Revision as of 23:49, 30 December 2007 editHenrik (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,538 editsm fix redlink← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:56, 30 December 2007 edit undoRxS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,829 edits →Proposal: just a start....Next edit → | ||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
===Requirements for users to have rollback=== | ===Requirements for users to have rollback=== | ||
There are no prerequisites ''per se'' for getting the tools, although a user should not have a history of edit warring and should have shown an understanding of the project and a need for the rollback permission (an example as to how this may be gained is through vandalism reversion). Although it may not be easy to determine this, administrators should evaluate requests for rollback on individual merit and review a user's edit history before granting them the permission. | There are no prerequisites ''per se'' for getting the tools, although a user should not have a history of edit warring and should have shown an understanding of the project and a need for the rollback permission (an example as to how this may be gained is through vandalism reversion). Although it may not be easy to determine this, administrators should evaluate requests for rollback on individual merit and review a user's edit history before granting them the permission. | ||
===Usage=== | |||
This tool is provided to qualified editors for fighting vandalism. Usage is strictly limited to rolling back obvious vandalism. Editors using the rollback tool for other purposes will be subject to having the rollback tool removed. | |||
==Removal of the permission== | ==Removal of the permission== |
Revision as of 23:56, 30 December 2007
Please read through the proposal, and decide whether to support or oppose the general principals and implementation. Minor adjustments to the managements of it can be made in the discussion section |
The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
The rollback feature allows intentionally unconstructive contributions to be reverted quickly, and more efficiently that with other methods. (User scripts have been written which mimic the functionality of rollback, but they merely hide details from the user, and are much less efficient, both in terms of bandwith and time). Rollback links are displayed on page histories, user contributions pages, and diff pages.
Clicking on the link reverts to the previous edit not authored by the last editor. An automatic edit summary is provided and the edit is marked as minor. (An error message is returned if there is no last editor to revert to).
Rollback is currently only available to administrators. However, many non-administrators now deal with vandalism regularly, but do not have access to this tool – and either do not wish to be administrators or do not meet the expected standards, yet are unquestionably experienced and trustworthy. This proposal would implement a process by which the rollback feature could be granted to, and revoked from, non-administrators.
The point has now come where we have a rough consensus as to what the restrictions should be in place, and the community is now asked to look at forming a consensus as to its implementation.
Proposal
The way it works
Users may request the rollback button should they suffice in having the minimum requirement as detailed below.
- They should first put a request in at the section below.
- Administrators should check the history of the contributor to see if they can be trusted with the tool.
- If the administrator is satisfied, they can then go to Special:Userrights (see $wgAddGroups and $wgRemoveGroups before thinking whoever put Userrights in has gone mad) and this will add the user into the rollback usergoup, giving them the rollback tool.
- The tool will be the same as the administrator rollback tool, with no limitations.
Requirements for users to have rollback
There are no prerequisites per se for getting the tools, although a user should not have a history of edit warring and should have shown an understanding of the project and a need for the rollback permission (an example as to how this may be gained is through vandalism reversion). Although it may not be easy to determine this, administrators should evaluate requests for rollback on individual merit and review a user's edit history before granting them the permission.
Usage
This tool is provided to qualified editors for fighting vandalism. Usage is strictly limited to rolling back obvious vandalism. Editors using the rollback tool for other purposes will be subject to having the rollback tool removed.
Removal of the permission
If there is misuse of the rollback permission, a user should report this to the incidents noticeboard. A discussion can then take place to evaluate the users use of the tool, and with a consensus on the noticeboard, any administrator may remove the tool by going to Special:Userrights. Any repeated giving and revoking the permission over a short period of time without consensus to do so will be considered wheel warring and will be subject to the same sanctions.
Discussion
Support
- Nick (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Some excellent vandal-fighters who could use the rollback function very well fail RfAs for non-rollback related reasons (i.e. misjudged CSD tags, etc.). Giving these users rollback will only give Misplaced Pages a net benefit. Keilana(recall) 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support I want rollback for myself, and I think a system like this would enable me to get it. I think there are a few users who can't practically become administrators, but who should be allowed to use rollback. I think this system will accomplish its purpose. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - obviously :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support, though I think the text in "Removal of the permission" needs some tweaking. Is it really necessary to mention that this too can be wheel warring, I would have thought that obvious? henrik•talk 23:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose, would encourage stalking and other abuses. Editors already have access to the rollback function in the article history, this is sufficient. Martintg (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Encourage stalking? May I ask how? If there's misuse it can be removed straight away anyway. Users have no access to rollback currently as it's faster than any other tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there, I don't think you need to worry about the tool being used to stalk users, firstly, the user needs to have their contributions checked by an administrator before they are given the tool, and if there was allegations of stalking, we would be able to remove the tool and take any further additional action against the user that may be necessary. We feel this proposal strikes the very best balance available of helping those who maintain Misplaced Pages whilst preventing those who seek to damage the project from accessing such tools. Nick (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stalking? That's a new one. "Stalking", or at least the weird definition of it that you've linked to, involves editing the same articles as another user to annoy them... how on earth does the ability to revert vandalism more quickly have anything to do with that? – Gurch 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I completely fail to understand why this "rollback for non-admins" proposal must return every so often. Don't we already have this Twinkle thing that basically does the same thing? Yeah, maybe slower, but on broadband you can barely see a difference. Oh, admins can give and take it? Cool, so I can see three issues here: 1) creating another "caste" of users (oh, but we love the healthy atmosphere this creates, so who cares?), 2) opens field for wheel warring (you admit that yourself, but we're used to that, so who cares?), 3) extra bureaucracy (but we love that, so who cares?). Overall, this gives very little added value (slightly faster revert) with a slightly stricter mechanism of granting it (you can't just add it to your monobook, yet a user can be de-rollbacked just as easily as de-twinkled) and possible field for abuse and inter-admin vitriol alike. No, thanks. Миша13 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. If you do this you might as well give it to everyone. Who possibly has time to notice or monitor abuse of the tools? The good vandal fighters need to become admins anyone to block effectively and it will not improve things. --BozMo talk 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
- just some random thoughts, But I agree that admins should have the ability to grant/remove the rollback, But let me toss in another wrinkle that might make things easier, users who have more than 10,000 edits and have been with the project for over 6 months automatically get granted rollback, (by a software config, that already exists) but admins can still remove the auto given right. β 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, not sure about this, we have a lot of people with over 10,000 edits that really couldn't be trusted with it and would use it soley for edit warring. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then it can be removed from them. Majorly (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, not sure about this, we have a lot of people with over 10,000 edits that really couldn't be trusted with it and would use it soley for edit warring. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You could pass an RfA with those fixed requirements up there, making this whole thing pointless. Do away with them and let administrators exercise their judgement; they're supposed to be trusted members of the community, not dumb automatons that get spoonfed instructions with no room for discretion – Gurch 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure if someone could pass a RFA, but another month and he could for sure. My fear is that we will be seeing people using the rollback feature without taking the time to warn the user in their page (since rollback should only be used when dealing with vandalism). Who would be assigning the rights? Administrators? I would prefer having bureaucrats do it, as to give them some more work, especially if they will have to review the users' last hundreds of edits. However, I am not against the idea of non-admins using the feature. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with the bureaucrats granting is that they simply haven't the man time to do this - it would be too much to handle for such a limited resource. We already have plenty of scripts available that allow the use of admin rollback and follow with a warning, so there wouldn't be a great change in that respect. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to be worried about people dealing with vandalism incorrectly. That is really neither here nor there. A large proportion of vandalism is already dealt with by non-administrators. This would change only the method by which they do it. If people warn users now, I can't see why they would suddenly stop if they were able to use rollback. If they don't, I can't see any reason why they would suddenly start if they were able to use rollback. So the situation would be no different to how it currently is – Gurch 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat related but in an almost opposite tone is Misplaced Pages:Limit the undo function, a proposal I haven't really organised properly yet. I have concerns about the use of the undo function, but mostly about its use by IPs. violet/riga (t) 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Category: