Wikipedia talk:Rollback for non-administrators

message: Could we turn this into something similar to an RfC? It might make consensus easier to see. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wherever it takes place, someone should be sure to move the conversation from the Village Pump. John Reaves 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenience link: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Rollback for regular users. Pagrashtak 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC?

message: Given that I started this page/Request for Comments, I don't feel it entirely appropriate to comment on any of the proposals, but for the record, I'm not happy that a wider discussion didn't take place before the implementation was announced, and it appears there's going to be widely differing views on the implementation, whether it be over the technical details of it all, or fears about the rollback tool being abused. Personally, I don't think it should be available to all users, there are no real sanctions when the tool is misused apart from a block, which might not be appropriate, and I do think it might promote edit warring and will result in the loss of useful edit summaries. Nick (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Just thought I'd mention that there's an old bug regarding this issue: bugzilla:3317. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old bug 

message: Excerpt from #mediawiki:
:[15:48] <Werdna> TimStarling: so, can I switch the permission required for rollback to edit // grant the rollback permission to all users?
:[15:50] <TimStarling> Werdna, you've got a long life ahead of you, no need to make yourself a martyr just yet
:[15:50] <TimStarling> I suggest you promote the idea on the english wikipedia first
I think the configuration change is a good idea, which is why I gave Werdna the go-ahead to implement and promote it. But if there's strong opposition to it, it's not going to happen. The general guideline I use for developer decision-making is:
# Decisions made solely for technical reasons can ignore community opinion. For example, disabling features to maintain site performance, or refusing to enable an extension which is poorly written.
# Developers may take a leadership role in cases of community disinterest, or a failure of the community to reach consensus. 
# Except for technical decisions, community consensus for or against a given decision should always be respected. 
It looks like we're heading for consensus against in this case. Which is a pity, because as I say, I think it's a good idea.
-- Tim Starling (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern is about having NO control over the tool.  It would create too much of a potential for abuse/misuse if everyone gets it without restriction.  Does the technical capability exist to have a separate interface where any admin can grant the use of the tool to any good-faith user who requests it, or remove it from anyone who abuses it?  If so, I think that would answer the concerns all around. --B (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm against the idea of adding sub-admin access levels. It would add an unnecessary sense of hierarchy to the site. -- Tim Starling (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As Tim, but to answer you more directly, we already have an interface through which disruptive editing practises can be terminated: Special:Blockip. Splash - tk 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's like curing the disease by killing the patient.  Do you really want to block everyone who uses rollback in a content dispute? I'd much rather be able to just take it away. --B (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Except for technical decisions, community consensus for or against a given decision should always be respected."  If the community wants another user group, let them have it, it would be a pretty nifty one to have at any rate.  I understand where you are coming from with "everyone should have it", but you and the other developers wouldn't be the ones that have to constantly explain to people when and when not to use rollback and deal with the disputes and AN/I posts, et cetera relating to this feature being available to everyone. John Reaves 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For or against a given developer decision. There's still a right of veto, i.e. "I don't want to be a part of this, find some other developer to do it for you." Anyway, there's no consensus in favour of RFR. -- Tim Starling (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Then a rogue/compromised admin can just go ahead and block the (un)block button for those they give inappropriate blocks to. FunPika 12:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If only Bureaucrats can give admin user-rights, then only Bureaucrats should be able to block admin powers piecemeal. - jc37 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But admins can block admin tools currently. If an admin is blocked, the only things they can technically do is unblock themself and edit their talk page. Mr.Z-man 05:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developer dictatorship 

message: "Regular users"?  How about "non-admins"?  Admins are regular users, too - there is no ruling class on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that better.  Let's make sure no one objects before we move. John Reaves 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the exact same thought yesterday. Pagrashtak 20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want it to be perfectly correct, it should be "for non-admin users" - anons won't get it under any proposal. Mr.Z-man 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it should just be something quite generic like "Extending rollback privileges". Pagrashtak 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "Rollback for all registered users"? John Reaves 22:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: In Revision 28248, rollback for normal users has been disabled. It will only be enabled via localsettings.php if consensus for the change exists on a local wiki. FunPika 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 28248: Rollback for regular users removed from defaultsettings.php.  

message: (Moved from project page)
This section is intended to help solve some potential problems arising from concerns that users have expressed. 
Ryan Postlethwaite identified three important concerns. My comments are below his numbered statements.
1. It could easily be used by a vandal to go on sprees of mass reverting random contributions - due to the fact that they are simply roll backs, they may well go unnoticed for quite a length of time. An edit limit of 5 per minute would still mean that the average user would be able to opperate at much higher speeds than normal, and therefore cause damage much quicker. I mean, imagine a mass rollback of User:ClueBot??
**In the Recent Changes page, and in the User Contributions page, identify rollbacks by non-administrators with a mark such as R[3/13]. The letter "R" marks it as a rollback; the number to the left of the slash is the number of rollbacks (including this one) by the user in the five minutes just ended; the number to the right is the number of rollbacks by the user in the last hour or some other appropriate time period. Recent Changes is helpful in spotting heavy use, and User Contributions is helpful once a user has been identified as using it heavily. One can then determine whether the heavy use is valid or abuse. Other people, including B, have suggested ensuring that somebody has a way to turn off a user's rollback capability; this information supports that function.
2. Rollback is marked as minor, therefore doesn't show up in all RC feeds, so therefore edits made by new autoconfirmed users would not be checked as rigourously - this ties in with the theme above that vandalism would be less easy to detect.
**Don't mark rollbacks by non-administrators as minor; consider them to be ordinary edits just like a reversion. Perhaps add rollback capability to new users only after a certain number of days (like editing semiprotected articles). (This can help address Angela's concern.)
3. It is also highly likely that this tool would be used in edit wars which has a couple of implications; 1) Users could edit war at a much faster pace at one click of a button - it would most likely lead to edit wars escalating exctremely quickly into blind reverts. 2) An automated edit in an edit war (which would not be accessible to everyone) would just make the situation worse, and antagonise the opposite side.
**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. 
Next, Angela expressed the concern that new users would abuse the capability. One way to deal with that is to restrict rollback for a number of days or edits (as I wrote above). Another that could be used instead of, or together with, this delay in acquiring the capability is to make rollback a User Preference. It is not automatic, but only activated when the user changes a preference. At that time, the user can be shown a page with a clear statement of the principles, and be required to click the usual "I agree" box to activate rollback capability. 
This is not intended to be a statement that users endorse; instead, my intent is to provide ways to make rollback workable. 
Fg2 (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that vandalism reversions, the main legitimate use for this, are supposed to be minor. Reversions in content disputes, which should not be marked as minor, should always be done manually or by using undo. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: Please see the above link for a new proposal on how we could give users the rollback function. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators proposal]]