Misplaced Pages

280 supporters

1. Support. Already said by others, but this primarily seems a faster, more efficient way for vandal fighters to help out. Properly entitled users will need to use the same level of care already required for automated tools like VandalProof. --Quintote (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Because I think I could use this new tool effectively (and others also) Randomblue (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support The more 'admin' tools are available to non-admins on a selective basis, the less the need to give people more power than they need by making them into full admins. SteveBaker (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
4. SupportAnything that makes fighting vandalism easier is a good idea. I echo the need to have an associated warning automatically posted to the vandal's talk page. The proposed simple control on who has the tool already works well in existing tools like VandalProof. Stephen Kirrage 15:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
5. SupportSeems like a good idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support I'm not really interested in being an admin but this would help me fight vandalism. I also like the idea of automatically adding a warning to the user's talk page, perhaps the most mild warning which could be supplemented with a stronger warning if that was felt necessary. TallMagic (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Support. Saves the hassle of having to install browser-specific scripts and speeds up the time it takes to fight vandalism. Long overdue in my opinion! Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support, I see no harm beyond what scripts already allow. -Lanoitarus .:. 19:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Sure-I've-supported-something-like-this-before support. I'm stuck with using MSIE most of the time, which works with bugger all (as anyone checking the history of User:CaptainVindaloo/monobook.js can tell). I surely can't be the only one with such problems, and this proposal would eliminate them. CaptainVindaloo 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support, a good way to save time of admins to do tasks more suited to them. Delegation is the key. Jamsta (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Helpful for removing vandalism quickly, and the admins I think can be able to detewrmine who should be allowed to have this ability. CardinalDan (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Potentially useful tool. Eusebeus (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - a non-administrator regularly engaged in vandalism reversion would like to ease up the burden on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism visited daily. --Poeticbent talk 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support As a non-administrator who regularly volunteers to the anti-vandal patrol, I would welcome any tool which makes that job easier. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - already using Twinkle. Plenty of non-admins can be trusted to use this tool. Sting_au Talk 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support, this would be very useful and efficient in countering vandalism. Rai-me 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support, I would welcome this tool. 99of9 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - Already using VP. I completely agree that there are many non-admins that could be trusted and could do a more effective job with a tool like this. -- Alexf 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, Provide careful attention is given toward granting users the permission to use this tool, there should not be too much of an issue. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Many Wikipedians who are not administrators are competent. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

300 supporters

1. Support - sounds great, there are plenty of competent Wikipedians who don't want to devote their life to it. This would be really helpful. Cop 663 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. I have been following this discussion with some interest and I am pleased that the debate was not cut short. After much thought I see no reason to oppose this proposal. --Bduke (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support The scripts already allow this, so a more efficient and faster method for selected users would be helpful. --Falcorian  06:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

For an archive of the first 120 oppose votes, see Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator rollback/First 120 oppose votes

120 opposers

1. Oppose. Create more admins if that's what's needed. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, vandal-fighters are almost always opposed simply for being vandal-fighters. Acalamari 19:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2. 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. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

   I think you misunderstand the proposal. This is to create a process to which users may apply for the tool, it would not automatically be given out to all users. For that proposal see below. --Nn123645 (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Buggrit. Wrong section. I'll move my vote down. In that case, my vote for this section stands the same - I feel it's unnecessary to have an officially endorsed method like this with request pages when users can still very easily install TW. It also provides extra work for administrators - is that something we need? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose I cannot see any advantage to Misplaced Pages in any these proposals. It is so easy to make corrections using the normal method. The only people who could benefit from this are destructive users.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose I can't see how this would be a significant time-saver as compared to the tools that all users currently have at their disposal, i.e. Twinkle, Lupin, popups, etc. Honestly, I like the process required at present for a non-admin to undo an edit, I believe that it requires users to be more conscious of their reverts without sacrificing efficiency. Further, I fear the increased bureaucracy combined with the creation of a separate strata of users would cause more difficulties than it prevents (i.e. increased revert efficiency would be balanced by the increased bureaucracy) Lazulilasher (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose as above. Asterion 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose for the simple reason that there is really no need to fix something that's not broke. Normal reverting is fine for regular users like myself. — Ian Lee (Talk) 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose as above.GrandmasterRUS (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above. Unnecessary. hezekiah (talk to me) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose - No point whatsoever. Will only create problems. Undo for non-admins, rollback for admins. It's been working, let's not stuff it up eh? Spawn Man (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose - lack of ability to change edit summary is a deal-breaker for me (and the main reason I don't use rollback). Undo is much more flexible. Even reverting vandalism should be explained. If the ability to edit the rollback edit summary (eg. a setting in preferences to make rollback one or two steps depending on what you were working on) was provided, then I could support this. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose. It ain't broke and don't need fixin'. There are plenty of excellent reversion tools available. I see this as adding another unnecessary layer. Let's keep things as simple as possible. Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose. See no benefits, current setup works fine. Jayjg 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Undo works just fine for me. NJGW (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I have 3 strong motives to oppose: first Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, second we need to reduce our backlogs for administrators not increase, third WP:TW and similar tools does the job. I see only one good motive to enable rollback for non-admin users, that is reducing server's bandwidth usage. Carlosguitar 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Unnecessary, and possibly counterproductive. This ham-fisted dial-up user who has reverted a fair bit of vandalism doesn't find the current methods cumbersome in the least. Rollback is a valid tool for administrators, but WP certainly doesn't need a new category of users: "Administrator Lites" (Administrators Lite?). It would lead to innumerable accidental reversions and attendant hurt feelings, it would place an additional burden on administrators who would have to vet applicants and then police abuse, and, most importantly, the benefits would be too minimal to make it worth implementing. Rivertorch (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose This just unnecessarily creates another work queue for admins. Why bother when Twinkle, Popups and other tools accomplish the same task (albeit slightly slower) and without the counter restrictions. Plus, it's not like WP:ANI isn't stretched to its limits as it is... Caknuck (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose I am seriously concerned about the overuse of a rollback button made potentially available for everyone, as well as the lack of edit summaries in possibly controversial reverts. Let's keep things as they currently are. --Angelo (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    This would not be given to everyone, only experienced users. Mr.Z-man 09:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    But admins are experienced users, and personally I think adding an admin-lite level is counter-productive. --Angelo (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose - I am concerned about having this for everyone, as IP's may abuse it. Also, it's reasonably easy to revert multiple edits in the page history. StuartDD _{contributions} 10:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    IPs wouldn't be able to get it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    Alright, but it could still be abused by vandal editors - so my vote still stands. And it is not needed as there is a way to reert multiple edits already. StuartDD _{contributions} 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    No it wouldn't: if an obvious vandalism-only account requested rollback, they would be blocked, not granted rollback, and no one is going to spend three-six months editing here just to obtain rollback, and then lose it after a minute or two of abusing it. Acalamari 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

19. Oppose - I personally would like to use such a feature, but I am afraid that it will be taken advantage of...and lead to worse edit wars. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose, the WP:TW tool works fine for me at present and is available to all users who want it. Adding this "new class" of user just adds to bureaucracy and will create a backlog of users requiring admin checks - Dumelow (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    Twinkle may work fine for some users, but it's useless for Internet Explorer users such as myself. Unfortunately no, it is not available to everyone who wants it, I'm afraid. Acalamari 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

140 opposers

1. Oppose - Redundant to existing tools, WP:CREEP, hassle of dealing with even more levels of user permissions...take your pick from the arguments above. --jonny-mt 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Its more efficient than existing tools, has a minimum level of new rules, and since when have user permissions been a "hassle?" Mr.Z-man 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose I see "widening the gap" between new and veteran editors as something that should be avoided unless there's good reason, and I just don't see this as a pressing need, especially given the presence of the "undo" button. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Regarding the "widening the gap" thing - it wouldn't be. It appears that the function would be given to any user who has been making constructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Therefore...all users making extremely constructive edits, well, would get said function. BlackPearl14 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose due to the lack of any specific requirements for non-admins to have this powerful tool, other than a "need". What constitutes a qualified non-admin.? One month on Wikipdia and 200 edits? Six months? One year and 5,000 edits? As the proposed guideline is currently stated, this would vary tremendously from one administrator's interpretation to the next.I'd change my vote to Strong Support if a specific guideline were incorporated into the proposal, say, 6 months on Misplaced Pages, minimum 1,000 edits, and no user warnings. An editor meeting these qualifications, could surely be trusted with this tool for blatant vandalism rollback. For those who say, "aren't TW and undo enough?", the answer is no, they're not, because they don't work on all platforms. I, for example, regularly check my Watchlist on my Blackberry, but using Undo on large (over 100 kb) articles can result in unpredictable truncation. So, while I can't support the proposal at present due to the overly discretionary threshold to be granted rollback, I do agree with the need and intent of the proposal, JGHowes - 21:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Its main use is reverting vandalism. Simply basing it on edit count and time experience is not effective. There are users who have thousands of edits and months of experience who may misuse this. Do they have a history free of edit warring or behavior problems? Do they have experience reverting vandalism? If you can say yes to both, they could probably be trusted with rollback. If we have specific criteria, someone turned down because of something not on the list could complain and drama could ensue. Mr.Z-man 03:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   It is the vaugeness of the proposal that is causing so many people to oppose it. Marlith /C 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose because it is totally unnecessary- simple vandal reverts can easily be done- complex ones can be done by admins without too much trouble. I don't like simple tools getting into the hands of vandals to wreak all havoc. Monsieurdl 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose This simply does not seem necessary. There are many other more important issues to deal with than this one. --Stormbay (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose per JGHowes above. What exactly constitutes a "need"? Kamek (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose It's not needed, the undo is fine as it is. Besides if this thing passes, mindless vandalism will constitue. RuneWiki 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Why isn't it needed? The undo feature is useless against reverting mass vandalism, which I've only cleaned up by using rollback. Twinkle is not a good alternative because it doesn't work with Internet Explorer. Finally, on your last point, yes, vandalism will continue unfortunately, and this proposal is to help make vandal-fighting easier, as well as to reduce server load. Acalamari 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   Can't people just get Firefox? Marlith /C 03:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   Not really: some people may prefer the look or interface of IE, or, in my case, have problems with Firefox where it's not easy to use. Acalamari 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   This should make Firefox easier to use if some prefer IE7s feel Marlith /C 05:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

8. For one thing, I'm disturbed that the "voting is evil" comments, including my own, were moved. If I can't "vote" not to vote, then I'm moved to oppose. But beyond that, there are other issues with this, and undo and twinkle are good enough. Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Discussions have been moved to the talk page.

Simpler proposal

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages makes a sub-admin class of reversion hall monitors. There's not really anything significant that will change about Misplaced Pages 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.--Doc 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. SeanMD80 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)

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 Leveille 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (talk • contribs)
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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Rollback for non-administrators#View by Ryan Postlethwaite. Alice 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Sorry, I Oppose Wow. 'Nuff said. BlackPearl14 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose - Potential for disruption. Misplaced Pages 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 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose per Zachary crimsonwolf. Chetblong_Sign 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 talk • edits 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  06:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral (simpler proposal)

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_{(talk • email • todo)} 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

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.--Doc 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Count the Mistaken

Quite a number of the Oppose votes seem to think that the proposal is going to make vandalism easier. This is a misunderstanding that has been countered numerous times above, but still keeps occuring. I think that someone should keep a count of the number that have given this as the ONLY reason to oppose. This could be quite significant in deciding whether or not there is consensus. Ideally, someone neutral (ie who has not voted) should count but I will do it myself if others think this is worthwile and fair. SpinningSpark 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a misunderstanding, it's an opinion. Thinking rollbacks wouldn't make vandalism easier is also an opinion. It's an ongoing debate, and you can't just declare that the people who disagree with you are mistaken. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:56, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that whoever interprets this debate will discount opinions based on factually incorrect information. I fail to see how having to gain a reputation as a responsible editor then apply for a special button makes vandalism easier when you could just press 3 buttons to get the same effect. Even if you did you would lose that rollback very fast. 1 != 2 16:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

how many times has this been hashed out over the course of this page... it's a debate, theres nothing factual about either side's stance. The only way you'll know is with time, if it gets implemented. Probably not even then. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:27, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

In order that to be factually incorrect, one would need to demonstrate prima facie evidence that the implementation of this proposal could not make vandalism easier. As this proposal has never been implemented, I can't see how such evidence could be found to exist. Therefore, you're making an argument, not stating a fact. It seems a reasonable argument to me, but others obviously disagree, and I can see where they are coming from, too. So please don't declare your own viewpoint to be a fact. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone thinks a button is going to do something it cannot technically do, then that is a factual error. To give it equal weight would turn this debate into a vote. 1 != 2 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone says it would make vandalism easier they don't necessarily have any misunderstanding about what the button technically does. The question is whether or not that functionality will make vandalism easier, and that is something that is a matter of opinion and remains to be seen. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:36, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I've been interpreting such comments as either an assumption of bad faith of the admins granting it (that we'll give it to vandals) or the users using it (they will get it and just go crazy) or as a sign that they did not fully read the proposal and think this is still like the original proposal to give it to everyone. Either way, the amount of bad faith assumptions I have seen here is shocking. Mr.Z-man 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Being worried about users abusing the tool ("going crazy") is a legitimate concern and not necessarily a bad-faith assumption. Firstly, users can be abusive without intending to be. They fall into immature battles with each other over how to best handle an article, a group of articles, or even an entire project. They're just reverting to the way they think is best, which is still good-faith. Also, "assume good faith" applies to judging users' actions after the fact -- it does not apply when we're trying to figure out what tools to enable users with. If we had to assume good faith there, then we would be immediately granting everyone full developer privileges. But we don't. We assume that if a user takes a shot that he had good reason, but we don't hand loaded guns out to everyone. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:32, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Being worried that it might be abused/misused by some is fine and quite realistic. Some of the comments however suggest that if this were to be implemented that significant numbers of users would go on rampages rolling back legitimate edits, trying to exert control, and chasing users off the project through careless and/or abusive reverting. Mr.Z-man 08:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Z-MAN , the reaosn whe beleive this to be so is because this is exactly what happens now iwth the tools already available. editing parapsychology an dissident-science related articles is a headache and a knightmare since eery constructive edit is automatically altered beyond recognition, deleted entirely, or reverted so fa rback that is destroys not only the reverted edit but almost every edit immediatle y preceding it. MOST people are responsible with the tools, but the few that therte are -- the few that happened to cluster around certain areas of wikipedia like maggots on rotten meat - that they are ztye ones who will use this ability to wage editrs wars that may or may not be valid in intent but can have the ia unintentionalt sidefefct of driving away legitimate editors. Smith Jones (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is just editing in bad faith. Since it is unlikely that any software tool can distinguish between good and bad faith, it is inevitable that any tool that helps editing will also help vandalism. However, I believe that most vandals are casual users who don't take the time to learn all of these features - so I strongly suspect that the existance of this tool will give more power to the good guys than it does to the bad guys. But making it such that an admin has to see a bunch of good editing history before turning it on should defeat most vandals. Almost all attacks that I revert are from IP accounts and almost all of those are from people with either a very short editing history - or one that is 100% vandalism. Since (I presume) this privilage won't be granted to IP accounts - I don't see that abuse FOR THE PURPOSES OF VANDALISM is at all likely. Abuse in other areas (such as revert wars) is possible however. SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The argument that this tool will increase vandalism seems to ignore the basic way that this is to be implemented. The default for users is no rollback right. It takes an administrator to grant the use of this tool. If an administrator starts, for example, granting rollback on request from new users, with no review, that admin could be called on it. It's unlikely to happen, though possible. Rollback doesn't really help much with *creating* vandalism. The argument that rollback will increase vandalism would also apply to granting rollback to administrators. They are merely a group of editors who have attained, at some point, the trust of the community, and they are trusted to use their tools properly. Sometimes they don't, but we do not therefore conclude that nobody but, say, developers should have the tools. What this proposal does, essentially, is to grant a right to administrators, but one much less hazardous than the rights they already have, the right to *delegate* use of the rather minor rollback tool. Do we trust administrators to use this right wisely? I know I do, and I know that the rare exceptions can be addressed specifically. Administrators are unlikely to grant rollback rights to users who are likely to offend. Mistakes will be made, but the real question is how often they will be made. Don't trust administrators? Conclude that they will commonly err, and vote no for this proposal. But even then -- exactly how does this make vandalism easier without at the same time making it easier to fix? Which would you rather revert, one rollback edit -- any editor can do this -- or two or three individual reverts? --Abd (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It ain't broke, don't fix it - but what about a little improvement!!

Let me also add some weight against the argument "if it aint broke dont fix it". Well just because something is not broken, does not mean it does not need an upgrade. Hell whats wrong with swords and arrows? Nothing, they were excellent for warfare and for at least a hundred years between 1350 until 1450, arrows were better than guns - upgrades like this are still essential. We don't and should not wait for something to break before changing. Tourskin (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism bots

Whether or not the original proposal passes (I hope it does):

I propose we give rollback to the anti-vandal bots (ClueBot, VoABot II, CounterVandalismBot, and the currently defunct MartinBot). There is no chance of abuse, and no one would be able to tell the difference because the bots would give their own edit summary when requesting rollback (currently an obscure feature of rollback). It would just be easier on the bots and the servers (both the WMF servers and the servers the bots run on) as these bots make thousands of reverts every day. -- Cobi 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Support (bots)

1. As nominator. -- Cobi 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support if only the bots get rollback Alexfusco 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support both ways. Portia1780 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support If anyone needs the rollback tool to improve server strain, then these bots certainly do... just think how much more work we'd have to do if they were not beavering away all hours of the day and night. -- Geoff Riley (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
5. The bots are going to do the rollback whether they have this or not, so some of the opposition based on bots messing up doesn't make much sense. Mr.Z-man 04:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Bots needs this function to reduce server's bandwidth usage. Carlosguitar 04:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Full support as part of WP:BAG β 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support the RC checking bots need all the help they can get. BJ 04:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Strong Support anything that makes the all-mighty ClueBot work better is something that should implemented. --Nn123645 (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
10. (BAG member) Conditional Support. I support granting this priv to these accounts if there is a system in place for granting and revoking this priv. I do not support creating a new method just to accommodate these accounts at this time. (I also do not support just making them +sysop at this time either). — xaosflux 06:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. I can't think of any likely drawbacks. If there were any, it would be pretty easy to revoke the privileges of a grand total of three bots. Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong Support regardless of whether the main proposal is implemented (which it should be, IMO) -- this is a brilliant idea, and it should be implemented as speedily as possible. Ashdog137 (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Conditional support, only in case it's stated in the edit summaries reverts were made by bots and not common users. --Angelo (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    The edit summary will be exactly the same as it is now (Reverting possible vandalism by Special:Contributions/USER_REVERTED to version by USER_PREVIOUS. False positive? report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (MySQL-ID) (Bot)), using the obscure feature of rollback to provide the bot's own edit summary. -- Cobi 10:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

14. Support If there's a group that most definitely deserves the rollback, it's these anti-vandal bots. No reason not give them an extra performance boost. Spellcast (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - I don't see any problems with this. Burzmali (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support --Quintote (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support, seems obvious to me... SQL 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
18. support arguments against this are silly. —Random832 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Comment Presumably, any admin can do this. That is, this proposal is moot, unless there is some provision that does not allow the granting of permission to bots, in which case, I support removing that restriction. It's an admin decision, and the admin is responsible for it. --Abd (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support I think this is a given, if any regular user can be given the tool by an admin then a trusted bot would be too. 1 != 2 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Obvious. Anti-vandalism bots are already using their own rollback system - giving an already used API won't cause any further harm. Benefits include faster rollbacks without the negative effects of having to calculate edit conflicts. --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Support No reason not to. We already trust them to do a helluva lot of rollbacks every minute. Might as well let them do it more efficiently. There would be no change as far as which articles get rolled back, or when, or under what conditions. As for the hacking concern posed below, I don't think rollback access is going to incite more interest in hacking these bots. The usefulness to a hacker for controlling a bot is pretty much still there even without rollback access. As a side note, Franamax needs to watch fewer movies. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:17, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Regardless of overall rollback debate. As I said to Cobi, I've never seen AVB cause significant content problems, so this just seems like a good thing. MBisanz 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Support. Spebi 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Support 99of9 (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Support but why give it to MartinBot? Marlith /C 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Support The bots need the tools more than anyone else here. Captain panda 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Now this - I can see. Bots aren't to be run without approval from BAG. and the bots are the ones that can bog down server resources at their speed. Security holes? yeah there's some - ultimately bots are watched (by owner or admin) and should be deactivated upon problem. (with resolution leading to possible reactivation down the road.)  — master son 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Support SJMNY (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Excellent idea. Acalamari 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. I can support this despite opposing it with humans. Master_son stated all of my points well. Those accounts have some of the highest amount of reverting, so their effiency would impact the servers the most. They can always be blocked if they run afoul. I would support having the revert flag be automatically awarded when the bot flag is obtained. Royalbroil 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    The only problem with rollback being assigned to the bot flag is that anti-vandal bots are not flagged. This is done so their edits are not hidden ("hide bot edits") in recent changes. -- Cobi 01:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

32. slakr asks below if they need it. No one needs it, but it is useful. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Bots are needed to help with vadals too. SuperGodzilla2090 4 TACOZ! 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
34. Support – Bots may not need this tool, but it sure would do some good, even if ClueBot would be practically unbeatable with admin rollback. —Animum (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    COMMENT -- how can do you justify giving uncontroled unaccountable robots this much pwoer over how wikipedia works if you admit that it isnt needed? Smith Jones (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    Smith Jones, this will not change what the bots do at all. They currently work the same way, but this lets them tell Misplaced Pages's servers "Please revert edit(s) by User:xxxxxx on article yyyyyy" instead of "Give me the list of changes for article yyyyyy.", "Ok, now give me the data for revision zzzzzzzz on article yyyyyy." "Ok, now give me the edit form for article yyyyyy." "Ok, here is the text (which the server gave the bot earlier) for the post to article yyyyyy." As you can see, the former is much better than the latter. -- Cobi 02:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    thanks, i think i udnertstand the issue better now. i sitll oppose this though, because through recent ordeals with bots i have learned that they cannot be ngegiatoted with or reasoned with without the help of an admin. Smith Jones (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    ... Yet you have never had a run-in with ClueBot ;) -- Cobi 03:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

35. Support The only thing changing here is the way it reverts edits. I can only see this as positive. Majorly (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
36. Support As before, my opinion has not changed. --Charitwo 05:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
37. Support this seems reasonable. As long as they continue to provide the edit summaries and talk page notifications that they do, these bots should be made as efficient as possible. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
38. Support --ClanCC _(Talk) 05:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. Of course anti-vandal bots should be granted rollback! Bots don't edit war, they are extremely unlikely to "go rogue" or vandalize, and it won't change their behavior in the least. Giving bots rollback will simply make them more efficient and easier on the servers. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 05:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
40. Strong Support - show me a reason that bots should not get rollback and I'll reconsider. It doesn't much affect the speed of the bots so if they are going to mess up, they would have anyway at the same speed. The only difference that will be made by this change is reduced server load which has my approval. James086 06:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
41. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
42. Support A very small group that can be easily monitored, and since they make a large number on contributions this will provide a greater advantage. --Falcorian  06:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (bots)

1. There is question that actual humans should have the capability, but an automated process should be given the authority? The whole point of bots is that they are rigorously examined for their ability to make mechanized judgements on a case-by-case basis - this now proposes to allow the bot to judge one edit and based on those results to rollback more edits without evaluation? Lawnmower Man or Terminator, take your pick. Also, aren't bots already coded for minimum server load? Can we have some official BAG input on this? (No offense to any BAG-er's already present) Franamax (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thinking a little more - bots can already pretty easily request the page history and pick any edit they wish to revert to once they have identified vandalism, they just aren't doing it yet. It seems like a matter of extending and validating the code. If BAG wants to extend the functionality, is this the right place to ask for it? On consideration, this may be an entirely separate issue needing entirely separate community input. :( Franamax (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   As a Member of the the bot approval group, let me make a few points. AVBs (anti-vandal bots) require a massive amount of resources to run, both on the wikimedia servers and on the host system. The standard method of reverting takes 3 calls to the server. get the diff. get the edit box, and then send the updated text. on a small scale that does not mean much. But when you have a bot that is checking every diff and reverting a large amount of data that adds up to a lot of data transfer (in the gigabyte range) on a weekly basis. Rollback on the other hand is very nice to the servers. with rollback, get diff, send rollback token. reversion done. there is no need to re-load the page, or re-send the page contents. As for how the bots operate if a vandal makes more than one edit, they should be all reverted. As for editing judgment the same thing happens, they still check the diff. very very few vandals to anything near constructive edits and all of the edits they make in a row should be reverted. rollback for AVBs is a veru very very good idea. its nicer on the servers and nicer on the bot. there is no need to fear the terminator, type bots. they dont exist. β 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   While, I'm not positive, I think that's essentially how they work. That's just a manual revert done automatically. Mr.Z-man 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose — ...but do they need it? It's again, the question I ask, and again, don't worry about performance. We're talking about a pretty big permissions change to accommodate a total of 3 active bots. And, remember, we have a toolserver for this exact reason— so that bots can run on it and not consume excess bandwidth/SQL hits. Additionally, heuristic-based bots mess up, and rollback would let them to mess up a lot faster. Moreover, I'm not sure if I feel comfortable giving every bot in the bot group rollback ability— particularly considering their edits are by default hidden from both RC and vandalism feeds in the first place. Present a solid reason why there is a need for it and I'll reconsider. --slakr 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   you want a solid reason for using rollback? WP:PERFORMANCE is meant for the average user. Bot operators have to be a hell of a lot more careful and choose when to run the bot, as not to affect the servers as much. before I perfected some of my current methods I did cause a few database locks because I was running my bot too fast and causing too much stress on the servers. Brion and the other devs are good but as bot operators we realize we have extra issues that regular users do not have to worry about. also as a bot operator it is our job to figure out the best and least intensive methods that we can. rollback will reduce the amount of stress caused by AVBs by 66%. From almost any perspective a 66% performance improvement is a good thing. As a additional note the toolserver is useless for fighting vandals, and users do not have access to the database, only a live mirror of it that does not contain page text. β 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   PS AVBs are not flagged and thus their edits do appear in the RC feed and recent changes. β 04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   There is a fundamental difference between your bot an anti-vandal bots in their server load. The cause of your database lock was likely due to too many edits at one time, which causes a replication lag. So, by that logic, giving bots rollback would actually increase replication lag, as they are able to commit UPDATEs and INSERTs a lot faster. Second, I'd like to see where the 66% performance gain comes from, or is that an arbitrary number? Finally, regardless of content availability, the toolserver is still located on the wikimedia intranet, so it still reduces external bandwidth consumption. The latter should be the first course of action to try for a bot like ClueBot (before something as drastic as giving it and other bots rollback). --slakr 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Where I got the 66% from? diff GET() 30Kb, old version GET() 30Kb, POST() of reverted text 30Kb, total server/bot transfer 90Kb. with rollback: diff GET() 30Kb, send rollback token 1KB. total server/bot data transfer 31KB. that is 59KB less or 65.555555% improvement. As for your idea that the toolserver and bandwidth is BS. (I have a toolserver account) the actual servers of the TS are in Amsterdam and the wikimedia servers are in Tampa Bay, Florida. all the toolserver is really useful for is as a stable, secure server. and for running basic queries on the database. As for the risk that with rollback the bots are more harmful? bullshit. Rollback and proper bot coding prevent that. rollback is like I said, at least a 66% increase, (for a single edit rollback) for a multi-edit rollback its even nicer on the servers. Please stop talking about things you have absolutely no clue about. It just makes you look bad. β 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Cobi: The idea that rollback is more resource intensive than manual rollback is craziness — amidanial, IRC

   Cobi: sounds pretty silly to me — brion, IRC

   I rest my case. -- Cobi 05:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Hang on, this is getting out of control here. Cobi, are you copying from IRC chats onto en;Misplaced Pages? I don't agree with anything slakr has said, but that might not be the best strategy. You're getting into a whole different area now, much better to let those people just comment directly. Franamax (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, I'd much rather brion, et al.'s input on the matter. Of course, the problem is that I've never argued a point as simple as "rollback is more resource intensive than manual rollback," so while they might have actually said that, it might have been taken out of context; for, my point was not that rollback is more resource intensive, but rather that bots having rollback would possibly be more resource intensive according to betacommand's logic. I'd rather you simply link them to my comments and then we'll go from there rather than playing messenger; or, alternatively, they can simply post their comments here personally. --slakr 06:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Slakr, this is free advice so it's worth what you paid for it, but I would suggest you drop it - manual rollback less intensive than automated rollback - IMO you're gonna lose that one big time :) Lets just stop quoting from IRC, if they want to comment here, they will, if you want to contact them for a direct discussion, I'm sure you can do that too. Franamax (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, the main reason I commented back is that my point was taken out of context, just like you've now accidentally done. :P My original point was a simple response to Betacommand's assertion that Bot X's resource use reflects Bot Y's resource use, which is not necessarily the case. I know that rollback is 99.9% of the time more resource-friendly than manual reverting; however, in the situation he stated, it could constitute the 0.1% percent— that is, the exception to the rule, because in the sole case of database locks due to replication lag, in theory more rollbacks by automated scripts (i.e. bots) could exacerbate the problem due to the nature of lots of UPDATEs and INSERTs at one time being more of a bottleneck due to the speed at which they can be executed in a finite period of time. I appreciate your advice, though. --slakr 06:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   No matter how many ways you spin it, 847 admins using rollback is going to cause considerably more stress (and potential for replication lag) than 3 bots ever could. Certainly, should the above proposal take place, even assuming 20% of all editors use the rollback feature the possibilities are nearly endless as far as database load goes. That being said, you make far too many assumptions, but the most notable is fundamental (yet missing): simply because bots will have the rollback tool, it will result in increase in mutator queries against the servers. More efficient queries (in time and load) doesn't necessarily translate to more queries (in quantity). I think your original claim is flawed for a variety of reasons, but this seems to most relevant. Justin 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. i agree with statement #1, above. bots aren't great as you might think. they can be annoying sometimes. And some times they--preceding has been blanked by cluebot. if this is erroneous please report to Indoctrination Committee so we can blank you too. :-) just kidding. all kidding aside, I do oppose this idea. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
   1. Comment what sense does that make? If bots don't have rollback they will just use more resources not stop running. BJ 04:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   (ec) You do realize that regardless of whether rollback is given to the bots, the bots will operate the exact same way at close to the same speeds. Rollback will just alleviate a bit of stress on the bots and the servers. Right now, when ClueBot decides to revert, it grabs the meta history of the page, finds the last edit by a user other than the user it is reverting, requests the data for that entry, requests the edit form, and posts that data back to the server. This is exactly the same thing that rollback does except rollback is done completely on the server without the 4-way negotiation, thus it is much less resource intensive on both ends. ClueBot will also revert in parallel if need be, so the argument that "but, it slows it down" is invalid, ClueBot will revert 10 vandalism edits in the same time it reverts 1, we are just talking about speeding up that 1 and making it easier on the servers. -- Cobi 04:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   1. OPPOSE!!! NO! automated bigotry should NEVER become a feature of wikipedia. Smith Jones (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral (bots)

1. There are advantages and disadvantages to this one. First of all, all of my objections regarding the vetting process and the inevitability (is that a word?) of a vetted user going vandal go out the window when we're talking about bots. That's a good thing. But on the flip side, the fact that bots are created by users makes them susceptible to user bias. That's not really a huge issue, however - creators of bots are assumed to have enough invested in their bots and in Misplaced Pages not to abuse their creations based on their personal biases. What I'm really worried about is the potential for mass, automated rollback on the part of bots. We all know bots aren't perfect (annoying, sometimes), and because of this, sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) bots do make mistakes or mis-identify a legitimate edit or whatever as something inappropriate. While this is unlikely, a bug in the bot or a flaw in its design could cause it to identify a large swath of edits incorrectly (either vandalism as valid or legitimate edits as vandalism) and automatically revert a large number of edits (including those that were trying to correct the incorrectly-classified vandalism), at a much faster rate and with much more scope than any human editor or vandal. This is my only objection - it would be removed (and then I would approve) if bots were tested and proven to be not susceptible to these sorts of mistakes.Ecthelion83 (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Did you read my response to oppose #3 right above your comment? Specifically about doing things in parallel. -- Cobi 06:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I did - I don't think I said anything about a reduction in the speed of the edits - what you said about the bots was that a bot could do all of these edits/reverts in tandem or simultaneously, which is what I am assuming; your referenced comment does not address the objection that prevents me from supporting this idea. What you are essentially saying in that comment is that the bots revert 1 edit in the same time it takes them to revert 10 of them, and that this applies to rollback as well. This is not my concern. My concern here is not that the bot would have problems catching up with vandals (because they would have no trouble at all in doing so), but the possibility that the bots themselves could be mis-classifying information and therefore revert many legitimate edits at a much faster rate than could be humanly corrected, or they could revert edits to vandalism that the bots identified (incorrectly) as legitimate.Ecthelion83 (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   The error rate would not change from what it is now. The only programming change will be to use rollback instead of the current method. Mr.Z-man 08:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Right - but there still is an error rate. Being able to use rollback, especially when a bot does (I know this isn't often) make a mistake or series of related mistakes, is still a reservation that I, and others, will continue to have.Ecthelion83 (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   So, a bot should be forced to use a slower, less efficient method because it is not completely accurate? What if I told you that rollback would reduce random errors? There is a split second window after ClueBot gets the old revision text and before ClueBot gets the edit form. This window exists because it is two different interactions. Rollback would eliminate this window as it is 1 transaction and it can create a write lock on the database for the milliseconds required to complete the transaction (this is the standard lock on any write operation on a database, not the MediaWiki error message saying that the database is locked). -- Cobi 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   So can you clarify - does ClueBot currently look at the most recent change, decide it is vandalism, then blindly revert all the immediately previous changes by the same editor? Or does it look at each change by that editor and decide whether each one is vandalism? Trying to figure this out... Franamax (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   It does. Just like every other rollback script. This is done so as not to lock in subtle vandalism. This happens very frequently: Vandal edits a page, changes a number, or inserts very subtle vandalism that the bot doesn't detect. Vandal then edits the page again, and does something very radical, and ClueBot reverts in a matter of seconds. If ClueBot reverted 1 edit, then someone would say "Oh, ClueBot already reverted it," and not look at it, assuming it to be vandalism free. -- Cobi 10:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks - that makes excellent sense, when I see a rvv. I do assume the reverter has properly checked it out, although if I see "reverted edits by 1.2.3.4 to previous version by 1.2.3.4" I pretty much always go look anyway. Of course, if I was trying to do vandalism, I would do the big one first, then the second smaller change after. Actually I would do the big one in the first edit farther down in the article with a smaller change above where the back-looking reviewer would just be looking at the first browser screen, I would save that mess, then make a second innocuous change and save that version too. So in the reverse situation to the scenario you describe above, would ClueBot catch my first bad change? Franamax (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2. This is a technical measure that should be decided on technical grounds. I see no reason why the community needs to be involved in it. --Carnildo (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Carnildo above. Since this wouldn't add more functionality to the bots, but will (or may?) just take some load off servers, I'd leave it to the technical group. Artyom (talk • contribs) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral; strongly leaning towards oppose. Would reconsider if it were possible to provide a nonstandard edit summary (bot shouldn't just say "I don't like ur ugly edits"), encoded in URL or POSTed in the request. But it ain't. Миша13 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   The default rollback summary indeed can be changed on a case-by-case bases. If someone takes the rollback url and appends &summary= followed by the edit summary, that is used instead of the default rollback edit summary. And, of course, ClueBot will take full advantage of this ability, as I have stated in this section before. Thanks. -- Cobi 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

in case this horrible idea goes through, who is int charge of ClueBot and will be responsible for any accidental mistakes/glitcehes that MAY occur after the bots are radically empowered? i aks for future referenc eo only?!!! Smith Jones (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cobi is in charge of ClueBot. But these bots are already running, Misplaced Pages has not imploded and they have not grown intelligent and pushed a POV. This is just changing the technical method used to rollback vandalism, not the reasons it reverts it. Mr.Z-man 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for claring that up for me. its so surprisingly to get an answer around her e insted of be ing asked to read a thosuand pages of block text. Smith Jones (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (bots)

Security concerns

The other really important thing I forgot to mention: if bots have rollback they're potentially at an increased risk of being targeted by "teh hax0rs" due to the literally awesome power of mass-rollback. It's likely most bot passwords are stored in cleartext, potentially world-readable, and on a shared server. It's only a matter of time before someone exploits that— especially if the bots are given enhanced editing abilities like rollback. I'm possibly just being over-paranoid on this, but whatever. :P --slakr 09:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

cobi@Abscissa:~/wikibots$ ls -aslh cluebot/cluebot.config.php
4.0K -rw------- 1 cobi g-users 1.1K 2007-11-18 16:42 cluebot/cluebot.config.php

Furthermore, the password is a completely random alphanumeric string. It is on a relatively private server. I.e., I own the server and a few of my friends have an account. The password is stored in cleartext on the disk, but there is no effective way around that. It can't be hashed because then ClueBot couldn't send it to Misplaced Pages. Encrypting it with a symmetric or public/private key encryption would yield little use because ClueBot still has to have a way to decode it to send it to Misplaced Pages. Besides, rollback is not a "literally awesome power of mass-rollback." That right there is the flaw in the rest of this page. Rollback is simply a faster, better way to revert an article with less chance of error. How about SineBot? Is it on a shared server? And wasn't it you who suggested I put it on the highly-shared toolserver?  ;) -- Cobi 09:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a bot approvals group for a reason, and that reason is that most people don't understand bots. Asking if rollback should be given to bots here is not productive and leads to concerns about Skynet or lawnmower man, and other concerns not based in the reality of what bots really are. The fact is that anyone who understood how bots actually edit Misplaced Pages will know that the only difference rollback makes to a bot is a reduction of server load. It is not even for the bots but for the server as the bot can do the same thing with no extra effort without the tool, just using more server resources. Polling unqualified people on the issue will not lead to the most accurate results. 1 != 2 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just getting silly. I'm willing to bet a shiny nickel that all three of the current AVB's are running on considerably more secure systems than the overwhelming majority of admin accounts, which have real awesome powers of delete, block etc. I simply don't understand why you make so many security assumptions about bots, when realistically, humans tend to cause more security problems than any automated process I've seen. Claiming that passwords are "potentially world-readable" or that shared servers are inherently less secure than, say, an admins account borders on insulting to any bot writer. If security is truly that big of a concern, take it up with the devs, since passwords are sent in plain text to WP anyway. I'm with 1 != 2 on this one. BAG should handle this or were going to hear one Argument ad metum after another. Justin 05:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)