icestorm815 (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Rollback in the hands of a vandal will done too much damage to Wikipedia. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 23:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. First off, I should say that I would love to be able to do rollbacks: I am not an admin, I am not enough of a techie to use Twinkle, and I do a lot of undos and manual reversions. The ability to do rollbacks would make me more efficient and effective. However, because I revert a lot of vandalism, I am horrified by the idea of making it so much easier for registered vandals to wreak havoc through Wikipedia. I do like the idea of giving admins the ability to give this capability to trusted users, as that arrangement could greatly increase productivity (without the chaos that this proposal could cause). --Orlady (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. A user with enough experience and a necessity to have a rollback function can get Twinkle or a similar tool. No need to give vandals free reign to go on mass sprees. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Wizardman 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Alice 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. I endorse this! Dreamafter 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  43. I endorse this, but I think we definately need a way to roll back vandalism for some of us vandal hunters who can't use twinkle. I spend most of my day at work checking my watch list (mainly with pro-wrestling vandal targets) reverting vandalism, but I can not use twinkle, as I can't access everything on line. I have never vandalized, but sometimes it takes me going to the newest pre vandal copy (if there have been 4 or 5) and copying and pasting. It takes a while, and a rollback.LessThanClippers (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

View by Rschen7754[edit]

Rollback is a very useful but very dangerous tool. In the wrong hands, it can be used in edit warring, when it should not be used (reverting good faith edits), etc. Therefore, a RFA should be required to obtain access to this tool.

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Redrocketboy 02:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Tools like Twinkle are sufficient, I think. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Community input of some sort strikes me as a need, here, either through RfA or some similar process with a lower bar. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Nothing was broke. The status quo is fine 哦, 是吗?(review O) 02:54, 07 December 2007 (GMT)
  7. Endorse per my above comments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. See my comments on Ryan Postlethwaite's view. Acalamari 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Generally my view also. However I don't agree an RfA is required, but some process where trusted users get it and the rest don't is important. I would say a PROD-like process would be more appropriate. Orderinchaos 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. The Undo button is sufficient for most users (myself, for example), those who want more abilities can use Twinkle or other tools. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Twinkle and such already give power to those technically minded enough to figure it out; unfortunately, if official rollback were offered to all users in the default interface, I'm afraid it may end up being overused. --krimpet 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Indeed, automatically giving it to everyone would be absurd. Twinkle and popups are just fine for those of us who are occasionally held back by our non-admin access. The Hybrid T/C 03:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Daniel 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. If bots have to go through confirmation, and admins have to go through confirmation, then confirmation should be required for this. - jc37 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Húsönd 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. - auburnpilot talk 15:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Giving rollback to autoconfirmed users will be a gift for revert-warriors; I expect there will be a surge of revert-warring spread over many articles which will needlessly involve a great deal of time in the investigation and in trying to stop users being disruptive. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Agree with The Hybrid. -- LAX 23:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Secret account 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Rudget speak.work 19:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. It should be kept in admin hands. Non-admins can use the 'rollback' functions of Twinkle or the various other scripts. KrakatoaKatie 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! 08:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Twinkle suffices. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Have to agree, possibly of revert warring and overuse is just too strong. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  25.   jj137 Talk 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Well put. Royalbroil 05:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. (), 05:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. - Kathryn NicDhàna 06:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. --θnce θn this island Speak! 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Icestorm815 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Obviously, it will facility edits warring. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Wizardman 22:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. This sets a very dangerous precedence, mark my words there will be trouble emanating from this decision if this function is given to everybody. I am NOT an admin, and I do NOT support giving the rollback function to non-admins. (Not that I wouldn't find it useful for combatting vandalism!) Edit Centric (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

View by Robertgreer[edit]

Given all the admonitions in Help:Rollback#Rollback and Help:Reverting#Revert_wars_considered_harmful this is a terrible idea.
Leave this in the hands of admnistrators!
N.B. I am not an admin. Robert Greer (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. Yep. Redrocketboy 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Endorse per my above comments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. See my above comments. Acalamari 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Very much indeed, leave it with the admins. -- Pepve (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Húsönd 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yes. DS (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. I would very much like this tool to remain in the hands of the admins. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Rudget speak.work 19:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Exactly. - KrakatoaKatie 19:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! 08:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. As commented on above section Davewild (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Yes. Royalbroil 05:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. (), 05:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Ckatz[edit]

The rollback tool is extremely useful. As a non-admin, I find I use the TW version on a regular basis, and was happy when that functionality became available. However, offering access "system-wide" would be a mistake, as it would allow for quick and easy abuse. (I've seen many cases where vandals have taken advantage of the relatively new "undo" feature to restore their handiwork after I've cleaned it up.) The current restrictions, wherein regular users have to use TW or similar scripts, is sufficient. The users who are likely to go to the trouble of installing the script are also likely to be ones who will use proper judgement before using that script. --Ckatzchatspy 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. Twinkle is good enough, since only well-established users with intents to remove vandalism and warn them use this feature. Most vandals do not care about installing scripts, such as Twinkle onto their userpages. Having this feature to any user will be wiki-chaos. I personally use Twinkle and I recommend it to anyone who wants the rollback feature and has good faith in this very large Internet project. Johnny Au (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. I do not support this view, I just wish to point out the redundancy of this discussion. You believe that vandals will not bother putting a freely available script into their userspace, but think that they will bother going through a vetting process in order to be granted access to the tool? If a user will not spend 30 seconds implementing Twinkle so they can vandalise pages, they will not spend hours RC patrolling to build an established vandal-reverting reputation in order to gain access to the tool. ~ Carlin U T C 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Húsönd 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sure. DS (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Exactly my thoughts. User:Krator (t c) 21:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mine too. - KrakatoaKatie 19:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Let them stick to putting something in their monobook. Mr Senseless (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Agreed, TW is enough, to deal with vandalism. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 00:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. This is the best solution, IMHO.Analogue Kid (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

View by CBM[edit]

Rollback is not particularly better or worse than the undo feature or automatic rollback tools available through javascript such as Twinkle. On the other hand, the lack of an edit summary and the automatic 'minor edit' mark make vandalism patrolling more difficult. The ability to revert from a user's contributions page is more prone to abuse than the ability to revert from page histories.

Thus, giving all users rollback would be more acceptable if:

  • Edits by non-admins are not automatically marked as minor.
  • The revert function for non-admins is limited to page histories, not user contribution lists.
  • If possible, Javascript is used to prompt non-admins for an edit summary when reverting. Barring this, the edit summary of the edits being reverted is included in the automatic edit summary.

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  • — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

View by Mr.Z-man[edit]

Rollback should not be given to all users, only those who have passed the "autoconfirm" threshold, the same restriction for semiprotection and pagemoves which is currently set to 4 days. This can and should be raised. The threshold can also be set to require a minimum edit count and it may be set to require a confirmed email address too. My proposal is to give rollback privileges to autoconfirmed users (with the same 5/min limit) and raise the threshold to reduce the risk of sleeper account abuse. Perhaps 7 days and 100 edits. Mr.Z-man 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. Mr.Z-man 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


View by Orderinchaos[edit]

Essentially I'm in agreement with Ryan Postlethwaite's comments above re the general situation. I have a specific proposal though for granting rollback to trusted users: a PROD-like process where people are nominated to gain access.

  • Must be nominated by administrator (can't self nominate or get another non-admin user to nominate)
  • 5 day waiting period, where userpage is in a category eg "Users awaiting rollback confirmation" or user is listed on a page to this effect
  • Anyone can object, remove the candidate from consideration and post reason for doing so. Vexatious/egregious removals would be considered disruptive.
  • After its expiry, any administrator can grant access to tool.
  • Once granted, it can be taken away by a consensus at AN/I for minor/more general cases, or immediately by any administrator in an emergency situation.

Orderinchaos 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. Orderinchaos 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. I agree with this view too. Acalamari 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sure, sounds good. I'd suggest "Anyone can object" becomes "Any administrator can object", for anti-trolling purposes (of course, if there is a concern, it can always be raised in an appropriate venue and if an administrator agrees, then they can remove the person from the category). Daniel 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. I like this idea. Mr.Z-man 03:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. (ec) Just what I had in mind, with one difference. Instead of "Anyone can object", make it "Registered editors with 100 mainspace edits" or something to that effect to keep out new accounts and sleeper-socks. -MBK004 03:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. (ec x2) Sure, this is the right idea. Nihiltres{t.l} 03:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. This is good. Especially Daniel's slight variation of the wording. --Dreaded Walrus t c 03:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. I think this is the best way to handle this. Captain panda 03:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. This is probably too close to WP:RFR, but I wouldn't mind this. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, this proposal doesn't seem too bad. Húsönd 08:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Johnbod (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yeah, good idea and per Daniel's comments. — Rudget speak.work 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on this view by jc37[edit]

I don't like the idea that admins can give this ability. Admin abilities should stay as granted by bureaucrats. And going in hand with that, admins then shouldn't be able to remove the ability either. (Though I have an alternate suggestion, below) While removal of admin abilities have thus far been a Steward ability, I suggest that, in this individual case, the ability be given to bureaucrats, if it's to be given "on site". - jc37 04:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

How is creating yet another procedure going to be good for Wikipedia? We have RFA for everyone who needs more privileges. It works, don't fix it. -- Pepve (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely the wrong way to do it[edit]

Indeed. This proposal is everything — everything — that was wrong with WP:RFR. Yet another backlog for admins to handle, yet another process where it is for judgement to decide if someone is being vexatious ("it is vexatious to prevent outstanding user X from having rollback, therefore I shall remove your opposition, and block you for disruption), it adds yet more disputes to AN/I, it grants admins even more power over other editors, it creates new class of users, and it requires far too much fine tuning, as shown in at least one of the comments above. This approach would be totally unacceptable, as shown by the failure of WP:RFR. Splash - tk 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, RFR failed over a year ago - consensus can change. We use a process like this for AutoWikiBrowser and VandalProof (which only has a few moderators, not 1400). Would a system more like those be better? A user can request it for his/herself, there is no required waiting period, any admin can give the rights based on a simple set of criteria with as little discretion as possible (X edits, Y days old, does anti-vandal work already, no problems with edit warring). Strict usage guidelines that are agreed to when requesting the privileges could prevent some of the other possible abuses you mention too. The sentence at the end of WP:ROLLBACK is good: "If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted." - Just change "polite" to "required" (unless we can have a pop up window for a custom edit summary). Mr.Z-man 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say that this proposal was already dismissed by WP:RFR. I meant that RFR failed because of all the problems I listed and I believe that any new proposal so substantively similar to it as this one would fail for all the same reasons. In short, I don't believe that, upon wider investigation, we would find that consensus has changed. Changing one word in a guidance page makes no meaningful difference. The suggestions you offer for criteria might as well just be simplified to "is autoconfirmed", which effectively sets X=0 and Y=4. The other two are judgement calls, and the first (does antivandal work) is unnecessary. Splash - tk 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree - this is by far the worst way of doing it - it adds a completely new process that's completely arbitrary, quite complex, more work for admins, anyone with a grudge (or anyone who simply isn't popular enough) won't have access and adds a new class of users to deal with, all of which is unnecessary. This sort of thing is what WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY is designed to prevent. -Halo (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Esskater11[edit]

Its basicly the same as Orderinchaos in a sense but with looser criteria and a different way to grant the tools

  • Anyone can nominate them selfs and give nominate others
  • Must have at least 2000 or 1500 edits (note this excludes myself)
  • The community will then try to reach consensus on whether or not they want the user with these tools. If consensus is reached for "support" a Admin will come and grant the status.

I feel that this is more community driven and fairer as the Community decides who is given these tools. Esskater11 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  • Me duhhh Esskater11 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Some BASHY thoughts from Dmcdevit[edit]

< Dmcdevit> If you and 99 other people donate…
< Dmcdevit>     * $40 – We can deliver 100 million pageviews of free information!
< Dmcdevit>     * $30 - We can undo 35 million edits!
< Dmcdevit>     * $20 - We can rollback 35 million edits!
< Dmcdevit> Now do you understand?

=D --AmiDaniel (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

View by B[edit]

If we do implement the rollback for non-admins, having an "RFA lite" is a bad idea that would only create an unnecessary hoop to jump through. Access should be granted on demand to any user that is clearly not disruptive. --B (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. B (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. No need to create extra bureaucracy every time we entertain a new feature. Antelan talk 07:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Agreed, an RfA lite style system would simply be a waste of time. We should have something where admins can grant and remove the status to users that ask for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Ryan..not everything has to be made into a cabal.....--Cometstyles 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Rollback should be given liberally. John Reaves 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. I also agree with Ryan here. It should simply be a request, make a page where you list your Username, and an admin fulfills or turns down your request. Malinaccier (talk contribs) 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! 08:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Agreed. Minimal requirements are a must. Nihiltres{t.l} 00:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Say NO to bureaucracy! Grandmasterka 09:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. I do not like bureaucracy. We should diminish our backlogs. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Exactly — User:B is right. I don't see why some people want to make this non-admin rollback feature so hard to get, especially since we have scripts like Twinkle which can be installed by anyone. Why should we make this so hard to get if anyone can get Twinkle? If the Rollback for non-admins is enabled, it should be easy to get. A time limit or use limit for the new feature is a not a good idea, because if everyone who is the feature will be experienced anyway, they will be fighting vandalism and not vandalizing. Those experienced users will be fully capable to use it without making mistakes often. And who wants a time limit when you are fighting vandalism? That would get annoying. We wouldn't have to worry about vandals using it either, because most vandals are newbies, and they wouldn't know about non-admin rollback, much less how to sign up for it or use it. I believe non-admin rollback should be enabled and easy to get for experienced users. DiligentTerriertalk |sign here 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

View by Angela[edit]

The help page on rollbacks says that they "should be used with caution and restraint" and that "it is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor" to use rollback as opposed to reverting manually with an edit summary and explanation. I've seen newbies with rollback privileges at Wikia (where the requirements for adminship are very different to here) and they constantly violate these rules. Rollback to a newbie, who can not be expected to read the help page first, is simply something you do if you disagree with the edit made - it isn't intuitively something used only in cases of obvious vandalism. Enabling this feature will lead to many "slaps in the face". Many rollbacks will be made by accident or because people do not know when rollback is supposed to be used and these will be hard to detect. Angela. 13:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. With respect to accidental rollbacks, that's true - when I first got the bit, I had to get used to the idea that there was an extra link out there I could accidentally click on. If you Firefox and are used to scrolling with the wheel mouse, it's easy to accidentally click the rollback link if you aren't expecting to be there. --B (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Automatically giving rollback to everyone has too many downsides. - auburnpilot talk 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Rollback in the wrong hands can be a killer !!! ..--Cometstyles 16:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. This is correct. Acalamari 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Absolutely. DS (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Yup. - KrakatoaKatie 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! 08:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Davewild (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Listen to the one with field experience. Grandmasterka 09:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Yes. Initially I thought it a good thing but Angela is right.--Sandahl 17:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. - Kathryn NicDhàna 06:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Agreed, the number of mistakes and unjustified reverts will highly increase. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Tim Starling[edit]

The point of restricting rollback is not to waste the time of our valued non-admin patrollers. Faster non-admin revert (in terms of human time) would be a useful feature, providing appropriate measures against abuse are included. This feature is in fact already provided by various unofficial client-side scripts, but integration into MediaWiki would reduce server load and provide centralised control over the details of the user interface.

What exactly constitutes "appropriate measures against abuse" is obviously controversial. Possible mechanisms include:

  • Rate limiting
  • A two-click interface, to protect against accidental rollbacks and provide the opportunity to enter an edit summary
  • Trust mechanisms (e.g. RFA)

I want us to stop wasting the time of "untrusted" users, so I favour rate limiting and two-click over trust.

Tim Starling (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. Aye. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not really a specific suggestion, but good. Mr.Z-man 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. No point in forcing people to use clientside scripts which are far worse regulated, and can have far worse unintended consequences. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. There have been a number of times when I would have found it very useful indeed to be able to do a rollback, instead of having to step through a sequence of reverts. This proposal doesn't give any new "powers" to anyone, and neither does it take away any "powers" that were previously exclusive to administrators - which I have to say does seem to me to be a little bit of an undercurrent in this discussion. It simply makes it more convenient for your average, well-meaning, good-faith editor to do their job. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Yeah, I personally would have no chance in an RFA-type process, but I could use the rollback, and autoconfirm plus rate-limiting mechanisms etc. may be workable. Shalom (HelloPeace) 06:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. I like the idea of a two-click. I've sometimes accidentally clicked "undo", and it helps because it gives you the chance to go back without automatically editing.   jj137 Talk 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Splash[edit]

The main reasons that WP:RFR failed were (1) the creation of a new class of user (those with rollback but not sysop) and (2) the creation of two new processes to manage the grant and revoke parts of it. The latter pair in particular would be very unfortunate to institute.

Therefore, if this is instituted in any form, I would advocate against the construction of any mechanism that was in any way non-automated for either granting or revoking this capability. Instead, we should do as we always do when a user misuses or abuses their editing privileges: block them. There is nothing 'lighter' about misusing rollback persistently than misusing the 'save' button persistently. No separate rules about it, no anything. If the editor is using rollback in a way contrary to that expected of the current modes (ie that expected of admins), then they are blocked from editing until they remedy that problem. Just as they would be for any other editorial misbehaviour.

Secondly, this should not create another class of user. It's for all (a) autoconfirmed accounts, or (b) all accounts or (c) for no-one at all. Hierarchy in editorial capability is a bad thing open to leverage by the less well-behaved editors. To be clear: this is not an 'on request' feature, it is an automatically assigned feature. Like all the other automatically assigned features, if you misuse it, you lose the ability to edit altogether.

To the developers I would note that they should reasonably expect some thought-provoking conversations to arise when a new feature has 'sociological' implications as this one has been shown to have a good number of times. Splash - tk 16:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. Splash - tk 16:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. `'Míkka>t 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Again, I don't mind how it is granted, as long as there is a way to remove it, even if that is blocking. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Change canceled in rev 28248[edit]

I posted this on this page's talk page but will mention it here also. In rev 28248, rollback for normal users has been removed. Rollback for non-admin users will only be enabled if there is consensus for the change to be made via localsettings.php. FunPika 22:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Mailer Diablo[edit]

The purpose of Rollback will benefit only a very targeted audience, i.e. those who seek to fight against vandalism. - Thing is most vandal-fighters are probably already armed themselves with the proper scripts to rollback. Other than that I don't see the opportunity cost of taking a few more extra seconds to key in "rvv" by a normal editor.

Even if we were to go ahead, we wouldn't want to see editors start utilizing it for edit wars ala Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al, and should have strong disincentives for those who use it for such a purpose. The way it is done must not give out a lot more heat than light as well, and heat is generated through unilateralism and arbitrariness.

In short, I don't really see the net-benefit from this that comes with the potential amount of dispute, conflict and perhaps even social problems.

Users that endorse this view[edit]

  1. Mailer Diablo 08:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 09:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Agreed but will continue to support giving admin bit as liberally as possible. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Arknascar44[edit]

First, let's think about the rollback threshold now. In order to get the rollback button, a user must make it through an RfA. They are granted these powers, along with others, by a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats are chosen through an RfB for their understanding of consensus, and, most importantly, their good judgment. Not to say that administrators have bad judgement, as many are very skilled at making tough (and correct) decisions, but placing the power of giving an admin tool to another user in the hands of an admin (who have not been chosen specifically for that purpose) seems to me like a Bad Thing. Again, many administrators have absolutely stellar judgment, but giving those kinds of powers to them instead of to bureaucrats, who have been selected by the community to provide this sort of thing is simply not necessary.

On a side note, Twinkle, Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool, etc., etc. allow reversion of edits at such a high rate that providing the rollback tool to users who have the ability to revert at relatively high speeds anyway serves little purpose.

Then, there is the issue of the tool's misuse. Making an account on Wikipedia is easy. Becoming an admin isn't. Pressing a rollback button is easy. Using proper judgment before pressing it isn't. It's not a risk we need to take.

Just my two cents :)

In reply to your side note about Twinkle, rollback user scripts put more load on the server than the real deal. FunPika 18:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ( arky ) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Gracenotes[edit]

Nearly everyone here has no objection to tools like Twinkle being broadly used, but many have objections to adding the [rollback] button to the user interface. So give autoconfirmed users the technical ability to rollback, an action which requires a unique token, but do not include the rollback button on diff, history, or user contribution pages (i.e., do not include it at all). In this case, rollback can only be accessed with a third-party tool like Twinkle, which everyone seems to agree is fine. The I/O speed and bandwidth issues are solved, and since custom summaries are possible with the rollback permission, there is no loss in the functionality of Twinkle (or other anti-vandalism tools).

This proposal assumes technical possibility, which may or may not be the case.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. GracenotesT § 07:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 08:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Thomas H. Larsen[edit]

Simply put: it's both good and bad.

I don't do much (any) vandal fighting now, since I am not continously on Wikipedia long enough to make doing so feasible. However, I used to do a fair amount, and I would have found a rollback function invaluable.

I technically endorse this function, because it would be an excellent feature for those who have to slog through RC correcting malicious edits, but I feel that there needs to be a restriction on who can use it.

I feel that the feature would be best restricted to editors with over 200 edits, since this is about the level where editors are usually experienced enough to make good judgements on when and when not to rollback. I think this is the only restriction that should be made, however. — Thomas H. Larsen 01:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors who endorse this summary

View by TwilightPhoenix[edit]

The rollback can be a powerful and useful tool in the right hands, but also a very damaging one in the wrong hands. To help reduce potential damage, use of the rollback tool by non-admin users, if employed, should be subject to the Three Revert Rule. This would restrict users from abusing the tool, but would allow vandal fighters to fight against vandalism with much more impunity, for, as it says on the rule page, removing simple vandalism is exempt from the 3RR.

Users that Endorse this view[edit]

  1. TwilightPhoenix (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


This page is a confusing mess[edit]

Can we have a single proposal and actual discussion, instead of this formalized red tape? Thanks.

People that do not endorse this mess:

  1. >Radiant< 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    We don't know what people actually want, so to get an idea of what options we have, and what the rough consensus is for each option, this page seems like quite a good method. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sensible dialogue would seem to be a better method. The page is really very confusing by now. >Radiant< 14:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Discussion this fragmented will never produce any clear consensus. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators proposal[edit]

Please see the above link for a new proposal for giving rollback to non-administrators and edit as required. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:32, 9 December 2007 (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.