Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback/Creating a new proposal

message: Would anyone object if I moved all the discussion currently on the project page to this discussion page?  I think having a discussion section on the proposal page is just going to cause needless conflict and confusion.  Discussion is easier if it happens in one place.  And this way there won't be anyone complained that their discussion got archived.  It will also leave the proposal page more stable and easier to keep track of for actual proposals.  Comments?  Objections?  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does make sense to me that the discussion of the page happen on its talk page. 1 != 2 22:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it's better to keep it all on one page, as the rationale stated on top gives the discussion context. The main proposal page (Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback) has both the proposal and the discussion on a single page too. Similarly, this isn't like crafting an article or a guideline, where discussion on its improvement should be kept separate. This entire thing is basically a brainstorm and there's no separation between proposal and discussion Equazcion •✗/C • 22:44, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as "rationale stated on top" goes, I would hope that anyone coming to this discussion page has read the corresponding project page.  :)  And I fully understand (and support) the idea that this is just a brain storm at this point.  So let the project page remain a short list of ideas and possibilities, and let the storm happen here.  As discussion takes place, update the project page to reflect new ideas and any emerging consensus or proposals.  This lets the project page converge slowly and neatly towards consensus (easily monitored in the page history), while the discussion can happen in whatever form it needs.  Discussion can be archived (by bot, and indexed by bot) as it grows large, and that's expected, so nobody gets upset.  And with luck, the project page will eventually turn into the actual proposal, and then the actual guideline.  In short (too late), let the discussion page determine consensus, and let the project page document that consensus.  Sound good?  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm only agreeing to this because I think you're smarter than me. And I don't think that often about people :) So okay, let's try it your way. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:30, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank for you for the complement.  :)  I've moved the comments posted on the project page to this page, and put a pointer there to here.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move all discussion here 

message: * I would support a rollback feature that involved review of the proposed edit (a la the current diff page but without the "Current Version" part), automatically summarized "Undid edits by -User-" and forced an addition to that summary. This would still minimize server load and time to render the user display, but would add the responsibility element. In this form, the button could could be given to everyone, or at least logged-in everyone. Franamax (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, any limits on the number of rollbacks in a given time frame would seem to defeat the real value of this button, which would be to help vandal-fighters rolling back a large attack (and would also greatly increase the coding complexity). Franamax (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My take 

message: Any solution that sends the developers back to writing new source code for Mediawiki is very unlikely to occur. 1 != 2 16:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most users' issues with this proposal stem from that limitation. But if we can at least pinpoint what ideal proposal would gain consensus, maybe that would at least get things moving. As it stands, there is no consensus. Waiting for development of new functionality may be the only choice. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:15, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The rollback button has been working great with existing admins for years now. These changes would limit its usefulness and are already available in javascript for anyone to have. It is like re-inventing the wheel. You can keep saying there is no consensus, but that is just not so. Regardless it will not be you are I who judges consensus so time will tell who is right about that. 1 != 2 16:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My point of view aside, something very similar has already been presented at the primary discussion and there has been clear objection to it for the same reasons I have outlined. 1 != 2 16:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What was presented was an alternate proposal. This is not an alternate static proposal. This is a discussion on how to create a new proposal. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:25, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: If you have any of your own, please feel free to add to the list above. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:43, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: Read the lead paragraph. This page assumes the proposal won't pass. if you feel it will, and that this page is not needed, I hope you won't feel the need to disturb the effort here. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:04, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not likely 

message: If you want this proposal to have a snowball's chance of reaching a consensus, the first step should be to address the specific concerns raised in the polling and discussion, regardless of how baseless you feel they are.  From my reading of the discussion there seems to be the following complaints:
#Rollback will enable more vandalism
#Rollback will enable worst edit-warring
#Rollback has poor edit summaries
#The process for granting rollback is inadequate
Did I miss any?
Burzmali (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your points, at least on the first three, however, valid or not, those are the concerns that have to be addressed before any future proposal makes it to polling.  Burzmali (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing specific concerns