Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 2

message: This would be a useful middle ground between the average user and the administrator, for those who wish to fight vandalism yet not take on the other responsibilities of greater power. --Emersoni | Emersoni 02:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support, Middle Ground

message: I have boldly changed the request section to look more like RFD than RFA. Why? Because by framing this as not a vote (something we should extend by default) we avoid the problem of merely duplicating RFA's issues. Adminship is not a big deal (though opinions vary as to what that means) and this certainly should be even less of one. Anyway, it should be granted by default except for those cases where a solid objection is raised, in which case it shouldn't be. Organizing the requests in this way make it easier to handle that workflow (and is more conducive to discussion-based consensus, should it be necessary) rather than an RFA-style election where one needs to garner support votes. The standards here should be different than RFA--it is the entire point. Oh, and MediaWiki 1.5 has separate rollback privileges, but they currently have to be granted by stewards, so a little more work needs to be done. Demi T/C 15:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea to me. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, not too shabby. It should be liberally given and this way is less voting, more consensus building. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been bold and uh, made some (hopefully minor) changes. Specifically, a template can be subst'd to make it easier to create a request, and requests are given their own subsections (easier to navigate if this sees a lot of use). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the navigation could be easier. What is the reason for? There is pretty much only one use for the rollback button. Demi T/C 21:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So if someone actually believes it's for something else it'll be obvious? =) E.g. - reason=I revert a lot of stupid peoples edits because I disagree with them, give me rollback to make this easier! Seriously though, it could also be a brief explanation of why people should trust you not to cause trouble with it– I think it's inevitable that people will want to make a statement, even if it's brief. Having said all that, I'm not married to the concept, and would be fine with leaving it out. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed request section 

message: I strongly support this, as well as assigning other specific rights as appropriate. It would reduce the number of new admins needed, while insuring that "administrative" tasks can be performed by enough users to avoid creating a backlog. I'd also support having a permission bit individually settable to allow someone to edit protected pages. 
One technical comment. This needs to differ from admin rollback in one way - a user with this flag that is blocked by an admin should not be able to continue to use it while blocked (IIRC, rollback currently counts as an admin power and thus isn't affected by blocks) (updated own signed comment) Triona 16:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct; see bug 3801. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The technical ability to grant this power currently rests with the stewards. In terms of technical obstructions still in place, we need for bureaucrats to be able to grant it. Not a problem, since I was pondering over tweaking our existing promotion pages to make them more like the standard user rights page shipped with MediaWiki. The issue of preventing rollback with blocks is also in hand as I speak. I'm quite willing to look at any technical challenges getting in the way of this policy. Rob Church Talk 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wasn't this fixed in CVS HEAD already? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Bugger me sideways if it wasn't. And guess who did that? ;-) There're still other issues we need to sort out, but those will come, in time. As in, next week when I've fewer exams and can commit the updated code. Rob Church Talk 01:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   What needs sorting out, development-wise? (I might be able to offer a few ideas). Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Interface to assign it. I'd like to go the whole hog and let local bureaucrats assign and remove the bot flag and sysop flags at the same time. Basically, a hacked Userrights page for Wikimedia wikis that can't grant the steward flag. Rob Church (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, couldn't you just make sure that a user cannot promote users to the steward group if the user's ug_group = bureaucrat? That is, to allow bureaucrats to access the Special:Userrights interface, just prevent them to assigning permissions higher than the ones they possess? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm looking into a couple other things at the same time. I'd rather not implement a really hacked-up version, although if I must, I can always improve it later. I'm going to chat with Brion about it, too, since interfaces are his forté. Rob Church (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: I would like to show strong support to this idea.  It is very time consuming to go through the recent changes, find vandalism, and follow all the steps to revert it. This tool would make it easier, and it would be easy to take away if it is misused.
Link9er 14:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The users above have stated my sentiments exactly. Extremely Strong Support. -MegamanZero|Talk 14:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong Support 

message: There is a reason why we have an RfA process for administrators.  It's for the general community to have a period of time to review and discuss a person's qualifications for the job of vandal hunting and maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia.  This is an end run around adminship with few eyes to watch and basically no chance to say no.  So, if there are five yes votes and 95 no votes, the 5 votes win?  What ever happened to consensus?  Who will grant this privilege?  How will the community review the people who have this privilege to make sure they do the job correctly?  Where will the central list of people with this privilege be maintained?  What happens when (not if) a user begins abusing this privilege?  Will they have to submit to the 3RR, or does it now apply when they're figthing vandalism?  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3RR does not apply to anyone reverting vandalism. Rollback is pretty harmless and and real abuse would be rather obvios.Geni 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Where does it say there is no chance to say no? The bureaucrat chooses whether to promote or not. What bureaucrat would promote if there were 95 no votes and 5 yes votes? Bureaucrats will of course grant the privilege,. This is all written on the main proposal page and explained here and in the talk page archives. There will be a list of people with access to rollback in the same way there is a list of people with adminship - by going to Special:Listusers and selecting the "rollback" category. In reply to your second last question, my current thinking on this is that abuse incidents should be reported on WP:AN/I, and a bureaucrat may at his discretion remove the person's access to rollback privileges. This is under discussion in the section just above this one. Your last question has nothing to do with this proposal. You're of course entitled to your opinion on the values and merits of this proposal but from reading your questions you don't appear to be that familiar the discussions already taken place - or indeed the proposal itself - as some of your questions are answered by reading the proposal. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this page is an excellent example of why adminship should be no big deal. Making it a big deal has led to this. While I wouldn't oppose this, I can't say I like it either. Johnleemk | Talk 06:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your comments are misplaced. This proposal would give rollback to be used in accordance with our policy on rollback. This wouldn't change anything on how it is used. If you disagree with the rollback policy, you should discuss it on village pump or on the administrators' noticeboard. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the theory I just don't think it'll work in practice. --ElvisThePrince 19:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Utterly oppose

message: I have a script in my monobook.js which produces the rollback link.  That works OK.  What is needed in addition to that? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 12:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand, the rollback javascript function only automates the process of loading and saving the old page, while the "real" rollback button only requires sending a single HTTP request to the server (without sending the page content at all). If this is correct, the real rollback button would be much faster especially on large pages. I remember someone pointed out this  in the mailing list. - Liberatore(T) 13:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems fair.  - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 13:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it was actually previously asked on this talk page. See Low Bandwidth User Interest in the archives. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, God-mode lite won't work for some people. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And is prone to failure.  Sam Korn 16:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And is taxing on the servers, and the developers hate it because of that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no need for this to be disabled. I'd encourage people previously using godmode-light to switch to using admin-style rollback as it has many advantages, as is mentioned above, but I don't see any problem with people carrying on using the rollback emulator if they wish. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I fully support the proposal.  delldot | talk 02:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments 

message: If this becomes policy, does it mean the God-mode light will be disabled, and people who use it will instead have to apply for the rollback privilege?  Some people may be too shy to want to request it, seeing as how rfa can sometimes be taxing on the self-esteem. (Sorry if this question has been addressed elsewhere!) delldot | talk 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need for this to be disabled. I'd encourage people previously using godmode-light to switch to using admin-style rollback as it has many advantages, as is mentioned above, but I don't see any problem with people carrying on using the rollback emulator if they wish. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I fully support the proposal.  delldot | talk 02:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about God-mode lite

message: Just a quick reminder. I've noticed it said a lot on this page that rollback is akin to revert, or seen comments which lead me to think the poster believes this.
It's wrong. Rollback is a much more powerful form of revert, and technically speaking, it's applied to an article, not a revision. Rolling back an article causes all of the edits by a particular contributor to be undone; reverting to the last version of an article that wasn't created by the current user.
===Example===
#Joe User creates an article
#Joe Anon edits the article
#Joe User edits the article again
#Joe User edits the article
#Joe User edits the article
#Joe Admin rolls back the article
At this point, said article is returned right back to step 2, i.e. the version from Joe Anon. That's what the edit summary a rollback inserts actually means.
People need to take this into consideration. It could be prone to abuse, and it is not a straight revert of the last edit. Rob Church (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reminder about what rollback is 

message: #Joe User creates an article
#Joe Anon edits the article
#Joe User edits the article again
#Joe User edits the article
#Joe User edits the article
#Joe Admin rolls back the article
At this point, said article is returned right back to step 2, i.e. the version from Joe Anon. That's what the edit summary a rollback inserts actually means.
People need to take this into consideration. It could be prone to abuse, and it is not a straight revert of the last edit. Rob Church (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example

message: OK, taking the responses to Draft 1 above and Ilyanep's comment below, let's try another draft.  Again, this is possible language.  In particular, check to make sure that the language is consistent from the various points of view as I didn't do nearly as many previews as I did from draft 1.  
; Removal procedure (for this page)
:Users with rollback privileges are expected to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Revert.  Rollback does not allow explanations of the reversion rationale and is thus considered highly aggressive and inappropriate when dealing with a content disagreement.  Misuse of the rollback feature in a content dispute is grounds for the removal of rollback privilege.  
:A user who is misusing rollback privileges should be reminded that they are operating outside of the guidelines.  The templates ,  (and maybe ) should be placed on the user's talk page after each misuse.  
:A user who continues to misuse rollback after being given the complete set of warnings may be listed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Any user may report rollback abuse.  The reporting user should list the diffs of alleged misuse and confirm that the user has been adequately warned.  A monitoring administrator who finds the report to be valid may put a short-term block on the user to prevent further misuse of rollback while it is under bureaucrat review.  The blocking admin should place  on the user's talk to explain the reason for the block.  If the reviewing bureaucrat finds that the report of misuse is valid, the bureaucrat will remove rollback privileges, remove any block, and place  on the user's talk informing them of the decision.  If the bureaucrat disagrees with the report, he or she will simply remove the block.  In either case, the bureaucrat will note the action taken on BN.
:Users who have had rollback privileges removed may reapply.
;New section "Non-admins with rollback privileges" at Wikipedia:Revert, but that page will require a substantial rewrite
:Users who have established a record of good edits may pass Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges (RRP).  Use of rollback should only be used in cases of vandalism.  In the case of content disputes, reversions should be done manually.  In rare cases, users may be forced to use rollback if questionable edits were made to a large number of articles, such as external links to marginally useful sites by a well-meaning user who is not aware of the Wikipedia:Spam.  In such rare cases, the user utilizes rollback should leave a message on the user's talk explaining the reason for the use of rollback.  
:Users who abuse privileges granted by RRP will be warned that they are acting outside of guidelines.  Continued abuse can lead to further warnings and being reported to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, where a bureaucrat will review the evidence presented and decide if the privileges will be removed.
;new section for "Misuse of rollback privileges" at Wikipedia:Blocking policy
:Administrators may block users who have been granted rollback privileges at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges while a bureaucrat reviews a report of misuse.  Per the guidelines at RfRP, if a user continues to abuse rollback after being warned a user may submit a report asking that rollback privileges be removed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.  An administrator who believes the report to be well-founded may block the user to prevent further misuse while it is being reviewed.
;new section "Instructions for review of rollback misuse reports" at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats
:# Reports of rollback privileges misuse are made to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
:# If the report does not include diffs of alleged misuse or the user is question has not been adequately warned, note that the report is invalid.  If an administrator has placed a block on the user to halt possible rollback misuse during review, remove the block. 
:# If the report is valid, check to see if the user has misused rollback, e.g. in content disputes, after being warned.
:# If the report is justified, remove rollback privileges from the user, as well as any blocks.  Note your decision in the report and inform the user by leaving a  message on their talk.
:# If the report is not justified, note your decision and remove any blocks on the user.
OK, again - anything ridiculous in this? - BanyanTree 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the idea about invalidating the report if it is not done properly. Is that consistent with other policies on WP? If I (or any user) do not follow the guidelines on reporting someone, the situation should still be looked into, regardless of my ignorance of the guidelines. Pepsidrinka 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the report should not be summarily thrown out and put on the back burner, but definitely the bureaucrat could ask the reporter to provide diffs. After all, it might be difficult to find the misuse if the user reverts 200 pages a day... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was the point that I was thinking of.  It needs to be the responsibility of the reporter to report the diffs.  Bureaucrats aren't elected because they have a lot of spare time to search through contribution histories.  Besides that, a report without diffs vastly lengthens the time to do a review.  Being blocked can't be the most pleasant experience in the world especially for a regular contributor, and I am leery of anything that extends the time of the block.  It is vastly simpler to review a report of "User:Foo was warned on 2 January to stop using rollback inappropriately [diff] and on 16 January again rollbacked in a clear content dispute at Foo Article [diff]", compared to "User:Foo is totally misusing rollback and needs to be blocked now!"   I'd be willing to weaken the language, to "..., you may note..." so a bureacrat can opt to review a report by somebody who hasn't bothered to do their homework, but not much further. - BanyanTree 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reporting abuse of rollback should be identical to reporting WP:3RR abuse at WP:AN/3RR (that is, provide diffs with timestamps). Any report not meeting the diff/timestamp critera may be ignored/not acted upon (at the discretion of the b-crat who happens upon it). Obviously if the b-crat wants to go trolling through the alleged abusers contribs, that's their perogative but the onus should be on the accuser to provide the evidence necessary to take corrective action (just as you wouldn't waltze into a courthouse and say your neighbor murdered someone and then walk out without providing evidence/proof to back up the accusation; you shouldn't accuse someone of rollback abuse without providing at least some evidence). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good, but I don't see the need for a  (etc.) template. As with admins, the user should know what they are doing, so perhaps a warning is enough before reporting, and even if we allot them multiple ones we don't need templates (admins sure as heck don't have  (etc)). The reason we use many templates with anons is becaus they are new and possibly not know policy, so we give them a chance (and make it easier for warning users). — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can see rollback abuse happening, so perhaps just one warning?  as the first and only warning? After that, report? --LV (Dark Mark) 03:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People seem to make templates for any message used more than once, so figured they would do so in this case as well.  I am happy to act as if they won't in these drafts if it's a point of contention.  More thoughts on what constitutes "adequate warning" before I try a third draft please.  - BanyanTree 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have templates for warning people of 3RR abuse (that I'm aware of anyways); but in any event, if you don't warn someone about 3RR, I've noticed admins tend to not block for 3RR violations (but do leave a terse warning notifying them of 3RR and not to violate it). So maybe the warning is implied ("if you don't warn, we won't block but will instead warn them ourselves")? As with LV, I don't think a single warning template is such a bad idea (and unlike 3RR or vandalism, someone utilizing rollback ought to be able to chill out after a single warning). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My thoughts! I think 3 templates for warning is definitely too much, and I would argue that just one warning is sufficient, in accordance with my "be liberal in granting and revoking" thinking on this. I note you've changed the TLA for referring to this page to "RRP" - when I originally created this page I called it "requests for rollback", I later added "privileges" to avoid any possible confusion. I still think the primary redirect should be RFR, in line with RFA and RFB. Other than that, it looks pretty good! Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft 2 (anyone can report, current) 

message: As a bureaucrat, my opinion is that this proposal looks good, and that letting just the bureaucrats do it is a good idea (and we might be able to use one or two more bureaucrats but it won't be a big issue). Discussion for removing the privelage can be directed to the dusty old Bcrats Noticeboard. As for the rest, I don't see any major issues coming up from this. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input and help, Ilyanep. --LV (Dark Mark) 02:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, glad to help :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I concur that this is a good idea. Rollbacking is no big deal, and I would not even mind if the 'crats used their discretion in handing out and retracting the rollback tool at will. Radiant_>|< 10:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we should have some assurance that the BCrats will hand it out very liberally (and probably take it away without a ton of hassle, too). --LV (Dark Mark) 15:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well AFAICT this will be affected more by policy than us in most cases. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Opinion 

message: I recently had a conversation with a developer, who said that the only impediment to making the interface to hand out rolbback privileges (which is the only thing that we're lacking to actually do it, as the backend support is already coded) is knowing if we really want it. It seems that we got strong support, so what do we do next? A straw poll? A vote? I know polls are evil, but there already has been 6 months of discussion and we seem to be all in agreement now. So, I propose sending this to the Policy Village pump, Proposals Village pump, and to Requests for comment now. I guess it is time to gauge consensus. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it's ready (and overdue). --LV (Dark Mark) 18:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that its ready and overdue, I'd suggest from a technical side, the interface be made extensible - such that stewards can configure which bits can be granted/revoked by admins/buracrats via the interface. This would make it easier for future permissions to be broken out, ultimately allowing for just the permissions someone actually needs to be granted. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have exams until Monday, so is it possible to delay it until then? I'd like to be around to help out! This will also be after the Arbitration Committee elections have closed, which means that it would be possible to announce it at the top of the Community Portal, on watchlists, etc. I know some people are going to raise objections we've already replied to, so I think we should set up our own "replies to common objections" page for this. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since you were intrumental to this, NO! Just kidding of course. Next week works fine for me. A "common objections" page where? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe! I suggest at the top of the voting page. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I recommend updating the Project page before the poll/vote/whatever starts, though. We could place it above the "Common objections" section we're planning. That way, we just ask people to read what is going on, then they can come discuss it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the sentence "Rollback privleges would not give anyone something they already couldn't do if they wanted to. It just shortens a process people already have the power to do.". I don't understand what point it is trying to make. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's trying to point out that rollback really isn't a big deal. It's not like we're trying to hand out blocking or page protection privs, for example. (I'm neither for or against the passage, just explaining why it might have been useful). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see now! Thanks for explaining. I don't really feel this argument is relevant to the section it was placed in (that it creates extra bureaucracy). That it isn't a big deal is an argument for granting access to this liberally. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I put it under "Feature creep" because I didn't know where else to put it. I think it needs to say somewhere that it's not giving something that people can't already do the long way. It is just a shortcut to a power they already have. I'm not sure how clear that is, but if removal is what you want, I understand. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's Monday, so... should we start? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it would be appropraite to wait until Talrias says he's ready. Until then our horses we will hold. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks guys, this is much appreciated. I have finished my exams now and in fact I was just about to set up the appropriate pages for this. If you're on IRC, please could you /msg me? Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, now what? 

message: We only have 12 active B-crats. If we did this it might strain them (I really have no idea how many people would apply, 10s, 100s?). Why not let all admins do the promoting job. It seems like a pritty trivial change to give people the rollback button. Just a thought (of course it would increase the likelihood of wars). Broken S 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the Crats are the right people, and here's why. We already elected them to promote people, trusting their judgment. We didn't do that for Admins. (How many rogue BCrats do you know of?) But anyway, BCrats only real responsibility is promoting Admins and doing user name changes. Since multiple BCrats have commented that this wouldn't be impossible to handle, I'd say we just keep trusting their judgment. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with LV, this is absolutely not something admins should be handling. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, Ilyanep commented above saying that he thinks it is a good idea to make it bureaucrat-only. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as someone who objected on these grounds, I've seen that bureaucrats don't have a problem...if they don't then I don't care. I'm thinking that there will be hundreds of requests at first and thus a backlog but if people are patient then it's all for the best. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, besides, maybe this'll put a stop (even if temporarily) to people voting oppose on RFB's with the reason "already enough b-crats". ;) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. This kind of thing, though minor, requires a special amount of discretion (the word I edit by). Bureaucrats are less likely to put personal emotions first. This would also reduce the possibility of bias. The B-crats handle it. Crats, I bow to you ;). -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 05:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: B-crats only?

message: Please vote on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll as to whether you support or oppose this proposal. If you're opposing, I'd be very grateful if you would leave a reason as to why you are objecting. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How long will the voting last? -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 00:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll#Finish? for discussion on this. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on consensus for this proposal 

message: if the rollback will come up as a bot type of revert there should be 2 groups of it with one group of users able to do both rollbacks (bot marked and not) while the others should not be able to, this allows for differnet levels of it. --Adam1213 Talk + 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... what? That doesn't make any sense. Rollbacks are not marked with bot flags by default, the only way to make them appear like that is to play around with Special:Contributions. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rollbacks would not be marked as bot edits, i.e. would not be hidden from recent changes. There are significant and common-sense reasons for this. Rob Church (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clearing something up 

message: The requests for rollback privileges poll, a poll to gauge consensus on whether good contributors who are not admins should be given the rollback privilege, is closing at 00:00 UTC on Tuesday, 7 February 2006. If you haven't weighed in, please do so! Talrias (t | e | c) 11:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for rollback privileges poll closing soon 

message: Am I the only one here who wants to give the rollback function to all registered users? Come on, it's harmless - vandals can achieve the same thing much more covertly by using edit with misleading edit summaries, and use more server load while they're at it. It would be convenient for everyone to have. Let's spread power to those who need it, not restrict it on an ill-founded theory of security with no basis in reality. And we don't need a new class of user to do it. Taking away this so-called "power" makes about as much sense as taking away the preview button. Deco 11:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you disagree with the second entry of the replies to common objections? If so, what part do you disagree with? Talrias (t | e | c) 11:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The argument just isn't very strong. You're saying people will be tempted to use it in content disputes, resulting in poor edit summaries. Poor edit summaries simply aren't a big problem. I also argue again that rollback is an exceedingly poor tool for vandalism - it enables more edits per second, but they're all very obvious vandalism and once you find a few you'd go and revert the whole user's work. If the name is unclear, we can change the name to, say, "Revert vandalism". It's obvious why admins are the only ones to have delete, protect, and block, but rollback has no serious deleterious effects whatsoever. Deco 12:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be just as simple to give everyone rollback permissions, and allow bureaucrats to explicitly deny it. Rob Church (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not a big deal 

message: I'm curious what the usual way of "resubmitting" a proposal is. This one, perhaps uniquely, received objections from both liberals and conservatives those who thought the proposal was too bureaucratic, and that it wasn't fully-fleshed enough. 
Is this something that should now be restarted at Wikipedia:Expanded rollback access, or elsewhere?  Which concern was greater, the too-much-bureaucracy or too-little-process? I just found out about the poll today...*smacks self with salmon* -- nae'blis (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think I understand what Splash is saying

message: I wonder if there isn't a way of fixing automatic procedures so that they fix the objections.  So imagine that we automatically grant the facility to anybody who a) has done more than 1000 edits and b) has been editing for at least five days.
# instead of automatic after 1000 edits, it becomes automatic after 1000 edits after last block
# any admin reset the edit count (and possibly remove the facility if that fails)
# the user has to opt in by setting a user preference (and get's a warning message when they do so)
# instead of a page for applying, there's a page for discussion stopping or removing the privilage
# if the facility is abused for normal reverting then admins are instructed to reset the edit count
I think this leaves the automatic process intact whilst answering, at least in part, all of the objections to an automatic system listed in common objections under This will introduce extra bureaucracy / is feature creep.  Mozzerati 13:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Automated granting of rollback has drawn some of the strongest objections, I think if this has a chance down the line it probably won't include an automatic process. That's my impression anyway. Rx StrangeLove 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only way I can see this being approved is if bureaucrats are given granting and veto power over the automatic priv-setter. With the insane amount of wheel warring over pages, I do not trust admins with the capability to actually affect the privilege settings of other users. That's why we choose bureaucrats to begin with. Also, this proposal requires admins to have to manually reset edit counters; that promotes the dreaded editcountitis, and in my opinion, it's even more instruction creep than the old proposal. Also, it is technically more complicated, as it requires an extra field in the preferences, and perhaps the addition to an edit counter to the user database table. The simpler the proposal is, the more chances we can get a developer to code it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing Automatic Procedures 

message: Currently, any user who wants rollback privleges needs only to install a piece of software, be it greasemonkey or popups or godmode. Given this, why would it be a bad thing to give users a fully integrated rollback feature automatically? --Measure 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've read that over, and I understand why integrated rollback is better than the workarounds.  However, what I do not understand is the objection to automatically giving integrated rollback to experienced users when the workarounds are so easily available. --Measure 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because with the rollback button you also get the ability to bot rollback, something that cannot be done with the javascript tweaks. Bot rollback in the hands of a malicious user could be extremely disruptive, and I won't mention any scenarios to not cause any bean-stuffing. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see your point. Thank you for explaining this again, I'm sure someone said it somewhere else and I just didn't see it. --Measure 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Rollback Procedures vs. Automatic Rollback