Misplaced Pages

:Non-administrator rollback - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Equazcion (talk | contribs) at 13:54, 4 January 2008 (→Arguments and counter arguments: responses to talk page + link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:54, 4 January 2008 by Equazcion (talk | contribs) (→Arguments and counter arguments: responses to talk page + link)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Please read through the proposal, and decide whether to support or oppose the general principals and implementation. Minor adjustments to the managements of it can be made in the discussion section.
The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.Shortcut

The rollback feature allows intentionally unconstructive contributions to be reverted quickly, and more efficiently than with other methods. (User scripts have been written which mimic the functionality of rollback, but they merely hide details from the user, and are much less efficient, both in terms of bandwith and time). Rollback links are displayed on page histories, user contributions pages, and diff pages.

Clicking on the link reverts to the previous edit not authored by the last editor. An automatic edit summary is provided and the edit is marked as minor. (An error message is returned if there is no last editor to revert to).

Rollback is currently only available to administrators. However, many non-administrators now deal with vandalism regularly, but do not have access to this tool – and either do not wish to be administrators or do not meet the expected standards, yet are unquestionably experienced and trustworthy. This proposal would implement a process by which the rollback feature could be granted to, and revoked from, non-administrators.

The point has now come where we have a rough consensus as to what the restrictions should be in place, and the community is now asked to look at forming a consensus as to its implementation. See past discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Rollback for non-administrators proposal and Misplaced Pages:Rollback for non-administrators. Your questions or concerns may already have been considered there.

Proposal

The way it works

Users may request the rollback button should they suffice in having the minimum requirement as detailed below.

  • They should first put a request in at the section below.
  • Administrators should check the history of the contributor to see if they can be trusted with the tool.
  • If the administrator is satisfied, they can then go to Special:Userrights (see $wgAddGroups and $wgRemoveGroups) and this will add the user into the rollback usergoup, giving them the rollback tool.
  • The tool will be the same as the administrator rollback tool, with no limitations.

Requirements for users to have rollback

There are no prerequisites per se for getting the tools, although a user should not have a history of edit warring and should have shown an understanding of the project and a need for the rollback permission (i.e. lots of vandalism reversion). Although it may not be easy to determine this, administrators should evaluate requests for rollback on individual merit and review a user's edit history before granting them the permission.

Usage

This tool is provided to qualified editors for fighting vandalism. Usage is limited to rolling back vandalism and reverting one's own edits. Editors using the rollback tool for other purposes will be subject to having the rollback tool removed.

Removal of the permission

In the event of abuse, any administrator may remove the tool by going to Special:Userrights. Non-administrators may report abuse to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Administrators should be careful to give such an action the same due care and attention as a block, and the usual expectations with respect to administrative actions apply.

Arguments and counter arguments

Please keep this section free from ongoing discussion. To see responses to these arguments, or to post your own responses, please see Wikipedia_talk:Non_administrator_rollback#Argument responses.
  • Other rollbacks exist, like TW.
    True, but rollback is easier on the servers and the clients.
  • If someone can be trusted, they should be an admin.
    Yes, but not everyone seems to think so. I know of several vandal fighters who tried to become administrators but failed due to "lack of mainspace edits". Also, I doubt that ClueBot would pass an RfA.
  • It would encourage edit wars.
    No, an admin would have to assign the privilege only if the user was trusted not to be disruptive and if it was misused, it would be removed.
  • If you do this, might as well give it to everyone.
    It was going to, but there was significant opposition to that. Opposing for reasons like this makes it harder to get anything changed.
  • Administrators should not be allowed to set privileges.
    They can grant and revoke editing rights. Why not something less significant? Administrators who are not trusted to do what is good for the encyclopedia should not be administrators.
  • It will introduce wheel wars.
    Any administrator action can introduce a wheel war. We trust the administrators not to wheel war, though.
  • Adds more bureaucracy.
    Not much more. It will be a simple page like WP:RFPP, not something as complex as WP:RFA, as that would defeat the purpose of this.
  • Bureaucrats should be the only ones doing this.
    We don't have enough bureaucrats to do this, and administrators should be trusted anyway. Administrators already can revoke and grant the editing privilege.
  • Users shouldn't get administrator tools.
    Rollback is not really an administrator tool, it is just an editing tool that was originally restricted to administrators for technical reasons, but is no more powerful than the Twinkle rollback, but is less stressful on the server and the browser.
  • Too much form-filling.
    Isn't that what administrators do?
  • Rollbacks don't allow custom edit summaries.
    True, but rollback is intend for obvious vandalism, which doesn't need a custom summary.
    Also, yes they do. It's a bit inconvenient for a human to use, but a script or bot could easily use its own edit summary while still getting the performance benefit of rollback.

Discussion

Support

Section 1

  1. Nick (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Some excellent vandal-fighters who could use the rollback function very well fail RfAs for non-rollback related reasons (i.e. misjudged CSD tags, etc.). Giving these users rollback will only give Misplaced Pages a net benefit. Keilana(recall) 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I want rollback for myself, and I think a system like this would enable me to get it. I think there are a few users who can't practically become administrators, but who should be allowed to use rollback. I think this system will accomplish its purpose. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - obviously :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support, though I think the text in "Removal of the permission" needs some tweaking. Is it really necessary to mention that this too can be wheel warring, I would have thought that obvious? henrik•talk 23:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I think we can unbold the wheelwar bit... any admin action carries the same sanction when abused. — Edokter • Talk • 00:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. I think there are better ways to do this, but I don't think that they could gain consensus. Mr.Z-man 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - effectively a regularisation of VandalProof. Some minimum standards for approval would be useful, principally to ease any hurt feelings from enthusiastic new editors with only 50 contributions and a desire to fight vandalism without having read the policies. However I strongly oppose any automatic approval based on edit counts (as proposed in the discussion below). Admin approval is not that big a hurdle. If a committed and reliable editor with thousands of contributions cannot convince any single admin to give them access, there is likely a good reason why not. Euryalus (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, reasons well stated above. Can easily be revoked if a user causes problems. Guy (Help!) 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Not a big deal, especially with the alternatives now available. Offers a new means to encourage productive users by giving them a tangible show of trust. Cool Hand Luke 03:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Section 2

  1. Support. However, I think that a more concrete minimum criteria should be set. I also think that requests to remove nonadmin rollback should be in the same page as that to request rollback. bibliomaniac15 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per above. And a question: does this come with the markbot permission? MER-C 03:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Per common sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support with concerns. —BoL 04:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. I see potential uses for it. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support — This would be a great asset to me, as I make over 1,800 reverts per normal day (it has been sagging during the holidays, but that is irrelevant). My owner has been lobbying for this for quite a while. Thanks. -- ClueBot (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support — Rollback is the best way to prevent something like this. I have seen a few rare cases when tools like Twinkle and Popups don't catch all the vandalism by an editor to a certain page - giving rollback to trusted non-admins reduces the likelyhood of this. Graham87 05:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support but I don't think the added step of an ANI report should be necessary in obvious cases any more than it is for an admin to issue a block. If someone is unquestionably abusing the privilege, you remove it. If the user apologizes and promises not to do it again, you restore the privilege. --B (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think thihs is most probably going to be the way it happens, if a user is obviously misusing it, the tool gets removed and the admin can easily post to AN/I to let other admins know what he has done (as many block reviews are done now). In not so clear cut cases, a consensus on a noticeboard should be sought first. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support proposal as written. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Worth a try as written; in theory Misplaced Pages would never work at all, so the only way to find out if it works is to try it. :) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Section 3

  1. Support. Sounds reasonable; the details can be tweaked later. Sandstein (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. The undo function is abused and some admins misuse rollback, but as you have to specifically ask for this function and as it can be removed easily I think it is worth trialling. violet/riga (t) 10:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support very good idea. Non-admins already have access to many tools (TWINKLE, popups, the undo function etc) which are only a step down from administrator rollback, and these are accepted by the community and not often misused. Hut 8.5 11:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. My first question is always "Is it useful?" and I immediately bring to mind an afternoon spent rolling back over a hundred spam links on request. Yes, it's useful. :) I see opposes below basically indicating that this is nothing that can't be done through Twinkle. (I also note below that Twinkle has a conflict with ZoneAlarm which has made it unusable for some editors.) If this is the case, then there is no harm in granting it to reliable editors, who (if they don't have the ZoneAlarm conflict) could be essentially doing it by other means already. I do support caution in granting this function, and at the least I would encourage any admin who grants it to remind editors to read the policy and note that rolling back changes that are not vandalism is heartily discouraged as insulting to other editors. --Moonriddengirl 13:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. I think the 'redundant with TW' argument has been adequately addressed; rollback is better, for both the user and the project. I can't see a reason why it would create more problems with edit warring and other bad behavior than scripts like TW. And we can deal with those problems by blocking or removing the tool anyway. I find the 'creating a separate class of editors' argument a little more compelling, but I think we should understand that that's a social problem, not a technical one. I definitely hear what people are saying about giving admins too much power and creating more bureaucracy, but I think we should weigh those potential problems against the benefit of giving out the tool. delldot talk 14:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support -- lucasbfr 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support: Good alternative for good editors (good = constructive) who don't like to use tools such as TW and POPUPS. Supporting since it will be closely controlled by the sysops, and I don't think it will be abused. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support but should be considered a privilege, and thus easier to justify removal than it is to justify blocking. NoSeptember 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. I don't support requiring a consensus at ANI to remove the tool but I do agree that we need a simple mechanism to allow the application of the tool. Like all policies and guidelines this will develop with time but I'd not be opposed to widening the amount of access to the tool beyond the regular vandalfighters. All established and well behaved editors should have access to the tool even if they do not have regular cause to use it. Spartaz 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Section 4

  1. Support this is a great idea, and I fully agree that caution in permitting users to use the tool is indeed the best way to go with this. It would save an enormous amount of effort in reverting vandalism and other such bad-faith edits. .:Alex:. 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. I strongly support this proposal. I think the benefits outweigh the negatives: if someone abuses the rollback, they get it removed; if a blatant revert-warrior requests rollback, they'll be denied. Regarding using revert scripts, some people may not realize that scripts like TWINKLE don't work on all browsers, and giving rollback to vandal-fighters who use Internet Explorer will be excellent. With the "go through RfA argument", as Gurch says, people who are vandal-fighters often get opposed simply for being vandal-fighters. I think we'll benefit from feature this overall. Acalamari 20:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Why the hell not give it to trusted users and reduce server load? Maybe a 30 day trial can be done and if the problems turn out to be huge, it can always go back to the way it was. Spellcast (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. After witnessing a large amount of vandalism firsthand after having an article at WP:TFA, it'd sure be nice in the future to have some more tools handy for those who wish to be trusted vandal-fighters. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
  5. Support. Great idea, this will definitely help take the fight to the vandals! Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support - I just needed to support something :S ...--Cometstyles 03:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Yeah, only if passing it wouldn't mean removing the feature from tools like twinkle. In which case, I wouldn't need it, but IE users would. J-ſtanUser page 03:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Although I do wish there was some sort of "2 admins required to give rollback" clause. I presume there will be a log of rollback rights given by admin as there is for blocks? MBisanz 03:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    That'd be the user rights log, same as for +sysop and +bureaucrat, I presume. J-ſtanUser page 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Strong support I brought this issue up a while ago but was quickly shot down. You can see my essay on this topic that has been in the draft stage for months here, you wont get much out of it because I gave up half way through but still someone might be interested. -Icewedge (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Pomte 07:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 5

  1. Strong support What's the worse that could happen? ;) Tiddly-Tom 15:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support It's basically just an extenstion to the current "undo" feature that is available to all. I wish that it was available to IP's but that's the way it goes. The only real problem I see is at start up with the amount of people that will be applying.
  3. No big deal (other less efficient tools exist), no vandalism that can't be done already without it, it can be easily taken away if abused, and it is conducive to other admin tools being modularized. The process will be lightweight, like getting AWB (which is more powerful). Nihiltres 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. It is important that the process put in place is simple and quick, with as little bureaucratic waffling as possible. Neıl ☎ 10:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. —Random832 16:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. Something like this has been needed for a while. Normally I wouldn't just make a me-too comment like this, but for a change to the software settings a vote is normally required in practice as generally someone will demand one if there isn't one. --ais523 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Yes, thanks, finally! I've been wishing for this for years. It would be simpler yet to just grant this automatically to all autoconfirmed users, but this is a good first step. Honestly, now that the technical limitations that prevented this before have been fixed, any remaining "dispute" is really just bikeshed-painting. It's a minor feature in the MediaWiki user interface, essentially an optimization of something that has long been available via user scripts. We don't know what, if any, social effects enabling it will eventually have, since we haven't tried it yet, but it's not going to cause any irreversible damage — this is a Wiki, after all, anything can be fixed. This should have just been turned on by developer fiat, just to see how it'll work out; but since they apparently want a poll to show consensus, well, let's give them one. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support. With rollback disabled unless requested, there will be virtually no abuse of it; besides, what few cases of rollback abuse do occur probably would have happened through scripts or the undo feature anyway. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support. There are virtually no arguments of merit against this proposal, but many for it. Ever tried fighting vandalism on an old computer with a slow Internet connection? I have, and, believe me, you want rollback. I don't fight vandalism at the moment, since I'm currently not on Misplaced Pages full-time, but I insist that those who do fight vandalism get access to this tool. — Thomas H. Larsen 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support I think this is a really good idea! SQL 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 6

  1. Weak support, it can be risky in the wrong hands, but so long as it's dished out minimally i don't have a problem with it. Wizardman 04:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. If the risk of abuse were so great then we would already be seeing it with TWINKLE. We're not, therefore it isn't. --JayHenry (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support I already do this with TW. It would be beneficial for me to use in order to further my counter-vandalism efforts. Bstone (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. I don't really have anything to add to what has already been posted. I don't think abuse will be any more of an issue than it already is, and it would be simple enough to stop the abuse. ···日本穣 04:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support I use Twinkle, but I think it would be helpful for other users who don't. --Dan Leveille 04:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support: I agree that trusted non-admin users should have this editing tool. Tasc0 05:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support I use Twinkle like many of us, but if a less-server intensive solution (which this is) is made available (which this would do), I would switch my vandalism reverts to the rollback tool. Besides, those with a proven vandal-fighting record shouldn't have a problem getting an admin to approve them for the tool. -MBK004 05:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Anything that can help against vandalism can only be a positive thing, though, of course, care should be taken as to whom this responsibility should be given. Ekantik 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
  10. Support. Just like using drugs, kids, if vandal-fighters have already established a work-around that hurts the server, just give them the legitimate tool. Take the dealer off the streets, ya know? GrimmC (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 7

  1. Support. As above. Anything that can be used by responsible editors to fight vandalism is a good thing. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support - This would be very useful in reverting vandalism – which has been coming in too much lately. It would be quite effective as a wiki tool. BlackPearl14 05:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support I opposed the last version of this proposal. Granting it to all autoconfirmed users would be a mistake, in my view, since, although few of us are vandals, some are revert warriors. This, on the other hand, seems a sensible way to keep the tool in the right hands. Also, I think this might have social benefits by giving users who are marginal for adminship a limited amount of additional power, that can be easily revoked, and a chance to demonstrate responsible use of it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support The potential for abuse is minimized here as long as either admins granting rights are equally ready to revoke them in the event of abuse or admins not granting rights are also ready to revoke them when they spot abuse. Anynobody 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support - Though even more so if it were given to all established users automatically. People who are set upon wreaking havoc will continue to do so, only a bit quicker. This is a small price to pay, however, for the increased liberty of all the do-gooders. Do I even need to quote Ben Franklin? SeanMD80 05:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support per JayHenry and others. If there were a high risk of abuse, TW would have shown it. Lara❤Love 05:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support This should be no big deal. It's easy to take it away if editors use it for something else than vandalfighting. As a side-effect, I could imagine this improving admin standards (vandalfighters aren't necessarily good at other admin stuff). squell\ 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support I am a vandal fighter who uses TW. If these tools relieve stress on the server and browsers then all the better. Xdenizen (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Popups and TW are good, but they can be clumsy and slow, and if this function reduces stress on the servers, I'm all for it. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. Sometimes, tools like TW or popus can be slow, admin rollback is faster. C'est moi 06:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 8

  1. Support I've been an editor since 2002. I regularly revert a lot of vandalism on a lot of articles, and rollback would be very convenient. But after I looked into what it would take to get it, I balked, because I don't want to be involved in the tedious and often abusive RFA process. I can't be the only one. -- Dominus (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support In due consideration of vandal-fighters. ˉˉ╦╩ 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support I've been working on some high-profile political figures where vandalism can be constant. This would help out a lot. Happyme22 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support Makes total sense to me. Well written proposal that can be very useful. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support May be useful for me, though I think it should only be given to registered users who've been around a little while. I haven't been here a whole month, and I don't know if I would give it to myself (though I would only use it for vandalism, as it should be)...Smarkflea (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. I've seen only very minimal abuse of the TW rollback, so I'm willing to give this a shot. I'll try to help out with the inevitable backlog of requests from time to time. Kafziel 06:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. I have not applied for admin status, but would apply for this. I suggest that some sort of absolute minimum standard be added to the proposal, if for no other reason than to stem the huge flood of requests that will come in if this is approved.--Srleffler (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Strong support; any editor can already do this with TW— this would make it (a) lighter on the servers (good) (b) removable in case of abuse (even better). — Coren  06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Getting Rollback is pretty much the only reason why I requested to be an Admin. I have no interest in Wikipolitics or being a bureaucrat, I just wanted more editing tools. Every week a bunch of great Wikipedians with thousands of edits and no history of abuse submit an RfA because Rollback would help them edit, and everyone praises them for being a nice guy/gal who wouldn't abuse the tools, and their request is opposed because they haven't spent enough time editing outside of the Mainspace. In other words, "You can't have the tools that would help you edit because you've spent too much time editing. Come back when you're willing to spend less time editing and more time debating policy." The people who need Rollback can't have it because of the very fact that they need it; they have to stop editing so much and prove that they don't need Rollback before they can have it. The Beginner's Guide to Misplaced Pages Give non-Admins Rollback and you'll drastically reduce the number of doomed RfAs. Since a lot of people don't seem to have gotten the memo that being an Admin is not a big deal, simply being a longtime editor and proving yourself trustworthy with the tools isn't enough to be an Admin — and fair enough, since Admins can be called upon to settle disputes. Many RfA candidates have no interest in doing that! They just want to edit, and they deserve the tools to do it. Give non-Admins Rollback and everyone wins: editors can edit, and they don't have to clog up the RfA system with unnecessary and hopeless applications. 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. Everyone who is able to edit such an article should have Rollback, but it looks like some people are in favor of more bureaucracy. If the bureaucrats are prepared to handle thousands of Rollback permission requests, then I'm willing to settle for this solution. DOSGuy (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Would probably save more than just a few seconds per revert over twinkle for people with slower internet connections. I don't think this would foster additional edit warring. I question whether the implementation of the approval-granting system is feasable, though, would there be tremendous overload as users flood the system with requests for the tool? Consider using a system similar to {{help}}. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 9

  1. Support Conditionally. Going easy on the servers is a good thing. However, I think there should be some basic requirements. Phyesalis (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support I would prefer it if admins weren't granting it (it may raise adminship standards) and if a few basic requirements were laid out, but I don't see it as a problem. The tool can be revoked and if it was abuse (rather than misuse) they can quite easily be blocked. A request though, could emphasis be made that the tool is only for reverting vandalism and your own edits, this is critical. James086 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support --ClanCC (Talk) 07:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - Once you've undoed something, you have a high chance of ending up in an edit conflict.Weirdy Talk 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - This would make things a lot easier, because it is a very common occurrence that non-administrators have to revert several acts of vandalism. Enigmaman (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - Proposal makes sense to me. This is overdue. --Richard (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. I don't know much of the software/server-load issues involved, but if this is gonna reduce load on Misplaced Pages servers, then bring it on! aJCfreak yAk 08:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support given that anybody can award themself rollback by installing TW, it seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. Mayalld (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support yes, of course. It will make life easier for anti-vandal patrollers, and can be easily administered. Go for it. docboat (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support (TW user) I think most moderately-experienced users can be trusted with this, and even if misused it doesn't have the potential to cause much more damage than the current user toolset. Rollbacks can be reverted just as easily as any other edit. To prevent a so-called "opening rush", the feature should be implemented only for auto-confirmed users, and not by default, but by a user preferences option, so that not all users would suddenly see this rollback link and perhaps click it out of curiosity. Users should need to explicitly know about the feature beforehand and enable it themselves. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:49, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Section 10

  1. I'm happy with WP:TW, but if the tool causes pain in the server's side, I support the idea. In fact, it's said that the new privilege is not more powerful than TW, and TW tool can be used directly by newbies, so what's the danger? Dekisugi (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. support - I use and like WP:TW so if this is kinder on the server, I would apply. I am unlikely to apply to be an admin - not enough hours in the day. Finavon (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support If it would make it just a little bit easier for me to fight vandalism, then I'm all for it. I can get most stuff done with Twinkle + Popups at this point, so I may not even use it, but I'd like to give it a whirl. Gromlakh (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. SUPPORT. Vandalism-fighting can be disheartening sometimes when the vandals are persistent. A tool that is easy to use like rollback can encourage greater vandalism fighting. Besides, it quicker than going to the admin and waiting for the admin to do the rollback for you. It shows one sign: Wikipedian community responds to vandalism in no time! __earth 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Note that you don't actually need an admin to revert an edit. It is easy with tools like popups or twinkle, or it can be done manually. James086 10:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, but when the vandals work on a number of pages, it is easier to call an admin if the status quo persists. __earth 10:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. It would give those vandal fighters an easier job that they might actually enjoy. — E 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - The encyclopedia is growing rapidly, so does the number of vandals and unconstructive edits, so it's getting harder and harder to revert all edits fast enough. I don't really see why anyone can undo, but only administrators can rollback. Sure someone might say, why would I need the rollback function if there's an undo function? I can undo if a vandal made only one unconstructive edit. I can clean up a couple of vandalism edits, but what if there are more than just a couple? Especially on a long article. I would need to search through the source for the bad edits. The rollback function is exactly what I will need in this case! Artyom (talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support - I am a passionate anti-vandal activist in the pages in my watchlist. I started using Twinkle when I changed from PC to Mac and finally got it to work, but would be much happier using an officially sanctioned set of tools that were not dependent on variations in browser support. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support It was only a very short time after starting to edit Misplaced Pages that I realised how useful such a tool would be. Using 'undo' to fight vandalism is all very well but there are often several succesive vandalisms and consequently several successive 'undos'. It is as clear as mud to other editors what is happening unless you write a short novel in the edit summary. Vandals don't deserve that much attention. Spinningspark (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. support - fighting vandalism is a pain when you have to sit around waiting for twinkle to finish. Having Rollback would make it faster to fight vandalism, so it would stop us vandal-fighters sitting around wasting time, when we could have rolled back possibly 2 more bits of vandalism in the same time. Stwalkerster 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (WP:100!)

Section 11

  1. support - efficiency is a good thing, and this tool does not provide any powers that users can't already claim for themselves. Jehochman 12:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. support - it high time we had a level below admin to spread the more routine work.--agr (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    -not disagreeing, but you might also be interested in WP:VPR#Two tiers of adminship. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:18, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - Plenty of editors are using tools like Twinkle already, why not reduce the technical overhead. The only real cost is a bit more work for the admins. Nburden 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. None of the reasons for opposition below seem to me to outweigh the apparent consensus in support, except perhaps for AnteaterZot's point: "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.)" That is, since edits can be reverted but reverting can't be reverted, there's an intelligent argument in opposition, but there are more and stronger reasons to support, I think. — Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - weighing the potential for abuse against the increase in efficiency in countering vandalism in my little brain, methinks this proposal will produce the greater good. bobanny (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support. I firmly believe that being an admin really isn't that big of a deal, and being assigned Rollback privledges would be even less of a big deal. The concern of added bureaucracy is, in my mind, countered by the increased efficiency afforded to the editors who would actually use rollback. I do believe, though, that the approval process should use a sign-countersign system, where Two admins must give consent or approval before assigning the ability to rollback. This would not only dilute the power of individual admins, but it would also lower the chances of a poorly researched request being approved. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Section 1`

  1. Oppose, would encourage stalking and other abuses. Editors already have access to the rollback function in the article history, this is sufficient. Martintg (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Encourage stalking? May I ask how? If there's misuse it can be removed straight away anyway. Users have no access to rollback currently as it's faster than any other tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi there, I don't think you need to worry about the tool being used to stalk users, firstly, the user needs to have their contributions checked by an administrator before they are given the tool, and if there was allegations of stalking, we would be able to remove the tool and take any further additional action against the user that may be necessary. We feel this proposal strikes the very best balance available of helping those who maintain Misplaced Pages whilst preventing those who seek to damage the project from accessing such tools. Nick (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Stalking? That's a new one. "Stalking", or at least the weird definition of it that you've linked to, involves editing the same articles as another user to annoy them... how on earth does the ability to revert vandalism more quickly have anything to do with that? – Gurch 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. I completely fail to understand why this "rollback for non-admins" proposal must return every so often. Don't we already have this Twinkle thing that basically does the same thing? Yeah, maybe slower, but on broadband you can barely see a difference. Oh, admins can give and take it? Cool, so I can see three issues here: 1) creating another "caste" of users (oh, but we love the healthy atmosphere this creates, so who cares?), 2) opens field for wheel warring (you admit that yourself, but we're used to that, so who cares?), 3) extra bureaucracy (but we love that, so who cares?). Overall, this gives very little added value (slightly faster revert) with a slightly stricter mechanism of granting it (you can't just add it to your monobook, yet a user can be de-rollbacked just as easily as de-twinkled) and possible field for abuse and inter-admin vitriol alike. No, thanks. Миша13 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Twinkle is slower and rollback is a specific built in function. I fail to see how it would introduce wheel wars? If Twinkle is so similar, why do we allow that? Majorly (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    You can count on your fingers the number of users who are actually going to get this feature, given the community's paranoia and love of ever-increasing standards. Apart from this group being too small to create another "caste", all of them will be experienced RC patrollers who already have enough "status" that it won't make any difference.
    If administrators wheel war over granting/revoking of rollback, then they're idiots, frankly, and probably shouldn't be administrators in the first place. They're supposed to be trusted individuals; every policy we have works on the principle that they're trusted individuals, and if they aren't then that's an issue outside the scope of this policy. Rejecting proposals for new administrator actions purely on the grounds that they "might be used for wheel warring" is stupid; how exactly would the project have ever been set up if everyone thought like that?
    I agree that it is hard work to sit here and rip out bureaucracy every time it gets inserted into the proposal. But there really isn't any more bureaucracy here than, say, AutoWikiBrowser approval, which can also be granted/revoked by any administrator, works in pretty much the same way and so far has worked without any problems as far as I am aware.
    Internet connection speed makes little difference; it's the latency at Wikimedia's end that slows things down; rollback avoids that, while at the same time cutting bandwidth requirements by 95%. This proposal is as much to help Wikimedia as it is to help editors; reversions account for 5% of all edits and while edits pale into insignificance compared to page views, most page views are served from cache, whereas all edits require (comparatively very slow) PHP scripts and DB writes to be done. There is little added value for you, certainly, because you are an administrator. Those who feel there is "little added value" won't ask for it; those who know that there is will. As for "inter-admin vitriol", well, again, that's an issue that's outside the scope of this proposal. If you want to deal with that, attack it head-on rather than blocking any admin-related proposal you come across – Gurch 10:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. If you do this you might as well give it to everyone. Who possibly has time to notice or monitor abuse of the tools? The good vandal fighters need to become admins anyone to block effectively and it will not improve things. --BozMo talk 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Then stop turning down RC patrollers at RfA because they don't have enough article writing experience – Gurch 10:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose: I fail to see a logical reason for this and it just seems inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Guess I misunderstood; Supporting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15
    57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    How does giving some users who could do with a better tool, the said better tool cause bureaucracy?! Ryan Postlethwaite 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    I may be a bit confused with this....Would this eliminate the useability of say the Twinkle rollback script...or a "homemade" rollback script? You're saying it would give some people the ability to use, but unless I have the wrong idea here, it would also take it away from people too. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think so, I think this would be an additional option for editors. RxS (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    This would soley be in addition to the extra tools and would in no-way affect the current tools (although extensions could be added to also allow admin rollback to be used with them). Ryan Postlethwaite 11:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose the implementation as the construction of an arbitrary bureaucracy. It is not fair to apply a passing admin's personal preferences to the granting of editorial capabilities. It is unnecessary to insist upon a meaninglessly-nebulous "understanding of the project" to allow someone to revert simple vandalism - particularly since "understanding the project" is not a constant meaning for all editors and admins. It is naive to suppose that some bolded words will magically prevent wheel warring over this. It is foolhardy to imagine that this will not lead to angry users denied the tool on an administrative whim, angry users surrounding an opponent granted it on a whim and angry editors that the admin failed to correctly "evaluate request". Revocation of the tool by "consensus" on AN(I) will be about as consistent and useful as a pair of knickers on a kipper. This proposal is a straight-line route to increased drama, increased power-wielding by admins, more arbcom cases and greater upset. It should be rejected until people come up with a simpler and more effective process by far. Splash - tk 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    "Passing admins' personal preferences" are applied every day to blocks, deletions, page protections, edits to protected pages... in short, to every administrative action we have. Granting/revoking of the ability to edit is far more significant than granting/revoking of the ability to revert things more efficiently, so why is that OK but not this? There's a simple solution to the problem of more ArbCom cases, which is to stop pretending that it's a good idea to let a committee of oddballs appointed to three-year terms deal with anything, and do things by consensus instead, so if ArbCom cases bother you, why not propose that instead of trying to block this? As for the other stuff, as I've mentioned above, all of our policies work on the assumption that administrators are trusted individuals; if they aren't, then all our policies are flawed; that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed separately, not by blocking every proposal that involves administrators because of paranoia – Gurch 10:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Seems redundant with scripts like Twinkle. If a bot, such as ClueBot, really needs this function it should just be given admin status. Why even have admins if us regular editors start getting admin tools.. today it's "rollback", tomorrow it's "ban but subject to overturn by an admin". If an editor wants and needs the tools, he or she should go through RfA. -- ALLSTARecho 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Then stop turning down RC patrollers at RfA because they don't have enough article writing experience – Gurch 10:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just to note that Twinkle doesn't work for everybody. I used it happily for some months before it developed a conflict with ZoneAlarm, and now I can't use it at all. I had to disable it to get my own administratorial "rollback" to function. --Moonriddengirl 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just to say, further, that TWINKLE doesn't work with all browsers, I believe it only works with FireFox and related browsers, the other benefit is that the tool provides additional benefits for the servers, making much more efficient use of the available resources. Nick (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. I'm not comfortable supporting this proposal as written. The "there are no prerequisites" statement bothers me. Sure, it's followed by "should this" and "should that", but those should's can be quite easily ignored if "there are no prerequisites". --Kbdank71 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Several issues:
    • Admins have a hard enough time using rollback conservatively; will non-admins be able to do better? I doubt it, unfortunately. Twinkle works in Firefox, Lupin's pop-ups work in IE and Firefox, and there are plenty more which are bound to function in all major browsers. If you'd like even faster reverts, please apply at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. In addition, no good system for supervision and removal has been proposed. And by that, I do indeed mean "just complain at ANI and the admins will fix your problem(s) for you" is a bad system. Considering how could be forwarded to the incidents noticeboard?
    • As Kbdank17 and Splash note, this proposal has no specific prerequisites to prevent admins just handing rollback out to whoever they think won't abuse it; from the description above, it seems an arbitrary decisions, with no firm guideline (Wikipedians are notoriously bad for functioning without these), in the hands of one person who wasn't elected to make the decision? Much as I dislike the functioning of Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship, it at least manages to turn down nearly all of the people who shouldn't get tools. But if all it takes is one admin, without any actual criteria, without a specific page to make a request, to toss this to whoever asks as long as they seem trustworthy, we have an issue. The decision to block, to which handing out rollback has been compared, is different than this because it has a clear policy for use, clear method for appeal, and clear consequences for misuse. Picaroon (t) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    There is no system in place at all for monitoring the use of tools such as TWINKLE, popups and AWB other than a complaint at WP:ANI, and that seems to suffice the vast majority of cases. In the case of TWINKLE and popups there is no entry requirement at all, in direct contrast to the system being proposed here. In the case of AWB, the requirements for getting it (500 edits) are both pretty low and interpreted broadly and the system functions fine. Bear in mind that tools such as TWINKLE can cause almost as much damage as admin rollback if used inappropriately, and AWB can (I'm told) be converted into a vandalbot very easily.
    Yes, experienced RC patrollers can be told to apply at RFA, but that tends to be rather pointless. Compared to the tools of blocking, deletion and protection admin rollback really isn't that powerful, and the oppose rationales in those RFAs, as Gurch notes, will not be related to use of rollback (and will be related to the candidate's suitability for blocking, deletion, protection etc). Why should an established editor have to go through the huge process of RFA just to get a revert feature which is a little faster and easier on the servers? Hut 8.5 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. (1) Adds bureaucracy but does not appreciably benefit the encyclopedia; (2) The standard laid out for usage is not in line with how rollback is used by existing admins; (3) I expect that the presence of a new rights level below administrator will provoke further ballooning of the standards at RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose either give 90% of the experienced users the tool by default or make applying for admin easier or introduce "admins and superadmins", but this is just unneeded bureaucracy. I find this implementation to be the worst possible way in which this great idea could materialize. Idea is great, proposal sucks. Has everyone forgotten what the KISS principle was about? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Strong Oppose - I just don't feel that administrators should be granting (and especially not removing) administrator tools. (Imagine an admin removing an admin's rollback ability. Do we really want to set up for that wheel war possibility?) Bureaucrats "makesysop", and that should apply to the individual tools as well. Change it to bureaucrats (excercising discretion, similar to Misplaced Pages:Changing username), and I'd likely support. - jc37 12:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    I pretty agree with this opinion. However, someone pointed out that there aren't enough active bureaucrats for this task (and, ironically, we don't need more bureaucrats). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    Admins can allready revoke the right to edit. There are not many problems with that, why would there be with this? Tiddly-Tom 15:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    Admins can already prevent further vandalism, not "reward" good users just by themselves. This would be more like WP:AWB approval. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    The proposal does not extend to granting administrators the ability to remove the rollback tool from fellow administrators, the removal of the rollback function from administrators is solely at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee as part of a wider desysopping decision. Nick (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    Anything that an admin can do can be reverted and therefore can become a wheel war. Should admins not get any new tools because of that possibility? As Nick said, admins can not remove the rollback tool from admins and as was said above, admins who wheel war with this should probably not be admins. Mr.Z-man 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    should, would, could, maybe... An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The community has placed their trust in the bureaucrats to makesysop, and that was something under discussion during each of their RfBs. The giving of admin tools was never suggested to be entrusted to any individual admin during any RfA. I think we should stay closer to our existing systems than to create something out of whole cloth that is (as noted) likely to backfire, and possibly spectacularly. - jc37 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 2`

  1. Oppose per Splash. I'd rather have these rights granted automatically primarily rather than have to have admins waste time vetting it. If such cannot be done then fuck the whole thing, since it distracts admins to much from more important things; others could use good stuff like WP:TW then. And the performance boost of server rollback would be nice, but not exactly a huge slice off the server use pie. Voice-of-All 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per TheDJ, as unneeded bureaucracy. I think that the granularization of admin rights would add unneeded complexity to Misplaced Pages. Users who want rollback have viable options right now (Twinkle and RfAs); where is the value that this policy adds? I'm not convinced that the benefits (faster revert time?) outweigh the costs (another layer of policy, complexity, and rules). -FrankTobia (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Just as per the last time. I don't see any need for this, and a lot of time wasted in form-filling.--Doc 02:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. It would be open to abuse by multiple sockpuppets engaged in edit wars. MegX (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. I'm not persuaded either way, but as doc just pointed out on the mailing list, insufficient time has been given to decide this. I won't support a policy made by fait accompli. Johnleemk | Talk 03:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Still uncomfortable with it. Still oppose. DS (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Likewise, I am uncomfortable with it. At the least, RfA's are supposed to be a discussion on the trustworthiness and decision making of editors. Are we going to have a similar procedure for this? If so, just request full admin responsibilities while you are at it. -- Avi (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I see how we could possibly benefit from it, but the whole thing with administrators granting access and how it could easily be abused, it just doesn't sit right with me. I'm sorry. Spebi 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Expanding on my original comment. Administrators have been given such tools like the rollback tool because the community has come to an agreement (in the form of an RfA) that they are trusted to use them. One administrator deciding whether a certain user is unlikely to abuse the privelige is not an equivalent of the whole community deciding whether the certain user is unlikely to abuse the priveliges. Sorry, this proposal is not one that I wish to support. Spebi 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Heck no. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Per Splash, Doc, and Spebi. Really don't like the admins giving it out bit. No thanks. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 3`

  1. Oppose creating an additional class of users. Many of the arguments about possible abuse of rollback at Misplaced Pages:Rollback for non-administrators remain relevant. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I think that the slight delay from reverting manually is a good thing, in that it forces users to stop and think about what they're really doing. -Hit bull, win steak 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strongly Oppose. This rollback tool is an exploit for power users. This will undermind admin authority relegating them to just arbitration. How does a non admin user will deal with a non admin power user in dispute without bringing each case to RfA, RfC, AnB, AiaV. I have a situation now, that the power users are hoarding an article and will not allow me to add new content. I ask for {{helpme}} but instead of an administrator I get a bureaucrat regurgitating the rules to me. Maybe that is why many anon IP users come to vandalize WikiPedia, because power users do not let new commers input nothing new and WP:Bite them. I propose instead of quick revert - rollback tool you should make {{adminhelpme}} This way we get the cases out of the court and contribute to knowledge not debate and dwarf knowledge. Igor Berger (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. There is already too much unexplained reverting of edits that are not obvious vandalism. I prefer that non-admins always write a thoughtful description of why they are reverting an edit.....if doing that is too much work then it is time for a wiki break. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose 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 could not/weren't stopped by other methods. Finally, a persistent vandal could just use multiple accounts to escape rollback. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    I don't really understand your oppose. I don't have the bit, and I can rollback all your edits with my script. There is only about a second or two of perceivable difference in admin rollback, and the script rollback anyone can use. That is to say, there is no difference in the two rollbacks from a watching standpoint. We only use rollback on one thing. Best regards, Mercury 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps. What about an example of a case where a vandal needed a rollback and the regular methods failed? AnteaterZot (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose — I agree with this, except when it comes to admins deciding who gets, or does not get, the tools. Let everyone decide who is, or is not, qualified just like with RFAs, or don't do it at all. It doesn't have to be as formal, it just has to be open to discussion — perhaps like how tools are meted out on Meta for short period use. The fact that admins are the decision makers here is arbitrary, and has a serious risk of centralizing the social stratification that already exists on Misplaced Pages, rather than removing it. --Haemo (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - I also oppose this idea, simply due to the potential for abuse by those less disciplined editors who lose their cool during content disputes. While I would find it quite useful (I have been reverting a LOT of IP vandalism lately!), I will be content to wait until I can gain the confidence of the community, be granted admin priveleges, and thereby gain rollover. At 38, you LEARN to be patient... Edit Centric (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - I envision backlogs of 'rollback requests' and userboxen with 'this user is armed with teh Rollback!' the_undertow 05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - (A) I don't like creating seperate classes of non-admin users, those who can and cannot use the feature; (B) I support "high power" editing tools being reserved to (1) admins and (2) those smart enough to script them for themselves; I don't trust non-admins with these tools; (C) I don't like that rollback edits are marked as "minor." They might not be "minor." In fact, they almost certainly aren't. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC).
    I can script it myself. I have done so in several different ways. As a matter of fact, I have made over 264,024 edits with my script. I could even code the rollback function that currently exists in MediaWiki. Does this mean that I can use the less-server-intensive, less-browser-intensive, quicker, better method? No. This proposal will allow me to use rollback. You may ask "why not go for RfA?" I have. And was opposed because all I do is vandal-fight, not write articles. -- Cobi 06:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Too much risk of abuse in disputes and edit wars with little benefit. Everyone's edits should be able to be easily seen and reviewed. I don't use rollback, even though I'm an admin, because I don't believe admins should be above review. Sometimes we get too caught up in the speed for deleting things and undoing vandalism instead of spending a few more seconds to objectively look at what we are doing. Royalbroil 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Rollback is easily seen and reviewed. It doesn't hide anything. It is just quicker and easier on the server than twinkle rollback or UNDO.
    I mean its marked as minor. Royalbroil 06:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 4`

  1. Oppose — and I ask that you don't poison the well with unsourced, opinionated rebuttals in front of the !voting, as it discourages oppose votes. I rarely involve myself with policy issues, and maybe I'm just paranoid, but I have several reasons:
    • It's easy to say that we can "just remove it from someone if it's abused," but I assure you WP:ANI is already overflowing (literally) with countless disputes over things that admins and users alike do— and it usually revolves around reverts and logged actions. It would seem to me that, similar to other logged actions on an account, it will be highly discouraged that an admin remove a rollback privilege from someone who already has it; otherwise, the person from whom it is being removed will put up a hissy fit about it being removed "unjustly" (probably assuming correctly that the removal, itself, is a scarlet letter to future RfA); and, subsequently demand arbcom to do it instead— if they even take the case.
    • Bots, including ClueBot, VoABot, and others, don't need it. Anyone who is programming something as advanced as an anti-vandalism bot— present or future— can take the time to figure out how api.php works and how to discern between revisions automatically. If the day comes that they ever truly need rollback, then we can simply add the ability to the bot group.
    • Twinkle (and others) is sufficient; also, don't worry about performance. It has built-in rate limiting due to the fact it requires the script to load a revision then save it. Plus, even Twinkle is abused, and one of the recent revisions was actually to add a simple check to lock it down to just anyone coming in and loading it up. Anecdotally, I've seen issues with people mass reverting things back and forth (sometimes over hundreds or thousands of pages). It helps to make that process more of a pain in the ass for non-admins, as bad as that sounds, in order to discourage edit warring over multiple pages.
    • Keep in mind: rollback essentially doesn't have an edit summary (well, it's an unhelpful one that requires that the reverter explain further by leaving a warning on a vandal's page). At least Twinkle has the option for a user to select a vandalism-related edit summary or fill in their own using the AGF link, and, it defaults to opening the reverted user's talk page as a way of nagging for a warning of some sort. Rollback has no such behavior. Also keep in mind that a lot of the edit wars, at least from my own WP:OR, come from people who would easily qualify for some admin to grant them rollback.
    Overall, I don't think it's something that needs to happen. A lot of people would want it because it's cool and admin-like. Perhaps if you had built in a sunset clause of a month for trying it out I would have been more willing to give it a shot, but this is a long-term change, which, after implementation, would draw the wrath of those given the rollback permission to staunchly oppose removal of their permission out of their own self-interest. --slakr 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose- for many of the reasons given above. Rather than creating a new class of empowered non-admins, thought should be given to more closely policing admin behavior, which is hardly exemplary. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. The is instruction creep, adding a new, unneeded layer of bureaucracy and red tape; and another class of users. Plus, I have already seen numerous users abuse both the undo function and script assisted rollbacks like on Twinkle and Popups. Why should we make it easier for them? And, yes for all you non-admins out there, rollback is quicker and faster since all you do is click on a link and you are done; no intermediate "please wait for the next page to load" like on Popups or the "The edit can be undone" screen using the undo function. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    By the way, it is true that admins may sometimes abuse the rollback function, but it is relatively much more manageable to keep track of 848 admins than much, much more out of 48,457,478 users. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. The potential for abuse is too great; it is quite likely that, given what we've all seen in various articles, that an abuser without a significantly problematic previous record, may gain access to this tool and do a great deal of damage to a large number of pages before he/she is caught and dealt with. In the aftermath of such abuse, it would be incredibly difficult to go through all of the changes and correct them to their rightful state.
    We already have enough problems as it is with people being able to edit and with rampant vandalism by a select number of individuals. Giving these people access to more efficient tools only makes them more efficient in their disgracing of academic subjects.Ecthelion83 (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose: The requirement that admins approve or disapprove is enough for me to oppose. This feature is already available in third-party tools, so requiring that editors request access for it makes little sense. Those intending to use it in bad faith will simply use Popups or WP:Twinkle, while those intending to use it in good faith have to go through an approval process. Had this suggested everyone have access to it (or even every non-anonymous account have access to it, my opinion would be considerably different. Justin 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    The good faith editors may use popups or twinkle aswell, it doesn't prevent them from using those, but it adds a better feature available to the good editors. James086 08:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    In essence, we have admins granting access to tools, without prerequisites to gaining access to those tools, when the function(s) those tools provide are available via 2 other third-party addons. That approaches near-political levels of bureaucracy. I find the WP:AWB prerequisites absurdly arbitrary, but at least it has a qualifier, and there isn't any alternative I'm aware of. Either give it to all, or leave it to admins. But this "request approval" when approval doesn't have any set requirements is kind of silly. Justin 09:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough. That's not reason enough for me to oppose, but we are different people with differing opinions. James086 09:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. I'm a little nervous about this, primarily due to current high levels of abuse of TWINKLE. With TWINKLE, at least, you can dictate your edit summary to a certain extent, even if half the time people don't bother. My worry is that handing out rollback on such a large scale could make revert-wars a lot uglier. Moreschi 12:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Revert wars will become flame wars and that is destructive to WikiPedia. It will undermine WikiPidia authority as reference to knowledge, and will give credence to projects like Knol where one editor builds his or her article. Igor Berger (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. OPPOSE It is another way of killing the rights of Wikipedians (right to edit, for example.) and it is another added layer of bureaucracy. It can cause easy anarchy, due to powertripping and egotripping by the persons who have such powers. Imagine wikipedians using non administrator rollback for vandalism purposes. I am ready to ban the persons who abuse such powers (If I were to be a sysop in the near future) and to fight against another way of curtailing the rights of ordianry persons who use and edit this 💕 that can be mostly editable. The page protection policy is sufficient. we have bots to "kill vandalism". I don't give an F if someone vandalizes the article about the Bogdanov affair. We have admins and other likeminded persons to remind people to DO CONSTRUCTIVE EDITS. Or if they have thick heads to protect their ego (and their small brains), haul them to ArbCOm and ban them, or ban them outright! Non administrator rollback is similar to vigilantism, or what the vigilantes do. They abuse the powers that the people/police/someone or some group entrusted on them or to them. I would rather fight back and remove vandalism manually than to use that fiendish, bureaucratic tool, if given the chance. Time to go back to basics, If possible. And if Non administrator rollback is implemented, I will make sure that it will go the way Misplaced Pages:Esperanza did.iaNLOPEZ1115 (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. OPPOSE I do not want to be labeled a BuzzKill, a Troll, or Dog Meat, by the guy rolling back! Igor Berger (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Strong Oppose This empowers users to destroy, not to create. Misplaced Pages is already groaning under the weight of "editors" on power trips, who contribute nearly nothing but get a kick out of chastising others. The current reverting process is convenient enough--why streamline it even further? So that someone can go and do 300 rollbacks an hour? Why grant this destructive capacity to someone who hasn't been vetted through the RfA process? To someone who has nothing but the non-consensual support of one admin who happens to share his POV? The proposal would create yet another arena of contention, yet another activity in need of policing and arbitration: grant or refuse? remove or restore? What Misplaced Pages needs most is more conscientious, constructive editing--not adding more ranks, stripes and distinctions to the bureaucracy. Freederick (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose No thank you! God-mode lite and TW may use more server space, but I think these fulfill what non-admins need to do. If users want admin rollback that badly, they can do the work to become an admin. Also, many editors get their edits up, get involved with warning vandals and working on things such as good articles and the like to become an admin - this meaning they get blocking rights and admin rollback, it is simply not fair to people who have already gone through this process to get such privileges at the click of a finger - an admins finger at that! I think many non admins will be voting support, but they themselves haven't earned the rights to admin rollback, so why should they deserve it?--Ali K (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose Recently I was labeled a Troll by an admin while Spam patrolling article Talk:Knol. It was New Year's holiday and very few editors were around. A few anon IPs and sleeper users started social engineering the article. I was commenting to the article to keep WP:NPOV. The admin reverted one of my edits, but immagine a non admin with a rollback tool not understandig how destructive social engineering is to WikiPedia, reverting all my edits that I have done for the past month on the article. Hey, he is a Troll. Long live Knol and death to WikiPedia! Igor Berger (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

just some random thoughts, But I agree that admins should have the ability to grant/remove the rollback, But let me toss in another wrinkle that might make things easier, users who have more than 10,000 edits and have been with the project for over 6 months automatically get granted rollback, (by a software config, that already exists) but admins can still remove the auto given right. β 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure about this, we have a lot of people with over 10,000 edits that really couldn't be trusted with it and would use it soley for edit warring. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Then it can be removed from them. Majorly (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Trust and Authority? Igor Berger (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You could pass an RfA with those fixed requirements up there, making this whole thing pointless. Do away with them and let administrators exercise their judgement; they're supposed to be trusted members of the community, not dumb automatons that get spoonfed instructions with no room for discretion – Gurch 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if someone could pass a RFA, but another month and he could for sure. My fear is that we will be seeing people using the rollback feature without taking the time to warn the user in their page (since rollback should only be used when dealing with vandalism). Who would be assigning the rights? Administrators? I would prefer having bureaucrats do it, as to give them some more work, especially if they will have to review the users' last hundreds of edits. However, I am not against the idea of non-admins using the feature. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the bureaucrats granting is that they simply haven't the man time to do this - it would be too much to handle for such a limited resource. We already have plenty of scripts available that allow the use of admin rollback and follow with a warning, so there wouldn't be a great change in that respect. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be worried about people dealing with vandalism incorrectly. That is really neither here nor there. A large proportion of vandalism is already dealt with by non-administrators. This would change only the method by which they do it. If people warn users now, I can't see why they would suddenly stop if they were able to use rollback. If they don't, I can't see any reason why they would suddenly start if they were able to use rollback. So the situation would be no different to how it currently is – Gurch 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Automatic tools right now allow to revert and warn at the same time. I am worried that these people would either not use the rollback feature at all (since the scripting solution gives them more than a simple rollback) or migrate to the new system and stop warning users (just like some admins rollback without warning, or users in general undo others without explaining why or leaving a note in the other's talk page). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
There are tools available to do this both for the admin-revert and non-admin-reverts. And it's no problem e. g. to include the admin-revert in Twinkle. --Oxymoron 00:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Rey, warning is not essential. It's preferable, but not required. It's better the vandalism is removed faster more efficiently. Majorly (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have my doubts about me being able to pass an RfA. -- ClueBot (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat related but in an almost opposite tone is Misplaced Pages:Limit the undo function, a proposal I haven't really organised properly yet. I have concerns about the use of the undo function, but mostly about its use by IPs. violet/riga (t) 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be better to require 2-3 admins to approve granting, rather than one. Ditto on the removal. I would also like to see that if someone has rollback removed for cause, it can not be granted again for some period of time (2-3 months)? Thatcher 06:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary bureaucracy. – Gurch 10:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think that admins should be allowed to remove the permission without prior WP:ANI discussion. After all, admins can already block without discussion, which is a much sharper sanction. Unnecessary bureaucracy in the implementation of this feature should be avoided. Sandstein (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Said unnecessary bureaucracy has been removed. – Gurch 10:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer if administrators could "block" rollback usage for a determined time, like a block. Having two options only (give and take) is problematic, because some admins will prefer to only punish serious offenses. We can block someone for a hour, a day or a week, but we would have problems if our only options were unblock and block indefinitely. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You can always restore access to the tool as soon as the period of suspension is over. I don't see that a major obstacle. Spartaz 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but it is not automatic. That means we will have to have some list of users with temporary removed access as to not bother people to request again once their "block" is finished. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think rollback is such a vital tool (like being able to edit at all) that there will be many uses for a very-short-term removal. If a user is using it to edit war, why give it back after a day or 2? IMO, they should have to re-request it and convince people that they can be trusted with it again. Mr.Z-man 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not simply make rollback an autoconfirmed feature, like page moving? It doesn't seem weighty enough that it should need a special approval process, since it doesn't let the user do anything that couldn't be done by hand with a few seconds more work. *** Crotalus *** 01:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
That has been discussed, however, sleeper accounts could be used to vandalize using rollback, or users who have shown they are clearly incapable of controlling their actions and would abuse rollback would also gain access to it. Autoconfirmed accounts mean that someone has been around for four days; that doesn't really seem like enough time to understand reverting, much less rollback and its intricacies. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the vandalism concerns really have that much weight. Anyone who wants to vandalize can do so in a dozen different ways that have nothing to do with rollback. That will be the case as long as this is the 💕 that anyone can edit. We can set a different period (say, 60 days) for autoconfirmation if 4 days is insufficient. But I do think it should be automatic. We have too many bureaucracies already. *** Crotalus *** 04:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I personaly dont really see how giving rollback to autconffirmed users would be harmfull. The vast majority of vandalism (over 97%) is commited by IP's. Even if someone was to wait a while how much harm could they do? Sure they could roll back people contributions faster but they could have their vandalism undone just as fast. -Icewedge (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I should also note that if autoconfirmed users get rollback automatically, it means it would be hardcoded into the settings and could not be taken away from a user like with this system. Mr.Z-man 05:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Would IP's be permitted to use the tool as well? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you can't change the rights for an IP. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And we wouldn't want to, in case the IP got reassigned. Hut 8.5 15:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If it was given to autoconfirmed, as if they were to vandalise in other ways, they should be blocked for abusing their editing right (rollback is an edit). Tiddly-Tom 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The main abuse of this would be edit warring, not vandalism. We don't block for every edit war. Also, if a user is going to wait for 4 days to vandalize, there are far more destructive things that rollback. Mr.Z-man 22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what happens when an experienced sock of a vandal rolls back all of clue-bots edits? Malinaccier (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case we would block, but as far as abuses of rollback go, that would be a 1 in a 1000 occurrence. Edit wars happen far more frequently than things like that. Also, if it was given to all autoconfirmed users, it would be slowed by the rate limiter (the addition of which to the code was the genesis of all this discussion). Mr.Z-man 01:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As a Spam patrolman I would like to know who will get the rights to this tool. Will it be given to all Spam patrolman or you have to be one of the regulars? And what does one of the regulars mean in the first place? Is it someone who has been at WikiPedia as long as Jimbo? Igor Berger (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil

  1. Oh BTW, what's all this "support" and "oppose" about anyway? While it's convenient to put one's comments in one section or the other to easily mark one's stance on this, I hope nobody comes up with a brilliant idea of actually making the results of this poll binding. Or did we start to enact policies by voting and I missed that? Миша13 09:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    True, voting is evil, but this case is different (and it's not a clear cut vote). The devs want to see consensus clearly demonstated and this method is far better in showing consensus rather than a long convoluted discussion that conclusions can't be brought from. You also miss out on the views of people that simply support or oppose is but don't have anything really extra to add to the discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yep, this is an often-overlooked benefit of voting: It is relevant to know if a particular point of view is held by a few people, or a few hundred. Having a few hundred people say exactly the same thing does not lead to a better discussion than having a few people say it, and the rest say "yes, I agree".--Srleffler (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. This poll is absolutely absurd -- with little advertising, and a short window, I don't think this should be enacted without further discussion. Ral315 (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Little advertising? It is/was on the village pump, the administrators' noticeboard, centralized discussion, and the watchlist notice. There aren't many more places to put it. Mr.Z-man 10:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    Further discussion, like the kind going on at this page? Equazcion •✗/C • 11:03, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone keeps an eye on every one of those places. The watchlist notice is what brought 90% of the people here, and that was placed very recently. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I wonder how whomever makes the decision will determine "consensus" from this "discussion". I note the "voting is evil" mainstay of such polls, as well as several people who have commented but not "voted". - jc37 06:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Over two thirds of this sample agree with the main idea of giving rollback to users other than admins. The main complains are "Administrators should not be the ones handling it", that "Users will abuse it", and that the prerequisites are somewhat weak. There may be some steps to try to fix those three points before implementing this. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 81% of those who have left a numbered comment / vote have support the idea of giving rollback to non admins. That, by most standards, would indicate consensus among the community. However, ultimately, the final decision rests with the sysadmins (those capable of making live code changes). In regard to the comment about those who commented but did not "vote," I assume you're referring to those who didn't use a bold support. For those comments, it seems clear that those users supported the idea, even if they didn't spell it out.
In response to ReyBrujo's third point, we seem to have hit a catch-22. If you look at the old versions of this page, you'll see that there used to be specific criteria for granting +rollback. However, users were quick to complain about those "strict" criteria, so the prerequisites were modified to be more loose and open to administrators' discretion. Now that the prerequisites are not so narrow, users are complaining. It seems to perfectly fit the mantra that "you can't make everyone happy." However, the current proposal is the one being discussed, and it seems that the majority of users agree that administrators can be trusted to assign +rollback.MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add at this particular point, that it seems apropo that a proposal regarding rollback may itself be in need of rolling back. If we are to use this as a case study, though, I hardly think that we would want some non-admin user rolling something like this back simply because he/she is able to. Because of the broad implications of such a tool, I am going to restate my opposition and say that I am not sure that anyone is ready to handle 6+ million (that's someone else's estimate) people having a more efficient way to edit someone else's work (yes, even if they are only supposed to use it on their own edits, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that this tool can and will be abused some time in the future if it is implemented, and would only make revert war more thorough and damaging).Ecthelion83 (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I will say, as a safeguard, if this turns out to be a failure, there is nothing permanent about the software change. Should this change be made and deep concerns emerge that leave the community wanting to revert this change, it can, and would, be done. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as "Users will abuse it" goes, only giving it to users who have shown they have some experience and no history of behavior problems, combined with WP:AGF should make this not much of an issue. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And who will decide that a user has "no history of behavior problems"? A single admin. Based on what criteria? No specific criteria. A recipe for trouble, if you ask me. Freederick (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

illegitimate gauge of consensus

I'd strongly advise any developer against proceeding on the basis of this poll, regardless of the result. We polled on this 2 years ago at Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll and got no consensus. Now, admittedly consensus can change, and maybe it has. But that poll lasted *6 months* and involved nearly 300 users, this one is scheduled to run six days over the holiday period, and despite the fact the community is far larger, attract a fraction of the involvement (indeed I only stumbled on it by accident). To suggest that the no consensus position coulb be overturned on that basis will be quite invalid.--Doc 02:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, this is a rough vote to check which are the weak points of the proposal, and work on them. Also, there are two main differences: the rollback privilege exists now (and it was not something hypothetical like in that poll), and the process to grant it is different (poll vs. direct granting), which was ultimately one of the main negative points in that proposal (as you see, a solution for one of the points there was offered here, and probably in a third poll there will be another for the "misuse" argument). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that, the way I read the bolded text at the top of the page it's measuring consensus for implementation. I'm surprised at the low participation here to this point. I'd have to agree with Doc, without more eyeballs this isn't an accurate gauge. I'm on the fence about this, but perhaps the addition of more rollback type tools available since the last debate makes this less of an issue and maybe unnecessary. RxS (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone is free to publicize this wherever they'd like, however it's been on WP:AN, WP:BN, Template:Cent, and WP:VPR. I'm not really sure how to respond to claims that it hasn't been well-publicized. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is how well-publicized the page has been, but the low level of participation that resulted. A change like this probably needs more input...RxS (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The previous "no-consensus" position was arrived at with 400 participants. Now, that may well have changed. But showing 49 people supporting it in 6 (holi)days does not demonstrate this.--Doc 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For one thing on how it hasn't been well publicized, you started the poll in the middle of the holiday. How could you do that and expect reasonable awareness and publicity and participation? This is almost a poster child for when not to do things... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a job - most people will edit more in the holiday period, they're off work and college. It's very very well publicired, where else do you want us to mention it? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Many people are away though, so why not extend it for a couple of weeks so those who are can opine? The low level of interest here speaks for itself and robs it of legitimacy. If you really want this to happen, it is in your interests to show strong support and not indifference anyway.--Doc 03:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
But where else do you want it publicised to encourage more people to comment? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The main things is I want you to give it longer, so more people have the opportunity to see the publicity there is. Personally, I only check policy goings on every couple of weeks or so.--Doc 03:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't think a notice was posted to the mailing list either. It's the only policy-related part of Misplaced Pages I frequent anymore, so I certainly wasn't aware of this proposal. My opposition to it can be struck off if we extend the deadline by about two weeks, preferably more. Johnleemk | Talk 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's on the mailing list now, anyway. Can anyone think of anywhere else it hasn't been posted that it should? A sitenotice, perhaps? —Random832 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually I would suggest that there be a watchlist banner similar to what was done with WP:ATT last year. That attracted a lot of participation and carefully thought out responses from the broad spectrum of Misplaced Pages editors. It could go up right after the fundraising banner comes down in a couple of days. The poll really needs to be extended, though. A very significant proportion of editors have been editing irregularly over the seasonal break. Risker (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars: prevention

At Misplaced Pages talk:Rollback for non-administrators#Some suggestions, I made a suggestion for a way to avoid edit wars. Several others had suggested limiting how often a non-administrator could use rollback; I suggested looking at it from the point of view of the article: "Limit rollbacks on an article. For example, two in a row, or two in an hour. Limiting rollbacks need not limit ordinary editing (including reverting). Also, make rollback subject to the three-revert rule just as a revert is." Would this be compatible with the present proposal? Fg2 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about leaving an automated message on an roleback receiving editor's talk page telling them that their edit has been rolledback by editor giving a rollback and if they disagree with the rollback please leave a message on non administration rollback notice board and send an alert to the rollback User notifying him or her that their implemented roolback is beeing disagreed. They do not have to answer it but statistics can be kept and used for evaluation to revoke the rollback tool from an editor if their roolback authority is problematic. So this will be anti exploit review mechanism. Igor Berger (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
    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)
  4. Oppose. Per User:Ecthelion83. I couldn't have said it any better, ko-map-sumnida! Edit Centric (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. Oppose - Rollback would be a great tool for vandals, so don't give it to everyone. Weirdy (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Shouldn't give to everyone. --ClanCC (Talk) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. 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)
  9. Oppose for all the above reasons docboat (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - way too risky for everyone to use, could be another vandalism tool, etc. --Mark Macmillan™ (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. 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)
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
Category: