Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 1

message: I think the proposal to require just five support votes is a little too easy. Instead, I'd like to suggest:
*Accept both support and oppose votes.
*Require five net support votes after three days. Maurreen 1 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)
::I agree that five support votes in an of itself is too low of a bar.  It is easy to imagine a group of POV editors banding together to obtain the needed five votes.  Instead a system similar to that used by WP:RFA should be used, with voters encouraged to use a more lenient standard than that used while voting for administrators. --Allen3 talk 17:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
::I think that since for the most part people won't need this for an emergency we should due a vfd style setup accepting accept votes, oppose votes, and neutral votes as well as comments and have requests open for anywhere from a couple days to a full week depending on what timeframe seems to work the best. Jtkiefer 20:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
::I don't see a major need for this, but I also don't see it as a big problem, and it could have some benefits. In general I think we should make this priviledge both quicker and easier to give and to revoke. I would also say the bar for deciding consensus on giving this out should be slightly higher, such as the proposed 5 net support votes of users with over 100 contributions and say a month on the project. At the same time, I agree the standard for giving this out should be pretty low, such as one month and 500 productive edits of any kind. I'd say this with a caveat: that any bureaucrat (only stewards and developers can revoke admin status currently) could revoke this priviledge easily, such as at the second obvious misuse of the priviledge. With that restriction to reduce the likelihood of abuses, it guess it would be nice to have another say one or two thousand editors that could use this tool responsibly. That would make the overall average time to revert vandalism go down I would think. Another side benefit is that this could even make it easier to identify people that should or should not be given admin priviledges. The downside with this whole proposal is that it takes time to evaluate the candidates (could be a lot, especially if we want a lot of users to have this priviledge), someone to administer the process, and takes time away from other productive editing. - Taxman Talk 16:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::A 3-month bar has been added to the project page. This seems a bit lengthy to me, as a good editor can generally be sorted out in a month of consistent activity. I support Taxman's 1 month and 500 edits bar.  BD2412 talk 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Raising the bar

message: We should grant all 'powers' to all editors as much as we are permitted by the risk of damage to our infrastructure. Because rollback has little long term risk and can even be implemented by the users browser without the grant, we should be very liberal in granting this feature. It would be desirable to grant it to all users with >100 edits, like move, and to revoke it from anyone who habitually uses it to revoke non-obvious-vandalism without comment including admins. Gmaxwell 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, however I suggest that the rules be something like this, If a user has over 300 article edits then he automatically gets the rollback feature, however to prevent abuse any admin can temporally disable it for a 24 hour period or something like that. --Eliezer 05:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yep, i used to do tons of vandal hunting under my old name, Wolfman.  but it was just enough of a pain without rollback that i gave it up.  never wanted to be an admin, but rollback sure would be nice.  it only saves a few seconds, but that's exactly why it's a convenience & not a danger. Derex 20:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrongheaded approach 

message: First, how is adding 'Hi James!' to the bottom of an encyclopedia article not vandalism? Admittedly it's very minor vandalism, but it's clearly adding nonsense.
: Maybe it was a bad example; I was trying to think of something which fitted into the "newbie test" definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. I'll change it to something better. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that sounds like a fair idea - it does say that the person's first edit must have been 1 month before they vote, to stop people signing up to vote support, but you have a fair comment. I'm more interested in seeing if people think it's a good idea to have this, rather than the exact precise details of who is or isn't allowed to vote. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two comments 

message: The current system takes getting used to; it's confusing when you rollback a page not to get confirmation of any kind.  You can accidentally hit the loink when looking at a history page or watchlist...  so this should be fixed before adding anotehr few hundred users of the tool.  +sj +
:Erm—being very quick is the whole point of the rollback button.  Adding a confirmation screen would soak up time and bandwidth from people who are fighting vandals.
:I haven't tested this, but is it possible to just rollback the rollback with a second click?  If not, you can just revert the rollback the old-fashioned way, should you accidentally use it.  I would hope that you're not accidentally clicking it that often. :-)
:Now for a question out of left field—is it possible to move the rollback button using a skin?  That might solve the problem for any inadvertent rollbackers.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah - I first discovered this immediately after the 1.5 upgrades when edit conflicts didn't happen. It works just as you think it would - reverting edits by you to the previous person. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  also, add confirmation of rollbacks 

message: I don't think this proposal is a particularly good idea for the simple reason that it is yet another policy page (with voting!) that needs to be dealt with. We need to watch the bureaucracy and this is definetly not worth the effort. I also don't like the implications of possible abuse, creating yet more hierarchy to the community, etc, etc.
Peter Isotalo 12:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it another feature, that besides for making edits, if a vandal vandalizes a page, one can also easily revert it. --Eliezer 12:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much effort, too little gain 

message: I know that many people have broadband connections.  But don't forget, there are still many living on 56K bps or slower (as in my case [26k]).  My [in]abilities as an author to articles, limit my effective rolls here on WP.  I have tried many things, but I enjoy vandal hunting (and copyediting ) best.
Due to limited bandwidth, the current steps require loading:
# Diff page (plus content)
# Content page
# Edit page
# (send) Edit page   ...and pray it transfers ok.
# Content page
Example (20K article):
# Diff + Content = 40K
# 40K + Content = 60K
# 60K + EditPage = 80K
# 80K + Sending = 100K
# 100K + Content = 120K
While an article of a standard length, can make the process very time consuming to the point, that I've NOT reverted vandalization (obvious or not) that I have seen.  With a [ROLLBACK], it's narrowed down to just the diff page (in the example, a total of 60K [Diff & Content (rollback) Content]).
I have found tools made available (such as CDVF and GodMode), but none successfully lower the amount of time/data transfered, particularly during a rollback.  A [ROLLBACK] feature (already implemented, yet not made enabled on WP) would be a great tool and would increase my personal efficiency.
…Guy M… (soapbox) 18:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
*I agree with this, I'm using god-mode-lite currently as well. Even on my broadband connection it can be fairly slow and often unreliable. Also I guess it must put more strain on the server. the wub  "?/!" 08:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low Bandwidth User Interest 

message: If we're concerned about editors getting in conflicts based on the use of the rollback button, would it be possible to create a rollback button that would only affect anon edits (since most vandalism is anon anyway)?  BD2412 talk 17:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited rollback? 

message: Umm... am I missing something here, but when did this page become active? Squeakbox just nominated himself, but IMHO, I think it is unwise to start using this page without any clear consensus, given the amount of opposition and discussion, and the fact that this is still a proposed policy without any signs of becoming policy. Many thanks. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if I sounded harsh; I certainly didn't mean to. What I was saying is that I think it is a bad idea for this to be used when it has not been accepted yet, and the whole idea has neither reached consensus nor policy yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  00:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did this page become active? 

message: Squeakbox has added a claim that oppose votes will not be accepted. This seems like a bad idea to me, just because five of all wikipedians think you should have rollback doesn't mean you should. That seems like a rather bad idea to me. How do others feel about this? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 04:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All it takes is a cabal of vandals/POV pushers to agree to support each other with no oppose option (I'm not saying that Squeakbox and those that supported him fall into this camp however).--ElvisThePrince 10:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... am I missing something here, or I am correct that this is a proposed policy that has not reached consensus yet? I have serious doubts that this proposal will ever become active or reach consensus. Is there any plan to attempt to make this page policy anytime soon? Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  15:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this is a proposed policy. What doubts do you have about the proposal? The procedure will become policy when there is approval from the community that the proposal is a good idea, and there is not significant opposition to it (same with any proposal). Talrias (t | e | c) 17:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It differs from RFA because the end result is getting just the rollback privilege, rather than the ability to block, protect, etc.. Why does it need to have a different procedure? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No opposition? 

message: When is this brilliant idea going to be open? FireFox 16:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to get some sort of community consensus before we can start it. Plus, it would be good to hear from a developer, once and for all, if this is even feasable. Should we perhaps start a poll below to gauge consensus? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea. FireFox 19:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  It is feasible, the permission group to grant people just rollback is easily created. I am working on adapting the Makesysop special page bureaucrats have in order to make it possible for them to grant rollback in a similar manner. What this proposal needs is support (which I believe it has, it's just not visible enough). Talrias (t | e | c) 19:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Talrias, the proposal doesn't seem to have broad support yet—it's just been mostly ignored for a while, and a lot of editors and admins have been suspecting it just went away.  There hasn't been any attempt to answer the concerns I list a couple of sections further up, so I definitely can't support this proposal right now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The concern I see you have raised but we haven't really discussed here is how to remove the privilege if someone is abusing it. Apart from this, do you have any opposition? I think this is important so I will start a discussion in another section. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: SUPPORT FireFox 19:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The issue of having a rollback emulation available has been mentioned above; see #Why is this necessary? and #Low Bandwidth User Interest. I don't believe the small hoop that one has to jump through in order to be granted the ability to rollback will become a popularity contest. I imagine the people who apply for this will be newish editors who haven't made the number of contributions admins have, but have made solely trustworthy edits. Granting rollback individually doesn't mean the javascript implementation of rollback is obsolete - someone can just use that rather than going through the process here. Abuse is abuse; it doesn't matter what the tool is if the net result is the same. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished? 

message: *This would not give somebody something they already couldn't do if they wanted to. It just shortens a process people already have the power to do.
*This wouldn't create a new caste in the "Hierarchy of Wikipedia". We won't have a list of people with rollback access. It's just something nice to have. 
*Some people want the rollback feature, but do not want the additional responsibilities that come with being an Admin.
*This feature would only be granted to trusted users.
*This feature can be taken away if the person abuses it. 
*Many people shy away from RC Patrol because it takes too long to revert vandalism. The good outweighs the bad.
*if adminship is truly "No big deal", this shouldn't even be a discussion. It should be generally available to those who want it.
However a couple of questions remain.
# Should there be minimum requirements to meet before it could be granted?
# What is the process of revocation?
# Should we allow "oppose" votes?
There may be a few more, but I can't think of them now. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things to clear up before a poll 

message: I think it is agreed that if this policy is to be accepted, there needs to be a complimentary policy describing the process of revoking the rollback feature. Only non-Admin users who have gone through the request for rollback could have it disabled. This would have no impact on Admin's rollback status. It would obviously start with one person's complaint. They could perhaps start a new section for that person, requesting they be "de-rollbacked" (or whatever the term may be). I guess then we would need another Yes or No poll. Obviously, bad faith objections may be dismissed by whomever grants/degrants the right to rollback. I recommend a bit looser consensus than at RfA. Perhaps if 2/3 of Wikipedians feel they are fine (after some time period), they keep the rollback feature. Adminship itself is no big deal, so this really shouldn't be held to as high a standard than adminship. Okay, so I've started something we can build on... Your thoughts? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 22:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like - see my expanded views below. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 20:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revocation proposal

message: This should be a very easy permission to get.  Ask and you get it.  It really isn't a powerful enough feature to need to revoke, but if someone is being silly then anyone can go to a steward and ask for rollback to be revoked (this wouldn't apply to admins who have rollback as part of the package). Regular edit warriors should definitely lose the power. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't see the need to wait for five editors to support. This seems unnecessarily onerous to me, for something that can be useful for just about all editors. The more editors have it, the better, and the greater will be the social cost of having it revoked. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree too :) --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 05:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tony. There should be no red tape about getting this, and equally; none about taking it away. It's a simple deal. You fight vandals; you get rollback. You fuck about, you lose it. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 01:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd like to pop in and agree also. It should be easy to get and easy (fast) to take away. I can see greater possibility for abuse than some others but nothing earthshaking. As long as it's understood that it's only to be used for vandalism and nothing else than it should be no big deal. Maybe flip the rollback switch on at the same point that editors allowed to move pages? Are the developers able/willing to do this? Rx StrangeLove 01:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. Once the "unblockable" problem is solved, make this something that comes at the same time as the Move button is enabled (a far more destructive tool in the hands of a vandal/POV warrior), and make it subject to the same strictures as 3RR and POV-pushing. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Easy come, easy go

message: Besides the aforementioned things, now that we have a clear way to revoke this (if Talrias is truthful about talking to BCrats), what can we do to make WP:RFR (Requests for rollback) more prominent? How do we get more discussion on this? How long will it take to determine the bugzilla/developer thing? There are some of us that want RfR, how long will this thing take? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of things 

message: I'm a long-standing contributor who is rather wary of becoming an admin (and certainly does not assume that anyone would want me to be one!). However, one of the reasons I've considered that I might throw my hat into the ring was to get a rollback button as, whenever I spot a bad faith contribution, I usually go through the user's contribs to tidy up anything else they've done. However, occasionally I just groan and think "oh, not today, please" and pretend I wasn't looking because it's so onerous. This seems like a great compromise to me and would certainly lead me to tidy up when I would otherwise be discouraged. --bodnotbod 15:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I support the idea

message: I think RFR is adds more bereaucracy to Wikipedia. I propose a more radical idea, that ALL registered users get the rollback button. After all, we already have the move button which is far more destructive, and we can rollback anyway using the history button. So keeping autorollback is just a hassle. Borisblue 14:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that giving all logged in users access to rollback would encourage revert wars. Yes, this would add bureaucracy - but it would also increase the number of people who would help with removing vandalism promptly. I believe that in the long run that this proposal will lead to a better quality encyclopedia. The cost of some minor extra bureaucracy is well worth that. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, in addition to Talrias' comment, rollback is unblockable, which is a problem if we give it to everyone. Blackcap | talk 21:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See bugzilla:3801 - this has been reported to the MediaWiki developers. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've heard. I was just commenting that, as of now, that's still a problem. Blackcap | talk 21:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone useing the rollback button in a revert war is makeing a mistake and will be neutrilised by the 3 revert rule in short order.Geni 05:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that's right, 3RR should take care of that kind of abuse, I suggested up the page somewhere that it might make sense to turn the rollback button on at the same point that the move button gets activated. WP:RFR seems like overkill a little, if admin is no big deal then I guess this is even less so. Make abuse a blockable offense, a 1RB offense? Anyway, seems like something we don't need to put a lot of process in place for. I know that there are ways to rollback now for non-admins but this would make vandalism fighting easier and if it's not abused there would be enough benefit from it to make it worthwhile. $0.02 Rx StrangeLove 06:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: OPPOSE RFR

message: There has been a proposal for a while to allow editors to request rollback privileges, as a step 'in between' admins and regular users. The discussion has died down but it seems that most people consider it a good idea. The main issue is that no interface exists for enabling rollback privs, so we must either ask a database user to enable the prevs, or ask a dev to create such an interface. So what would be the best course of action,
#Open up requests for rollback (either here or at WP:RFR) and ask a database user to grant them;
#Post a feature request and not do anything until it's implemented
#Consider the proposal impractical and forget about it
:Radiant_>|< 23:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two looks like the best course of action to me, although I do think there is a rollback user status coded, I remember it was enabled at one time, but it is currently disabled. Once we know we can technically make users rollback only, then we should start with RFRs (which I fully support). -Greg Asche (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we are fairly liberally creating admins - is there a great need for this? Is it not just annother set of polls to distract us from article work into process? Are there many people we'd trust with rollback but not with other tools? And would rollback be awarded significanly earlier than adminship? Would the few extra roll-backers make much difference? It seems to me most obvious vandalism is reverted pretty quickly. In any case some non-admins have rollback already (I think monobook alterations can give it). I suspect folk want rollback - as without it admins beat them to revert - well, so what, as long as it is reverted?  --Doc (?) 23:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, there is a way to do allow rollback to non-admins via javascript. Because of it's potential use for vandalism, I won't describe it or say much more than that it exists here, but there is a way. All it requires is for a proven vandalfighter to ask someone who knows about it (i.e., me) and after a quick check to prove they are legit, it can be applied. Plenty of non-admins have it, and quite a few admins know about it; I would suggest activating RfRoll as a place for users to note themselves, and a trusted admin (as it takes an admin to edit someone else's monobook.js) could check the user and grant the code. -- Essjay  ·   Talk 14:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find Essjay's idea interesting as it would lead to an informal process. However, my only concern about creating a class of rollbackers whose hierarchy would be between the editors and admins is that it would complicate things on RFA for people who may not be interested in rolling back but interested in other admin tasks. Personally, I may just need the rollback tool but I'd still go for an RFA as additional abilities in the hands of a trusted wikipedian definitely wouldn't hurt. --Gurubrahma 14:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I just want to make sure I was clear; the rollback function currently available to non-admins is a javascript application, so it doesn't actually extend any extra priveledges, it simply automates the revert process. Rollback is not a permission, like deletion or page protection, but an automation of an existing function; for example, anyone can have a rollback button that works, because anyone may edit a page, however, a non-admin could not program a working blocktab via java, as they do not have the permissions necessary to access the block function. Therefore, it isn't actually creating a new level of users, it is simply allowing users who have demonstrated that they are not vandals to automate the existing revert process. -- Essjay  ·   Talk 14:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't want to seem mean here, but do we really need this? I mean we are here to make an encyclopedia, and some of the benefits of becoming a janitor is the rollback button. I'm sure if someone wanted it, they could just add in the javascript in their monobook.js. It's notable and nice that users fight vandals, but I did it for quite awhile w/o the rollback button. Also, admins as it is get into disputes over rollback, because it doesn't give a reason for the rollback. For normal users, I think it's better if they have a macro, or type in the reasons why. IHMO. «»Who?¿?meta 15:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not to be rude, but please direct this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges, where it belongs. — Dan | Talk 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved the talk to Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges where it belongs as per Dan's uggestion. Let us continue there. Thanks, Dan. --Gurubrahma 09:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: " I'm sure if someone wanted it, they could just add in the javascript in their monobook.js."  - - I've tried. Failed. Asked for help. Haven;t got it yet. I use the classic skin, when I tried adding God-Lite it didn't seem to work. --bodnotbod 16:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Please read #Why is this necessary? and #Low Bandwidth User Interest, which explains why the javascript workaround is not suitable for everyone. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship]] 

message: There are probably two ways (three if you count becomeing an admin) a user can get a rollback button. One of those two I'm certian of although I'm not sure I've ever seen it in action. Since we can't stop people useing these methods short of outright blocking what is the point of this policy?Geni 20:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the rest of this talk page, the reasons why are given above. This question has been asked (and answered) at least three or four times. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It only appears to be answered once and the answers given seem to largly boil down to people being paranoid. You don't trust 3rd party javascript? Fine we can get someone on the development team to clear it (if you don't trust them why are you here). You don't want to switch javascript on? Run a second browser with it switched on. It isn't widely advertised? that can be fixed.Geni 02:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it says in the "low bandwidth" section, running the javascript rollback simply does not work for some people, or it takes a v. long time. The hardcoded rollback is much faster. We have the capability, rather than use a workaround, why not use the actual software implementation? Talrias (t | e | c) 12:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mostly worried that this will end up as some sort of probationary adminship. All this voteing and stuff. Who cares if people have a way to make a terminaly stupid move in a revert war?Geni 19:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think quite a few supporters wouldn't mind giving rollback to every registered editor, but as that has been almost completely shot down, this was a step up. And this wouldn't necessarily be a probationary adminship, since there are many people who would like the rollback button but have absolutely no interest in being an Admin. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And me mine: This is another level of complication and hierarchy. This issue cannot be set aside simply by contradicting it, as you have done. The system is already criticized for being too stratified, and the costs of this process, which is so similar to RFA, will doubtless be, like RFA, confusion and bureaucracy. I encourage people who want to use rollback, but for whatever reason don't like javascript, to apply for adminship using RFA. — Dan | Talk 05:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In response to your statement that people "do not want the additional responsibilities that come with being an Admin" – there are no such responsiblities. Everything on Wikipedia is optional. As I have pointed out above on this page, many a recent candidacy has succeeded despite the user's making clear that he will be using his admin powers rarely or for only a few purposes. — Dan | Talk 05:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this last point just isn't true. Even if you don't plan on doing sysop chores, Admins are looked up to in the community. They are to be seen as the "face of Wikipedia". If people have problems, where do they turn? Admins. Admins may not want to be role models, but they are. And it is not just a case of good people make Admin, because there are a few Admins who don't seem like good people, but are still looked up to and respected because they are Admins. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Whats all this messing around with voteing?

message: Should we. We have been talking for over 3 months on this and I think its ready for voting --JAranda | watz sup 01:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. A cursory glance at the above discussion makes very clear that no consensus exists, not to mention the software feature is currently disabled. The former problem is of course the salient one. I've moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Archive. — Dan | Talk 05:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we be ready to vote on this now 

message: I'm happy to see the user script conversation moving toward higher public awareness.  Everyone interested should have this ability available to them.
godmode-light.js was somehow not linked or simply explained here.  This script adds rollback functionality through a javascript function added to a sub-page of your user page.  See more info at WP:US or from the source at Sam's page. ∴ here…♠ 06:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! It's important to remember though, that using a javascript emulation is just a stop-gap measure, and not suitable for everyone. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely!  I've been trying to decide what, other than granting rollback to everyone all the time, would be worth the additional process here.  Honestly, I think rollback for everyone is likely the best solution.  Slight limits I find workable include: anyone who asks, logged in, 100 edits, non-admins lose rollback ability after 1RR until other changes made to page, etc. ∴ here…♠ 17:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If people are going to revert war I'd rather they did it with the roleback button.Geni 17:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The 1RR should not apply to reverting vandalism. Currently even the 3RR excludes reverting vandalism. --Bruce1ee 05:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Javascript solution (godmode-light.js) 

message: I'm using the javascript godmode-light.js mod for rollback functionality (see previous or WP:US, but I'm frustrated that I can't leave additional comments when using it.  Many of the rollbacks are to edits that may have been in good faith from anons unfamiliar with External Link guidelines.  Often I'll suggest a better page or explanation to WP:EL or whatever when doing it by hand.  Unless through multiple user edits, a reason for the revert seems more important than the username of the last edit version.  Does the builtin feature allow this and/or is there any way to add it to the javascript?  
:Auto: ( Reverted edits by 203.122.53.88 to last version by Dan East )
:Hand: ( rv linkspam by 64.107.9.244 -- try link at List of news aggregators )
:∴ here…♠ 06:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I cannot speak for the javascript, but there was some discussion about adding an additional place to add further comments. I think it was taking place at WP:AN. If i can find the actual place, I'll leave another little note. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive15#Using rollback. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow discussion MediaWiki_talk:Revertpage... ∴ here…♠ 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need additional comment ability in rollback 

message: --Adam1213 Talk+  13:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does. It may be that you've disabled some feature or changed the security settings. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  god light does not work with Internet Explorer 

message: I have changed to rejected tag since the board itself has stated that this will never happen due to privacy policy issues and the impossibility of implementing it.  As of now the arbcom has been given checkuser access however I'm not sure whether they solely hold it or whether they have the power to give it out at their will. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you quite certain that you've placed this tag on the correct page? While I suppose it's possible that the Foundation has rejected this proposal, I'm very surprised to hear that it was on account of conflicts with the privacy policy: hundreds of admins use the rollback feature every day, and many others utilise a javascript extension to the same end. The rollback function is simply an editing tool designed to make simple reversions (usually to restore vandalized pages) quick and comparatively hassle-free. Your allusion to the very different Checkuser privilege leads me to wonder if it isn't these pages you were aiming for? However, if what you say is indeed true, would you mind linking to a page attesting to the Foundation's decision? Regards encephalon 07:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't true. The softwear can already make requests for rollback a posibilty. I suspect this policy will fail for other reasons.Geni 09:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Jtkiefer left me a note on my talk page letting me know it was indeed the wrong page he edited. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rejected