Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:27, 12 January 2006

There has also been discussion of this on the wikien-l mailing list.

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)[reply]

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. BDAbramson T 23:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My thoughts exactly. --Bruce1ee 06:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support if technically possible. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - Not true! You can't write a program that can prove a program terminates. :) —Daelin @ 2006–01–07 14:03Z
Support Per BDAbramson Prodego ^talk 15:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NaconKantari 00:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definately. --ViolinGirl^♪ 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in case this is a poll and no one told me. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Titoxd. ;) —Locke Cole • t • c 07:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Absolutely, if possible.--Dakota ~ ε 18:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? - Darwinek 18:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Strong support from me. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 06:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Titoxd and bbatsell. :) // Pathoschild 06:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Support ... it just makes sense --Nick Catalano (Talk) 13:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- But you can't request adminship just for the rollback button – adminship implies other responsibilities as well. --Bruce1ee 13:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Support and strongly. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Peace Inside 03:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~User has only 12 edits --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support this excellent idea. Stifle 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even better than having to formally request rollback. --Bruce1ee 14:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Blocking someone prevents them from using rollback. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

AfD? 13:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

@@ Line 147: / Line 147: @@
 ::And, God-mode lite won't work for some people. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">LV</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 :::And is prone to failure.  [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 16:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
+:::: And is taxing on the servers, and the developers hate it because of that. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback: Difference between revisions