Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback

message: At Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, I am already feeling a little uneasy about the proposal. One RC Patroler has been stalking me with mindless tagging (semi-speedy tags are the patroler's particular favorite), making abusive claims unwarrantedly dropping into discussions, and voting against whatever I vote for on AfDs... but, this clever editor "generally" manages to keep the stalking part under 10% of edits, thus hovering on the borderline and evading detection by outside parties. I have learned to live with this much, but "if" the person can lay a hand on the rollback stuff... I can only shudder at the thought. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This editor could be a sockpuppet or involved in social engineering on behalf of a third party. You may want to bring it to a few admin's attention and see how things fan out. Igor Berger (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Aditya's correct, basing it from an article's perspective doesn't take care of the wikistalking potential. Stalking usually involves many articles, not just one. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:10, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right: this section is not about stalking; it's about preventing edit wars. So, would implementing a limit of this sort help solve concerns about edit wars? Fg2 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not significantly. Edit wars rely on more than 1 person. For limiting by the hour: unless people are watching the article like a hawk, it is unlikely that someone will make more than 2 reverts in a content dispute in an hour, but it is much more likely that they will revert a vandal more than twice. For limiting it to 2 in a row: that would only prevent edit wars where all parties are using rollback. Mr.Z-man 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Any abuse of rollback by a non-admin user would be grounds, I'd expect, for immediate revocation of the privilege. The proposal is explicit, rollback is to be used for vandalism only, not for content disputes. *One* bad rollback, any admin could remove the bit on sight, then it could be argued at leisure if it was a mistake or not. The goal here is to help admins, and no new policies are needed. There is little or no harm in wrongful removal of the bit. That's the beauty of this proposal; admin-granted, not by "vote" or community discussion, simply at admin discretion (and responsibility). It only takes wider attention when someone abuses it, and basic abuse, by a non-admin rollback user, can quickly be addressed by *one* administrator. Only if two administrators disagree does it increase wider community traffic, as with any admin disagreement. Meanwhile, no more harm done than can already be done with heavier load on the servers. Frankly, I'm astonished that we are seeing only 2:1 in favor of this, and I suspect it's another example of participation bias. The vast majority of users, seeing this, are responding, "Huh?" My own analysis of *most* of the No votes who give reasons is that they simply don't understand the proposal, for objections are being made that are addressed by details of the proposal; a few Yes votes also don't seem to get it, but not nearly so many. Again, this is not a vote. This is a request for community input. I presume they will decide, as usual, based on the *arguments*, not the pure number of votes. --Abd (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The point of hard and fast rules is that the servers can enforce them. This per-article limit idea was intended to address two points people have raised about rollback: (1) that editors will use it for edit wars, and (2) that it will add to the load on the administrators. Having software prevent the use of rollback multiple consecutive times, or two times in an hour (or in five minutes or in a week, whatever works best), on any given article, makes rollback useless to non-administrators for engaging in edit wars. It removes edit wars as an objection to non-administrator rollback. And having software limit it, rather than requiring running to find an administrator, makes life easier for the members of the administrative team. Or so I envisioned. But I haven't seen enough edit wars to be sure if this is the right approach. Fg2 (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars: prevention 

message: It's quite clear from the poll there is no consensus for this. This doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming policy. The best that can be done is a new proposal that addresses the concerns the opposers have raised, if that's possible. —Ashley Y 08:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but less cynically. I'd say that while there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of this particular proposal becoming policy, there also isn't a snowball's chance in hell that non-admin rollbacks won't be implemented in some form or another. It's just a matter of forming the right proposal. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:41, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: (to Ashley Y) I think it's too early to say that, but there are concerns about if people who voted earlier would still have the same position, given some changes made to the proposal. So we might want clarify some of that, but either way, the discussion is still very much in progress. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what discussion you are looking at, but the opposition to this proposal has less than a third of the community behind it and is fragmented in their reasons. What is more many of the given opposition reasons are based on technical misunderstanding about what the tool actually does. Judging by consensus or vote counting I would say there is a fairly good chance of this passing. 1 != 2 17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The supporters of this proposal are victim to similar misunderstandings and are just as "fragmented in their reasons" (not that each user having a different reason constitutes any lack of validity in the viewpoint). Judging by consensus, which is all that matters, well, there is no consensus. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:11, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reject 

message: 'Cause I got another one for you. This is very informal, doesn't need to go on very long, and will not decide anything. However I just wanted to get an idea of how many people here think the current poll shows a consensus acceptance of the proposal, and how many feel no consensus is shown. Vote below. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:14, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we need a vote on whether the vote below is showing consensus or not? </sarcasm> Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensus I think Carch's question should be discussed further to be sure it is supported by the community :) Franamax (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Look, enough with the voting.  Seriously.  Poling does not help advance consensus.  Polls, more-or-less by definition, require one to vote to have one's opinion counted.  This actually impedes discussion, since now everyone must respond to have their opinion considered.  This turns what could be a discussion into an edit storm of voting.  Meanwhile, in an actual discussion, if something is said, you don't have to have 200 more people come in and say "Me too".  Indeed, you might actually get some new ideas formed, and improve the state of understanding, rather than being lost in a sea of votes. • Wikipedia is not a democracy.  Polling is not a substitute for discussion. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This particular point seemed best served by a poll, because you either think there's consensus or you don't. It's not like a proposal where people are likely to say "no, but if you change this, then maybe". But like I said this was entirely informal, just for curiosity's sake -- and just-for-fun, even. But anyway, since everyone has to take themselves so seriously... I don't think there's consensus but I do think there's a chance this will pass into a trial phase, which certain admins may justify by saying there is enough of a majority to enact this, as a kind of "compromise" (no consensus, but, it seems clear most people want it, so let's try it out). I don't necessarily see that as a problem per se, but I do think it would be better to get an actual discussion going in order to fine-tune the proposal according to people's poll comments, rather than this straight-up "either you like it as is or you don't" method. I think it's important that the admission of new tools and rules not fall victim to a trial-and-error trend. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to form a more accepted proposal, before we start a trial run, now that we have everyone paying attention and saying exactly what they want to see. And yes, 70% support is a lot, but it still doesn't equal consensus. For as many of the Oppose voters being accused of making misguided votes, there are even more Supporters whom I would say are pretty misguided as well. Consensus isn't about pie charts. Dragonhawk said this in better words somewhere else, but we'll get more out of the few people who care enough to actually discuss this than we will from the masses of people who've just shown up out of some need to utilize their right to vote. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:59, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is not a binary state.  It's not black-or-white.  For example, as many have been saying, the poll does appear to indicate a consensus for some sort of non-admin rollback, but the specifics are unclear.  I realize you were asking about the current proposal, but as I pointed out, the "current proposal" has evolved over time, so even that's pretty muddy.  The content of comments is generally going to be more telling than simple yes/no.    As WP:CON says, consensus is about finding a solution that everyone accepts.  Voting doesn't help any of that.  Consensus is analyzed, not counted.  •  Perhaps we are all taking this a bit too seriously, but then, I think I can safely say that we're all a bit "sick" of polling, too.  :)  Maybe we should have a poll on that.  ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not fond of polls - achieving consensus is obviously better.  But in order to achieve consensus when one does not have unanimity, one has to discuss the concerns of the people on either side of the debate and work to flip the opinion of enough of them that a clear consensus appears.  This may mean using the force of cold, hard logic, or it may require empassioned oration - or you may have to give ground and compromise.  However, when upwards of 450 people are involved and something like 150 of them need to be 'flipped' you simply cannot discuss the matter with them one-on-one in order to do that.  Rational debate in an open forum becomes impossible when the number of people involved becomes large.  Worse still, how many of those people took the HOURS of time it would take to read all of the debate on both sides?  How many will ever return in order to be persuaded?  Consensus is a great way to proceed when you are in a group of a dozen people and three or four are holding out against the majority.  But as a way of making decisions, it's quite utterly useless when the numbers swell into the hundreds.  IMHO, a straight vote with a 2:1 quorum is ample evidence of a need to change when this many people are involved and rational discussion is all-but impossible. SteveBaker (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the best posts I've read about this matter. Perhaps this was implemented to fast but ultimately, I don't know whether we could have done any better. While perhaps we could have improvided the proposal, what likely would have happened would have been a small number of people would have worked on improving the proposal which would have then eventually been put up for community feedback (i.e. vote) again. This probably would have gotten about the same amount of support or worse, less. This process would have been repeated over and over again until either consesus was achieved or there was clearly no consensus not because the proposal had actually improved but simply because of the 450 people who 'voted' this time, we were down to 50 as most people had grown sick of the thing by that time. Proposals should definitely be worked on and improved until they are more or less the best possible. But ultimately there has to come a time when a proposal is either accepted or rejected. And that time comes when the best possible middle ground has been achieved which IMHO is evidence by the apparent inability to come up with something that had more support (since from what I saw, all the alternatives had less support) Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who likes polls? 

message: I am new to Wikipedia and it is fantastic but a rollback? I am wondering if an ability for Non-Admins. to make easy changes is a good idea?
I have read the arguements about editing wars and vandals but what about concerns of losing good editors. If it is really easy to "undo" someones work, and this happens on a large enough scale, will this cause editors or someone qualified that can edit, or that does edit, to stop for fear that a lot of work may be wasted?
This seems like a logical point to ponder. I understand that editing can be done anyway but not by just pushing a button.
It seems to me, on the face, that a rollback would be a fantastic idea when used correctly--BUT-- how many times will it be abused? Will a person editing a page have to keep copies of his(or her) work and a watch on every page he(or she) edits to make sure "rollbacks" have not been performed incorrectly or unjustly? 
I do not have enough knowledge of the subject but if Editors police pages and change the works of vandals can vandals then, at least until caught, be able to just log on and push a button also? Oh! I am sure that an IP address is recorded but if someone just fooling around has dial up then the IP address changes. If a user name surfaces more than once it can be stopped from being allowed to use the feature but how hard would it be to just create another name?
I am just asking what appears to me to be common sense questions so I hope I do not offend anyone by any lack of knowledge I may have on the subject.
There are a lot of individuals that have the time to edit pages for correct reasons, and spend a lot of time doing so, but I can imagine there are a lot of individuals with nothing to do with their time but create problems. Will this be an easy tool for them?Otr500 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback 

message: It is common practice in debates to discount brand new users due to the risk of sock puppetry and meat puppetry. Due to the notice above our watchlists we are getting real new users as well. I don't have the time to do it myself, but before considering the results of this poll it may be beneficial to examine the contribution history and account creation dates of those who gave opinions.
If these people are predominantly sincere new users then there should be similar numbers on both sides of the argument, with a bias towards being less experienced with Wikipedia. However if people are using sock/meat puppetry then there may very well be a strong person bias evident in the side the new accounts are taking.
Regardless it is long standing practice to give greater weight to established contributors in debates about how Wikipedia should be ran. 1 != 2 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the practice? Never heard of that. Also I find your choice of section header to be troubling in a number of very obvious ways. This is a discussion, not some weighted vote. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:46, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Articles for deletions and requests for adminship, read WP:SPA. The wording in the header is how I have seen the issue being refereed to in discussions in the past. I really don't see why you find it troubling. We do weigh opinions, I never said anything about a vote. 1 != 2 04:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suffrage = vote. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:13, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: It's more of a bias against brand-new accounts.  Such accounts, one reasonably assumes, would not have had much time to learn about Wikipedia culture and customs.  So how is it they come immediately to a discussion with an opinion?  The concern is these people were recruited by others.  Hence WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT.  I suppose this is, to some extent, assuming bad faith.  But a proper analysis of the poll will examine not just responses, but what they say, and how they say it, with things like numbers and longevity a secondary factor anyway.  Someone saying "Support/oppose per <insert user name here>" isn't adding much to the discussion regardless of the age of their account; while a well-reasoned, novel idea from a total newbie might be noticed.  •  I suspect this question is academic, anyway, as from everything I've seen, the responses were fairly consistent in their patterns from the start.  Certainly, the ratio of comments in the "Support" section to those in the "Oppose" section held steady at a little over 2-to-1 the entire time.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffrage 

message: If it will be a major benefit to those who fight vandalism, then why there are no prerequisites? A user should be a long term vandalism fighter, i.e. he should have at least X reverts of vandalism every month/day/week during Y months/days/weeks to apply for the tool. X and Y can be small. Any thoughts?   Jhony  |  Talk   21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it ALSO doesnt look into the small but signifiacnt amount of users who toe the rules but use any ambiguirty or vagueness in order to justify their ongoing totalitarian campaign at stifling alternative theories and promoting drug company and anti-spiritual doctrine. Smith Jones (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith Jones, your suggestion that anti-spiritual totalitarians would be in position to exploit this proposed tool seems rather a stretch. Wouldn't they be better off entrenching themselves as admins with privileged access to the existing tool? Arguments about specific malicious groups don't necessarily contribute to the wider discussion and may actually detract from the wider concerns being raised by the opposers. Franamax (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: the thing is that many of theise pople hae no interest in becing admins becauses then they they will be more visible and their insidious influence would be easierto catch beside sthey probably lack the qualifications since not everyone is made an admin without checks since they look for your editting record  which as I mentioned before is often suspectious. Granting thim this power with no oversight would invariabl ylead to an onslaught against parapsychology and articles relating to faith and spirituality that is absolutely unconsciousnable. Smith Jones (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any evidence to support your claim that granting rollback to non-admins would lead to an onslaught against said articles?  If so, please present it.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Seriously, please stop assuming such bad faith on the part of so many users. The oversight is the same as the oversight for any other edit or public action. If you see something wrong, report it. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: my evidence can essentilly consist of a look at this page. all of my recent contributions have been subjected to a cosntant barath of attacks on my character and my fitness to edit wikipedia. i have been subjected to my fellow editosr trooping up and own all over my user page, threateneng me with adminitsrative action and trying to control every last detail of my contributions here, up and including my right to achive my discussions on my very own talkpage. i know exactly why i am being targetted for this harasment, because I REFUSED to backdown from my defence of alternative scientific leaders such as Kevin Trudeau whose muckraking book can and should be purchased here. i have great respect for wikipedia and all the people who contribute to its, but i am not so naive that i dont recognize a threat to sicnetific and factual integrity wherever i see it. Smith Jones (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At most, I might see that as evidence that your own edits will be reverted more often.  That is not evidence of a widespread onslaught against all edits to such articles, merely your own edits.  Now, that might be a problem, too, but it's not the same thing.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: i think you midunderstand me DragonHawk. my edits are revrted and if tehre is a real reason then there is no problem. the problem exists when editors decide to stalk all my edits, reverting with them without even asking why and even going onto my own talk page to spam it with constant flaming. the problme is that when i attempt to discus podsible edits on the talk page of certain dissident science related articles my good faith is attacked andi am treated as if i am a common vandla for daring to not be in complete agreemnt with ever ysingle person who edits in wikipedia. THAT is a problem. Smith Jones (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was: That is not a problem with this proposed feature, that is a problem between you and the other editors.  This proposal is not the place to raise your complaints about other editors.  • To address your complaints about other editors, I did try engaging you in dialog at your talk page, but you deleted my message, so... ~shrug~  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no prerequisites? I propose one. 

message: What about the new Wikipedian who wants to do great things for WP but doesn't take the time to learn about policies and templates and usage? I had someone try to speedy delete a Wiktionary redirect because it was too short and they claimed, not notable...its a WP TEMPLATE fer cryin' out loud, its a long as it needs to be...so whats to stop this person from just deleting anything they don't understand/haven't learned about? Errors made with good intentions are still errors that undermine the credibilty we are all working so hard to build.
Will there be a 6 month or 12 month "waiting period" before they can get this tool? Maybe its not such a good idea to have this in the hands of people who aren't quite as accountable as admins so that admins don't have to go behind these people and clean up messes.  Let them take the time to learn to use Twinkle or one of the other Vandal Fighters, but giving them rollback would be double plus ungood.   Legotech (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? We aren't going to give it to everyone, but it sure doesn't take 6 months to get used to vandalism reversion. Users are as accountable as you want to make them. If you want to call out a user for every mistake they make or let a few things slide, that is your prerogative. Mr.Z-man 08:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Something to think about

message: Rollback is an anti-vandalism tool, undoing edits is an editorial tool. I only rollback if there is blatant vandalism, anything else I undo, because I don't want to use my admin priviliges (on wikinews) for anything else than blatant vandalism.
Is there a real need to provide non-administrators with a new but weak and only slightly faster anti-vandalism tool? No.
Dedicated vandal fighters can install tools and request adminship (which shouldn't be such a witchhunt). This proposal is not going to make a big difference, it is prone to abuse, and it goes against all previous logic. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for those of us running out of time, like myself, who are principal contributors and don't want to give up what we've been working hard on, it's  a great tool. No big deal here ;D BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again: What's the big deal? 

message: Quite a number of the Oppose votes seem to think that the proposal is going to make vandalism easier.  This is a misunderstanding that has been countered numerous times above, but still keeps occuring.  I think that someone should keep a count of the number that have given this as the ONLY reason to oppose.  This could be quite significant in deciding whether or not there is consensus.  Ideally, someone neutral (ie who has not voted) should count but I will do it myself if others think this is worthwile and fair. SpinningSpark 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a misunderstanding, it's an opinion. Thinking rollbacks wouldn't make vandalism easier is also an opinion. It's an ongoing debate, and you can't just declare that the people who disagree with you are mistaken. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:56, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that whoever interprets this debate will discount opinions based on factually incorrect information. I fail to see how having to gain a reputation as a responsible editor then apply for a special button makes vandalism easier when you could just press 3 buttons to get the same effect. Even if you did you would lose that rollback very fast. 1 != 2 16:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  how many times has this been hashed out over the course of this page... it's a debate, theres nothing factual about either side's stance. The only way you'll know is with time, if it gets implemented. Probably not even then. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:27, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

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

text: If someone thinks a button is going to do something it cannot technically do, then that is a factual error. To give it equal weight would turn this debate into a vote. 1 != 2 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone says it would make vandalism easier they don't necessarily have any misunderstanding about what the button technically does. The question is whether or not that functionality will make vandalism easier, and that is something that is a matter of opinion and remains to be seen. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:36, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been interpreting such comments as either an assumption of bad faith of the admins granting it (that we'll give it to vandals) or the users using it (they will get it and just go crazy) or as a sign that they did not fully read the proposal and think this is still like the original proposal to give it to everyone. Either way, the amount of bad faith assumptions I have seen here is shocking. Mr.Z-man 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being worried about users abusing the tool ("going crazy") is a legitimate concern and not necessarily a bad-faith assumption. Firstly, users can be abusive without intending to be. They fall into immature battles with each other over how to best handle an article, a group of articles, or even an entire project. They're just reverting to the way they think is best, which is still good-faith. Also, "assume good faith" applies to judging users' actions after the fact -- it does not apply when we're trying to figure out what tools to enable users with. If we had to assume good faith there, then we would be immediately granting everyone full developer privileges. But we don't. We assume that if a user takes a shot that he had good reason, but we don't hand loaded guns out to everyone. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:32, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being worried that it might be abused/misused by some is fine and quite realistic. Some of the comments however suggest that if this were to be implemented that significant numbers of users would go on rampages rolling back legitimate edits, trying to exert control, and chasing users off the project through careless and/or abusive reverting. Mr.Z-man 08:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Z-MAN , the reaosn whe beleive this to be so is because this is exactly what happens now iwth the tools already available. editing parapsychology an dissident-science related articles is a headache and a knightmare since eery constructive edit is automatically altered beyond recognition, deleted entirely, or reverted so fa rback that is destroys not only the reverted edit but almost every edit immediatle y preceding it. MOST people are responsible with the tools, but the few that therte are -- the few that happened to cluster around certain areas of wikipedia like maggots on rotten meat - that they are ztye ones who will use this ability to wage editrs wars that may or may not be valid in intent but can have the ia unintentionalt sidefefct of driving away legitimate editors. Smith Jones (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying there aren't idiots and POV pushers on Wikipedia, but the presence of a few idiots is no reason to deny a helpful tool from numerous helpful users. If users are making POV reverts, they aren't going to get rollback. Mr.Z-man 08:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: As Equazcion remarked above, I think at this point, we've gotten as much out of this poll as we're going to.  Response rate seems to be falling off, and I haven't seen anything in the way of new and unique ideas for some time.  Are there any objections to closing the poll and then moving on with whatever happens next?  •  I would ask that people please, for the love of Jimbo, save discussion about how to interpret the poll, what should be done next, etc., etc., for another thread/section.  :-)  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NO we must continue to market the poll until a specifiac date in the future, preferable within 2-3 days from today. this weill enable any last streagglesrs to get htier opinions in before a drastic decision is made that could easily destroy wikipedia. Smith Jones (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, for the love of crumb cake, close it already. I don't see any difference in outcome between doing it now and doing it 3 days from now or even a month from now. We're not gonna get any more out of this than we already have. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:42, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the poll has achieved its goal. The ratio has been consistent for days and no new arguments have come about in some time. Lets close this thing and determine consensus. 1 != 2 04:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (...not that the ratio is of any consequence...) Equazcion •✗/C • 04:53, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I ask that people please <S>argue</S> discuss how to interpret the poll in a different thread. ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  He started it :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:01, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweaking of which, has anyone summoned Jimbo to comment on this? Marlith T/C 05:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would've done it but I keep forgetting the incantation. He probably wouldn't comment anyway except through a sock, for fear of influencing the outcome too much, and if so then he probably already did. In any event, he does have a watchlist, so he is probably aware of this issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:14, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: Haha. Classic. The 'opposers' should have discussed it and 'supported.' Strong! But no. the_undertow talk 06:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey! Can't you read? "save discussion about how to interpret the poll [and] what should be done next". Honestly, no one pays attention to the OP these days. Back in my day... Equazcion •✗/C • 06:06, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe someone should remove the watchlist advertisement. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:47, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll closure revisit 

message: Okay.  In same space of about eight days, we've had the main proposal (including its original form, which evolved into the current form, and the accompanying straw poll, which itself includes around 450 total top-level responses (not counting replies) and over 200 kilobytes of text), at least three counter-proposals, and various assorted discussions (on the project page and at this talk page (some now archived)),  those also consisting of over 200 kilobytes of text.  And before that, we had Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators proposal, Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators, and Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges and their accompanying talk pages, polls, archives, etc.
Now what do we do?
Some suggestions:
I think the ideal thing to do would be to refactor all the proposals, discussion, polls, responses, etc., into something as concise as possible.  There's been a massive amount of text put forward on this, and until we know where we've been, I'm not sure we can really know where we should be going.  That said, it will probably take a fair bit of effort just to review, summarize, and refine all that, and I don't expect the world to hold still in the mean time.
So, concurrently: I think we should strongly encourage discussion and consensus over simple voting.  Avoid polarizing things into "Support" or "Oppose".  Make sure any proposal fairly and completely presents all the pros and cons.  Make sure objections (and counter-arguments, and counter-counter-...) are noted.  Avoid bias in favor of any particular stance.  Refactor it mercilessly.  The idea is to get the proposal to a concise state that everybody agrees is an accurate presentation of all sides of the issue.  In short, write the proposal like a Wikipedia article.  The idea is to avoid legions of people posting "Support" or "Oppose" comments solely because they want their opinion to count.  If the proposal addresses their opinions directly, they are much less likely to post a simple WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT comment; they'll be content with the presentation "as is".
If consensus on what the "right" proposal is simply cannot be archived, despite long discussion, I'd say the next best thing would be to get consensus on a presentation of the issues (pros and cons), and multiple, stable proposals addressing those issues.  If there must be a poll, people can then vote to indicate their support for a given proposal, or rejection of all of them, rather than trying to get their opinion expressed in a sea of almost 500 other opinions.
Comments?  Suggestions?  Other ideas?  Condemnation?
—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 07:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, bugzilla:12534. Speaking of which, the final contents of the proposal should be in a developer-friendly format because the devs have better things to do (hint hint) than to read paragraphs of text. We need to demonstrate that there's consensus for the proposal. MER-C 10:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to go from here 

message: The watchlist notice is causing some confusion now that the poll is closed. Perhaps the notice should be removed now? Equazcion •✗/C • 20:24, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist advertisement 

message: The last poll ended with the same percentage and was declared no consensus and the idea was shelved.  Why is a similar result being treated differently this time? Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll. Hiding T  22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it that 67% of the community want this proposal, but the less majority (by a considerable ammount) don't want it yet get there way? I question the application of consensus in the previous poll. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of WP:CONSENSUS. You've closed discussions as no consensus, I take it.  On WP:RFA we use 70-80 as a guide for promoting someone to admin, I think it is higher for a bureaucrat.  Why do you want it to be lower for a software change? Hiding T  22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, from memory, when we polled on adding speedy deletion criteria we used 70% for the cut off for acceptance. And that was agreed beforehand and I think we didn't allow anons or new users, we had a suffrage on that. Hiding T  22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The community has gaged consensus for RfA and RfB - this we have no guage for. Far more community members want rollback than do not and many of the opposes are based on flawed logic that this will cause more vandalism. Look at AfD consensus - that's not a set number like you quote, just like any other process we have here (except RfA and RfB) - the developers can judge consensus for themselves, I hope they can see that an overwhelming majority of people want this. There was no real discussion on acceptance criteria. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your opinion that it is flawed logic.  And we're not talking about AFD, we're talking about a major change in the role of admins and the software.  Is it not even beyond the realms of possibility that we should consider whether there needs to be a consensus of admins to do this? If we want to discuss the merits of the poll, I can only point to our policy, Wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD. We're talking about implementing something which many feel violates WP:NOT, specifically not a bureaucracy.  I think further discussion is certainly merited, per WP:CONSENSUS. Hiding T  22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  (ec) Many of the support votes are based on flawed logic as well, and whether or not rollbacks would cause more vandalism is a matter of opinion. The vast majority wanting something doesn't mean there's consensus. Whoever makes the decision will (hopefully) go through all the votes to see if a good argument has been made for the implementation. The numbers themselves don't mean much. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:27, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: Just a question, how do the developers get the right to solely judge consensus on this (or any other) issue? Seems like it's the wrong way 'round. RxS (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: they get the right because the ytmade wikipedia. Smith Jones (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Who do you propose should evaluate consensus in this case? I think that the devs are in the best position to evaluate any technical issues and will have to decide in the final analysis whether to implement this or not whatever the consensus might be. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same people that decide consensus on all other policy decisions...the editors (us). Developers don't make policy, they implement policy decisions. This isn't a technical issue, it's a policy debate. They certainly can have plenty of input as to how policy is implemented in a technical sense but they don't decide consensus. As far as whether this has consensus or not, seems to me that it doesn't. I do think that when consensus happens it's a lot clearer than it is here. Sort of you know it when you see it I think. There's been plenty of examples where it's taken several attempts to find a consensus on a policy proposal, off the top of my head I think WP:Prod took a couple tries before it was accepted, several speedy criteria took a couple tries. RxS (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The devs get the right, because they are the ones who make the change - they decide if there is enough support for a particular proposal. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So the devs can fundamentally change an admins role without consensus from admins that they want the change? Hiding T  23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't soley the admins decision - it's the communities. If an admin doesn't like it, they don't have to get involved with it in any shape or form, leave it to the admins who want to. The devs will evaluate this debate, and the "poll" and all other comments then look at the technical aspects and whether or not they feel there is consensus for the change. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to contrast with your question to the crats recently. Either it's good for the goose and the gander or it isn't, you ask me. I think if a majority of admins don't want this, then that needs to at least be recognised. Hiding T  23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, technically speaking, the developers and server admins work for the Wikimedia Foundation, and the servers are owned by them, too, so it's really the WMF board that wields the phenomenal cosmic powers.  That said, they generally abide by consensus decisions of the community.  What's tricky is in situations like this one, where (according to some) consensus is not clear.  I suppose in that case, somebody has to make a judgment call.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonHawk (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No offense to anyone, but, maybe it'd be more helpful for those of us with such strong opinions (for or against) regarding this proposal not to go around proclaiming consensus one way or another. SQLQuery me! 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious 

message: How do those suggesting that the oppose logic was "flawed" propose we handle one-liner support arguments? For example, "obviously :-)", "Per common sense", "proposal as written". I'm not saying there is anything wrong with those comments, but I do take issue with one side insinuating flawed logic should result in an ignored vote, when many of the support votes don't even quantify the votes. While I don't agree that some of the logic used in opposes were proposed in a good fashion, if we are going to require a certain standard for oppose votes, we must require the same standard for support votes. So should the final decision maker(s) on this one simply ignore every support vote that didn't quantify or qualify their support?
This is exactly why straw polls should be avoided. Either take each vote for face value, or set the rules on how votes are metered from the very beginning of the debate. Many of the votes in support had very valid reasons for supporting this policy. Many of the votes opposing had very valid reasons for opposing this policy. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. Specifically, #4 states "Similarly, if a straw poll is inconclusive, or if there is disagreement about whether the question itself was unfair, the poll and its results should simply be ignored." The results of this poll are at the very least inconclusive.
My last comment will be directed at User:Ryan Postlethwaite's comment: "How is it that 67% of the community want this proposal, but the less majority (by a considerable ammount) don't want it yet get there way?" That comment stunned me. WP:CON explains exactly how, and why, it is that 67% of the community wants something but doesn't get it. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, Wikipedia is not a democracy... and as an admin, I'd expect you to know that. Justin chat 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Justin dont be a bully, not everyone can rmember bits of the ruels off of the top of thier head. just remind him politely and dont try to make him look foolish for Askign a legitimaite question!!! Smith Jones (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how I was a bully at all. Admins are expected to know rules, certainly an admin is expected to know the cardinal rule of policy changes. I don't think Ryan is a fool at all, but I think his frustration with this proposal is overshadowing his common sense. Justin chat 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: tere was no reason to teaste him and implie that his is foolish because of his ignorance. as you say his frustration is overhsadowing his common sense, band not only that he is still in a humanbeing and if he may be going through things in his life that are draining his neergy he may very well have let something like this slipped his mind. you dont know ifhe is facing any deaths in hte family or the breakup of a relatioship or anything like that, so before you judgehim and imply that he is losing his coolor being unsensical you should put yourself inhis shoes becasue as the wise spiritualist once said "before you judge a manyou should put your feet inhis shoes" and thats what you shoul d do for him even thoughhe is an adminand you may or may not be id ont know. Smith Jones (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The "flawed logic" applies to oppose comments that were totally out of line with the proposal, such as those that suggested that the proposal would give rollback to everyone or ones that say "just reform RFA and they can apply to be admins" (good luck with that). The problem was not that they didn't explain their reasoning, but rather that their reasoning made little sense in relation to the proposal (or in some cases reality). Mr.Z-man 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly you can make the case that the policy will give rollback to everyone is flawed logic. But I disagree that the latter of your suggestions is in anyway flawed logic. Alternative proposals aren't flawed... they are the benefits of discussion. While I agree your first suggestion is entirely over the top, the idea that proposing reforming RFA is "flawed logic" is in itself a logical fallacy. Consensus is reached via discussion, not voting. If you want to ignore any opposing vote that makes alternative suggestions, your effectively proposing the opposite of what WP:CONS stands for. And for the record, I opposed this policy not because I think giving editors rollback is a bad idea (I rather think it's a good idea), but because I think the way this policy would implement it is bad. Is that "flawed logic" as well? Justin chat 00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An alternative suggestion is fine, but people have been trying to reform RFA for a long time and have gotten nowhere. At this point, unless you have a suggestion on how to do that, its not really an alternative idea. Saying "reform RFA" would be like saying "I don't like this proposal, but I would support a better one." Everyone would support something better, but just saying that is not very helpful. Mr.Z-man 05:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But then, I see a relatively large difference between unhelpful and logically flawed. However, I still don't see how we can require opposers to validate their response and not expect the same from supporters. Is saying "reform RFA" less helpful than "I don't want non-admins having rollback?" It's tough to set a metric for what should be considered an acceptable validation, which is exactly why voting is evil. Justin chat 06:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who !oppose saying "you can't give this to IP editors" are certainly wrong - that is not what the proposal is asking for at all. And then there are varying degrees of misinterpretation which result in an oppose. But maybe that's not flawed logic, maybe those people are expressing their discomfort quickly - just because they aren't slapping down the pithiest comment doesn't mean their general concerns aren't valid. Similarly, those who have looked quickly and !support'ed with the comment "looks good to me" may have used some flawed logic. There is simply no way to determine this, maybe another banner notice saying "hey, go back and read it all again"? A quick poll of the general community has to either take each vote at face value or it has to then synthesize and evaluate each and every comment. Either way, it doesn't look like this proposal has achieved a clear consensus - there are obvious merits, but the current proposal hasn't been able to overcome the concerns. Franamax (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a few words, it is perfectly clear that it is not clear whether there is a clear consensus. Waltham, The Duke of 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flawed logic 

message: Could someone go ahead and mark this "rejected" plz? And then we can go ahead with the proper consensus thing, which is to come up with a new proposal that works in the issues raised by the opponents, if that's possible. —Ashley Y 18:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we rewrite in on a separate page? If you notice below the main proposal, are two new proposals for implementing this, which are both gaining good consensus. In fact, and this may be a POV, but I think that the top proposal (user scripts) will actually pass. Also, note that as polls are not a replacement of consensus, ending the poll is not a mark of ending the discussion, hence why this page is still here.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What's the hurry? You can still edit a new proposal, in the meanwhile. And, as Vox mentioned, there's still activity here. SQLQuery me! 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I think the main proposal is dead in the water, but the new proposals further down look like they have consensus. —Ashley Y 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Or we can just ignore all consensus and do it anyway. I'm just curious, who made the final decision on this one? Was it the devs? I'm just a little stunned that we got absolutely no explanation as to why the policy seems to have been implemented, when it failed last time with the exact same ratio? Justin chat 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reject 

message: Hey people.  While I personally disagree with the decision to go ahead and implement the proposal despite a number of people with real objections, and a number of people questioning consensus on this, I don't feel a need to get so upset by it.  Remember, Wikipedia is not bureaucracy and Wikipedia does not have firm rules.  Any claims that Wikipedia is fundamentally different now, that this is an attempt to bypass consensus, etc., are an over-reaction.  I'm sure the people moving forward on this were acting in good faith.  I see no no angry mastodons charging at us, and I have no reason to think the world will end tomorrow.  Nothing here is etched in stone, and even if it was, stone can be broken.  There is no need to go to ArbCom, resign from editing, or jump off a cliff.  •  Personally, I am going to do a wait-and-see.  If someone feels they must take immediate action in protest, check out dispute resolution.  Most of the steps there can be applied equally well to policy and procedure as they can to articles. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Peace can be achieved. Switch the thing off, and let's all calm down and talk it through.--Docg 14:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the short time I've been here I've often wondered what will ultimately happen to all this wonderful information being accumulated. While it is fun doing and being on WP, it also obviously has great  potential for a few to control or "guide" the many, with dissident voices being silenced as "vandals" or "disruptive" or "abusive". Nor am I being an alarmist: a quick look at human history shows this pattern repeating itself within any democratic community. This becomes particularly obvious when social control catch-words are put to use. In that scenario the word "Peace" stands for "Shut up and don't rock the boat!". So whatever the REALITY is, I suggest all parties DISCUSS this issue until a true CONSENSUS IS REACHED. The alternative would be a shame. Shir-El too 15:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My use of the word "peace" was not intended to be "social control", but as a genuine plea for people to maintain a cool temper.  There are apparently a lot of people genuinely, seriously upset by this.  I really do believe the problem is nothing more than a series of misunderstandings and differences of opinion.  Decrying the situation as "the end of Wikipedia", attacking the actions of others, storming off in a huff, shouting (I'M NOT SHOUTING), etc., does not help the situation — indeed, they likely just aggravate it.  Finally, remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy.  That works both ways.  Statements about how "polls are not binding" does nothing to advance consensus any more than treating the poll as a binding vote does.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Doc glasgow: The people who oppose this idea are not helping by insisting that It Must Not Be Until We Say So, any more than the people who support it are helping by insisting that It Must Be Because We Say So.  Complaining about process is not productive.  Making dogmatic proclamations is not the way towards consensus anymore than ignoring objections is.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not fair. Many of those oppposing (including me) would have been prepared to support something else. I specifically stated what my main sticking point was. I was hoping that another round of discussions would come up with a proposal that would gain greater support. It might still be possible to do that, but not in the current climate. Carcharoth (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I've got nothing against that. What I was referring to was Doc glasgow's comment, "Peace can be achieved. Switch the thing off, and ...". As I understood it, the implication was that the rollback feature must be shut off before progress towards peace and/or discussion can continue. That's the same kind of stubborn obstinacy that some of the supporters are using. If everybody persists in digging in their feet, we're not going to get anywhere. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You found last month's Signpost... okay... did you have point?  :)  If you're referring to the PC World opinion piece, did you have some connection you were trying to establish to this situation?  If so, it would help if you stated what your point was, and maybe gave some supporting arguments of your own. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Several incidents in the past have caused speculation that Wikipedia has an informal inner circle consisting of administrators, outside of which edits might not survive very long. Shir-El too 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. "Citation needed". Got any evidence to support the claim? The author makes absolutely no attempt to substantiate the accusations, and nothing in my experience does so, either. Yes, lots of stuff is deleted, but it's deleted by lots of people and almost always per the policies and guidelines we lay out. I get the feeling Mr. Schneider didn't take the time to understand that. So if you can speak for yourself, please do so. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with peace. I do not agree with shutting down a tool that the community wants because of a vocal and stubborn minority. You don't have to agree with this, but you do have to accept it. You can yell "unfair" from the hill tops all day, but it would be far less fair to ignore twice as many people because half as many really really wanted it another way. So lets go for peace instead. 1 != 2 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, several people who supported this have made it clear they did NOT agree that a consensus had been reached. People with "twice as many votes" get turned down at WP:RFA all the time. Potential 'crats get turned down with anything short of a 90% approval rate. Are you telling me, implementing policy has a lower barrier of entry than one user requesting adminship? Voting is not a replacement for discussion. The results of the poll were taken into heart, and a discussion on how to implement this AND gain a consensus was JUST beginning. You've used the same argument since this was implemented, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. Justin chat 17:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: First off if you use the RfA process then ya it failed consensus, but this is not an RfA. What process are you referring to? Where is it written that the decision is invalid unless it meets certain criteria? What are you basing this idea of it being out of process on? Who said this decision was based on voting? You say the poll was just beginning, but the thread above shows clear favor by both sides in closing it: #Poll_closure_revisit. 1 != 2 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: At what point did anyone say "shut up"? You'll note that I linked to WP:DR, of which the first several steps are entirely about discussion. I'm not asking for silence, I'm asking for productive commentary, rather than two sides drawing lines in the sand and refusing to budge, which is what we have now. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I never told anyone to shut up, I said they needed to accept what the community has decided. 1 != 2 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, but please don't be disruptive with your lack of acceptance. 1 != 2 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it disruptive that someone with a such a clear bias is telling others not to be "disruptive" by disagreeing with him. I really think you should let others judge what's "disruptive" and "fair" in this case, "1 != 2", as your agenda and lack of objectivity has been more than clear. If people want to object to this decision, just let them. If you have such confidence that consensus was as overpoweringly obvious as you claim then you shouldn't have anything to fear from their efforts anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:35, 10 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a member of a group that does operate by consensus (not WP), every voice must be heard and taken into account! Disagreeing with a vocal minority does not invalidate their argument, any more than the fact that a majority holds a view automatically validates that view. We NEED the minority voice to see an issue from all sides, not just from the side in the mirror of commonly held opinions. Thank you, Shir-El too 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  1 != 2 and Equazcion: Please let's avoid any accusations of disruption, here, without evidence to the contrary. I think several people are being very stubborn in holding to their own POV (I may be one of them), but that is hardly unique on this talk page, and not against any rules that I'm aware of. :-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace 

message: By the looks of this - it appear so. Could anyone lead me to where this was decided? Or was it just the devs? Thanks. Tiddly-Tom 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The rate limit in question is presumably the default for Wikimedia sites, which, yes, was of course decided by the sysadmins, as all defaults are (unless they're the software defaults, in which case it was developers who decided it).  If you would like it changed, you should file a new bug requesting that, linking to consensus to do so.  Or else you could try persuading a sysadmin to change the defaults. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only thing I could deduce by that was that it was limited - could someone enlighten me with what those numbers mean? Thanks Tiddly-Tom 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regular users can do 5 rollbacks in a 60 second period, "newbies" (the newest 1% of accounts I believe, different from autoconfirmed) can do 5 reverts in a 120 second period. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually "newbies" means "not autoconfirmed" in this context, confusingly enough.  Also, there are no rate limits on anything for sysops, bureaucrats, or bots. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  At what point does a user change from autoconfirmed to user? Thanks. Tiddly-Tom 09:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Registered users become autoconfirmed after . . . I forget, maybe it's four days and some number of edits? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, When you originally wrote it - I read it as autoconfirmed - not "not autoconfirmed". I understand now. Thanks. Tiddly-Tom 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here users are autoconfirmed after 4 days. We don't have an edit count restriction. Mr.Z-man 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it said "autoconfirmed".  It was a typo, I fixed it in my last edit. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah! Ok, no problem - thanks for the explanation. Tiddly-Tom 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitation 

message: I may have completely the wrong end of the stick here - please be gentle if I'm wrong about this.
"Rollback links are displayed on page histories, user contributions pages, and diff pages.".  But not in the RSS feed for Special:Recentchanges, even though that does contain the diffs.  It seems (please could an admin correct me if I'm wrong?) that admins get such a link, but non-admins with rollback permission don't.  This matters, because that is what tools such as Lupin's AVT work from.  For non-admins who use RSS-feed-based tools rollback permission seems to give little extra value.
Could non-admin rollback be extended to provide this?  I hesitate to ask for this, because while I supported the proposal and believe that many of those who opposed it did so from an incomplete understanding of it, I also agree with those who argue that 2-to-1 is not a consensus. A fortiori, there is not a consensus for widening the power now, even though I believe that such a widening would be in the best interests of the project.
Also, do people feel it would be against the spirit of granting non-admin rollback permission for a developer of an RSS-feed-based tool to use a little Ajax to retrieve the required rollback token and then invoke rollback with it?  (No, I'm not sure it would work.  But I'm considering experimenting with doing it.) Philip Trueman (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rollback links are not provided in RSS feeds for recent changes for anyone, as far as I can tell.  Notice that there are no edit links, or in fact any links at all beyond a link to the diff (well, and links in edit summaries, but that's a not-really-intentional quirk).  It's meant to be a summary, not a substitute for the actual page.  If links are being displayed for sysops and no one else, and this isn't due to some custom JS, that's a bug and should be fixed ― there should be no difference between admin and non-admin rollback (except that admins can mark the reverted edits bot, as well as rolling-back on protected pages and so forth).As for rollback tokens, as far as I can tell, they can be easily constructed using the page name and target username, if you have the edit token.  The correct token is md5( $token . namespace-prefixed article title . username of the one being rolled back ) . EDIT_TOKEN_SUFFIX, and all that information should be available to bot editors.  Actually I'm not sure why we bother salting it at all, and don't just use the edit token. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The RSS feed of Special:Recentchanges