Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 5

message: Is there any place where the actual discussions for rollback granting are archived? All I'm seeing is lists of grants and denials -- the discussions seem to disappear. Is that wise? Equazcion •✗/C • 11:33, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The denied requests' discussions should be archived (see Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied). Apparently, due to the huge number and relative uncontroversial nature of approvals, the approved requests (Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Approved) are only being listed with account details. Daniel (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the bot could add to each archive entry the link to the last page version of RfR before the request was removed for archiving. A click on the link would allow you to read the full discussion for that request. NoSeptember 23:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that most requests (or at least many) are not through this page, is there a point in archiving? When someone asks me for rollback, I will check their contributions etc, I will not hunt through an archive to see what has happened - and there will not be much point, they could have had theor previous request denied by any admin anywhere.--Docg 23:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that archiving is of limited value and is incomplete, but we archive "request" pages of all sorts that do not catch privately made requests. As long as it is only a bot that is wasting its time on doing this, I see it is of no real harm to do it. And as this process is new, the archives may show how our standards evolve, reading the denied archive may be of use for this. NoSeptember 23:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was already widely accepted that the logs would provide more than enough history. The archives are incomplete and they may be inaccurate if previous denials were then overturned. We have a log of who has rollback, when they got it, and Friday mentioned a null rights change to deny it. Seems to me that all this archiving is not simply wasting a bots time, but producing inaccuracies as well. Justin chat 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Null rights changes are no longer logged. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Take a look at these 3 edits.
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_rollback%2FVote&diff=183660749&oldid=183660741
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_rollback%2FVote&diff=183660901&oldid=183660749
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_rollback%2FVote&diff=183661292&oldid=183660901
As you can see even with edit summaries, the prospect of abuse of revert "power" is not prevented. People CAN also revert war or revert without the use of edit summaries. Since everybody can already 'manually' revert, it is ridiculous that we have a "requests for rollback" discussion. If people abuse the 'move' button or the 'edit' button we block them. If people abuse the 'rollback' button, we block them. Rollback is a reversible tool unlike 'move' which may require admin access to reverse.
-- Cat chi? 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you stop disrupting headers to prove a point. Nakon 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. How about that. And what if I don't stop? -- Cat chi? 18:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you know what happens when you disrupt the project.  Just stop.  Nakon 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely! That is why I do not understand the oversensitiveness of people over the granting of this tool. -- Cat chi? 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, assuming I know what you're saying, I agree with you: it's just a tool to help against vandalism; I don't see any need to argue over this process or the rollback for non-admins feature: RfR has been running fine since it started, and problems, if/when they have arisen, have been discussed and sorted out. I believe we can live with this new feature, and we should work together to make it work smoothly and efficiently rather than argue about it across several pages. Also, notice that the rate of requests has slowed down tremendously, making this page easier to manage now that the initial rush is over. We can work things out: we just need to co-operate. Acalamari 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the granting of the tool through a formal process is entirely unnecesary. Every registered user should have rollback privileges. Those who abuse it can be blocked. That is why this discussion on potential abuse is rather pointless. -- Cat chi? 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't block people for every edit war, but if they use rollback in an edit war, we can remove it even if we don't block them. Mr.Z-man 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And that would cure what? People can continue edit warring without the tool. -- Cat chi? 13:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this discussion on potential abuse is rather pointless 

message: Can we get consensus either way about whether this removal was correct or not? I believe the intention of the thread was to have a review of the Qst situation, and while discussion about a general process is good (like all discussion), we should really resolve the specific problem first :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Qst reverting through rollback at least thrice.  The edits Qst reverted were not vandalism; he could have undone the edits with discussion using the undo button and edit summaries, but instead he used rollback.  I see that as a misuse of the tool, and I think the removal of his permission is justified.  --Merovingian (T, C) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That was definitely a bad use of RB, but on the other hand, if it's a one time event, explaining/warning the user that was wrong would have been a much better idea...Well I guess the time is not best to be wheel warring about it but I still think that's a bit harsh, we are asking users to act better than admins. -- lucasbfr talk 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ...and refocusing the topic

message: I suggest the general discussion on rollback be moved to this talk page. -- Cat chi? 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How many similarly named discussion pages do we have at this point? Will adding another one do any good? GracenotesT § 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It would be nice to keep discussion as central as possible instead of creating more places to discuss this. Acalamari 17:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this is an attempt to do this through discussion and consensus rather than more votes and planning of votes that just keep getting shut down anyway (which is why few people take this seriously anymore). If we could have just one page to discuss this without censorship, more bad ideas from Jimbo and admins shutting the thing down we could move forward. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is intended to be that central discussion. Its been spread out to far too many pages. It is as disorganized as it can get. Yet so few people have a clue whats going on. I had people asking if edits "rollback" could be retrieved. So there is a good amount of gossip and misinformation over the matter. I just want a central discussion over the facts about rollback. -- Cat chi? 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Rollback for users]] 

message: Couple of comments about the archives for approved/denied requests:
*It would be nice if the bot included a diff of the removal from the main project page. (So one can easily see the discussion that lead to the approval/disapproval). 
*It might be nice if they were sorted the opposite of how they're sorted now, newest entries on top, older entries towards the bottom.
Other than that, looks good. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Is there anyway to prevent the duplicate entries for admins who try to grant rollback to the same user at the same time, the clutter on the rights log for admins racing to approve is a little excessive.
# 18:29, 12 January 2008 Rudget (Talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Dadude3320 from rollbacker to rollbacker ‎ (WP:RFR request)
# 18:29, 12 January 2008 Kusma (Talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Dadude3320 from rollbacker to rollbacker ‎ (request at WP:RFR)
# 18:29, 12 January 2008 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Dadude3320 from (none) to rollbacker ‎ (user request) 
--Charitwo talk 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the software didn't log stuff like that? Hut 8.5 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not, maybe some kind of check between is needed and give an error saying "this user already has rollback rights" or something. --Charitwo talk 19:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)Must do. Even still, I don't see any problems with that. I had encountered Dadude3320 earlier that day, and I was inspired. Today's contributions reflect that. Rudget. 19:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike.lifeguard said above that it didn't. Must be a bug. Hut 8.5 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Its early in the annals of RfR, a lot of admins are watching the page, but it will settle down. Nothing to worry about. OTOH, several hours ago, during the daily slow period, I was shocked to find a request that was still unfulfilled for 13 minutes! What an unacceptable backlog! (just kidding of course ;) ) NoSeptember 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nice that the rate of requests has slowed, and if it took 13 minutes to grant someone's request, that either means (1): admins were offline at the time or (2): admins are taking more time to review an editor's contributions. Acalamari 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 13 minutes is really quick. I usually take at least 6-7 minutes to review a user for NPWatcher. That why I stopped monitoring this page ;-) You guys are too quick :P Snowolf How can I help? 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 25 minutes  :) Snowolf How can I help? 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just about to point that out. Seems like things are starting to slow down even more. Perhaps now more through checks of contribs will occur. Dadude3320 01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This has been fixed on trunk for a day or two, .  The fix should be live since last night. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback rights pile-on 

message: Can we get an image of a Rollbackersaurus attacking a Wiki-globe or something similar? That would encapsulate this whole mess pretty well, wouldn't it? Avruchtalk 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering this process is a mere two days old, yes. Let's give it a chance, it's not going to stay the same forever. J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Yeah. It's barely had a chance to get overly bureaucratic. Fear not. It'll get there! :) -Hammersoft (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, give it a chance. Even if I do understand Avruch. Rudget. 22:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, right now, it's a bit of a mess, but let's give it a chance. I don't see how bureaucracy can seep in. J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * It already has. It'll get a lot worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You wanna back that up? All it is is a tool. It would be like lording it over someone because you have a hammer rather than a rock. J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't as many requests now, which is nice, so the page is much easier to manage. I don't see how this page could become more bureaucratic: it seems to be doing fine for now. If a problem arises, we just discuss on how to fix it, like we have been doing. Acalamari 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It will only get bureaucratic if people keep making suggestions that will make it bureaucratic such as pages to request removal and required discussion before granting. Mr.Z-man 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I meant I couldn't see how it could become bureaucratic on it's own. :) I should have clarified that. I agree that requiring long discussions before granting, creating a "request for rollback removal or review" page, or turning this into "micro-RfA" would make this more bureaucratic, and won't help. Acalamari 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sometimes discussion before granting is necessary for some cases. While the majority of requests have been fulfilled without talk, a few have had discussions and been declined, while in Equazcion's case, a discussion took place, and he was granted rollback afterwards. I don't believe it was creepy at all. Acalamari 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it worked great! No instruction creep, no bureacracy, just discussion. J-ſtanContribsUser page 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback lolcat not enough 

message: Is move-protection necessary? I don't really see a need to keep it protected any longer. J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I move-protected the page to keep it consistent with pages like AIV, UAA, and RFPP, all of which are move-protected, and don't need to be moved. Acalamari 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, ok. I thought it was protected as a move vandalism preventative measure. J-ſtanContribsUser page 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is one case where preventative protection is a good idea, given that the page has already accumulated many revisions. GracenotesT § 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move protection 

message: Since it's stated on the community portal that Jimbo Wales has approved the community consensus about the non-admin rollback, shouldn't the header that says the process is disputed be removed now?--Urban Rose 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know about any approval by Jimbo, but I removed the disputed tag due to a lack of disputing on this talk page. Mr.Z-man 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo doesn't really have anything to do with consensus, the community forms them. Jimbo has (on rare occasion) been against community consensus before and we've moved along against his wishes and with consensus. This is particularly true with early "rules". While the man has of course the right to issue edicts (WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO), he is not consensus.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header 

message: If you want to have the option of rollback with a custom summary, I've written User:Gracenotes/rollback.js‎ to simplify doing so. At present it adds a "sum" link to diff pages. It doesn't work in IE7 unless you've disabled the JavaScript prompt "security" option. Any suggestions for improvements appreciated. GracenotesT § 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for doing this. This has addressed my main concern about the feature, well, that and the previous ability to do this with "obscure scripts". I just wish this had been made available and discussed more beforehand. My main concern now is with the process that has sprung up around the process. I still favour a "switch it on in the preferences" thing (with admins able to turn it off with another switch), or "integrate it with existing scripts to reduce server load" approach. But hey, let's see how it develops. Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback summary 

message: I don't really get the distinction between Twinkle's rollback and this one, other than the fact that it is "faster" and uses less bandwidth. Also, I've seen a few requests here get denied because "user has installed Twinkle," including these two denies by Pedro. Could someone clear me up about this? Thanks, GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, using Twinkle is not a reason to deny a request. However, in this case, it seems like the editors could use a bit more experience with vandalism reversion in general, ensuring that if they used the rollback permission in the future they would make fewer mistakes. GracenotesT § 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, having users install twinkle first will give us an idea of how they use automated reverting tools. If they use twinkle to fight content disputes, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to give them the rollback feature. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What if their browser or internet security measures do not support Twinkle? DuncanHill (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Or, for that matter, what if (like me) they cannot understand the instructions for how to install Twinkle? DuncanHill (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still plenty of other scripts that are available to just about all browsers, many probably don't even work with rollbacker. If they need instruction, then just ask, there's plenty of us out there willing to help. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it just simpler all around to enable rollback for those who request it, instead of individual admins deciding that some editors need to jump through hoops of installing and using unfathomable monobook thingies? DuncanHill (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We want a track record of vandalism reverts to see how much they know about it. I myself would not require people to use scripts or VP to get rollback, though. I just check any vandalism reverts I can find, and base my decision on that. —Kurykh 05:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, again, by that logic we should have a track record of good suggestions before we let people edit pages. This was never part of the original proposal, and I find it odd that so much freewheeling is going on with this. This is a perfect reason for anyone looking to get rollback to approach a friendly admin on IRC or talk pages, versus using this procedure. It's only a matter of time before one user gets rollback and another is denied for the exact same reasons. No one has given a definitive answer on this: Why these arbitrary requirements? If anyone can use WP:TW to do the very same thing as rollback, and WP:TW doesn't have a procedure to go through, this looks like nothing more than a giant "pat me on the back 'cause I can grant rights" session. WP:AGF be damned? Justin chat 07:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How Twinkle is handed out is not the community's business, but that of its author, AzaToth. Rollback does involve the community and does involve community and admin input, so yes, the standards would be different. I myself have never told people to use Twinkle instead of rollback, and I never will, and I think it's a bad idea for others to do so. So next time, before you think you're the smartest person in this room, see if your framing of the situation is proper.  —Kurykh 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would also suggest that encouraging less experienced or technically-minded editors to use something which carries the warning "It's somewhat in the beta stage, so use it at your own risk" is just a tad irresponsible. DuncanHill (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now stop with your common sense ;). The illogic behind this is astounding. You don't have enough anti-vandalism experience, so install a tool that's far more complicated, and prone to abuse than rollback. How does that make sense? Twinkle can be a pain at times (hitting rollback (AGF) instead of rollback, restore this version instead of rollback, etc) even for experienced users. Suggesting that it is an entry-level tool, to prove oneself to be "empowered" with rollback is fallacious and, once again, makes rollback seem like a special privilege. It's a button... why do we have to treat it like it's an badge? Justin chat 07:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was in the original proposal - it made it clear that users should show that they know how to use it. The reason why we need some sort of process is because this is a very powerful rollback tool, much faster than any other so in the wrong hands, it is very bad. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that non-admins can only use the tool a limited number of times per minute? It's not like I can mass revert an editors history more efficiently than I could using Javascript. It's just easier on the servers and allows me to do vandal fighting efficiently without being forced to use Firefox (there, I said it out loud). EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Twinkle is definitely not for inexperienced users.  I'm not saying hand out RB like candy to anyone with 4 edits in their history, but suggesting that editors cut their teeth using twinkle is ridiculous ummm -unwise.  R. Baley (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle]]? 

message: What is the rationale for denying rollback to new users, but suggesting Twinkle?  Rollback is no more dangerous than Twinkle (less dangerous, really) and potentially leaves exactly the same edit summary if misused. --B (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been wondering the same thing. ViridaeTalk 04:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it either. It's possibly so that new users get into the good habits of warning vandals appropriately and reporting them, which Twinkle promotes, but rollback doesn't? ~ Riana ⁂ 04:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I denied the request that you're talking about because they have shown no evidence of how they will use the tool. Some knowledge of wikipedia is required to use rollback - otherwise we risk flaming disputes because it's used innapropriately. I suggested Twinkle because it's an ideal way to show that you can use a more powerful tool effectively. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's the point, Twinkle is more powerful than rollback.  Twinkle does everything rollback does and more.  If anything, it would make more sense the other way around - show that you can use rollback and then we will give you Twinkle. I don't see the logic of encouraging someone to use Twinkle if you don't trust them with rollback. --B (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rollback is faster than twinkle, even with the edit limit. In hindsight, I agree that maybe we shouldn't recommend twinkle, but we should have some evidence that the users going to use the tool constructively. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check manual reverts. Standards for this tool are just knowing that this tool is only for vandalism, and that the vandal reverts are truly what they are. —Kurykh 04:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm trying to say, we don't have any evidence to suggest they know what a vandal revert is. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I suggest someone explain why a more powerful tool doesn't have any edit count or anti-vandal requirements and the less powerful tool does. Unless someone can justify this, I'd say every single deny based on edit count or anti-vandal count be overturned. Justin chat 04:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rollback is quicker so we need evidence that it isn't going to be misused. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dev's can set autoconfirmed users rollback timers higher. Problem solved. The idea that we need an approval process because rollback is a few seconds (at best) faster is crazy. Once again, why do we assume bad faith here? We don't even require an email address to edit pages, but a user needs to prove they won't misuse a relatively basic tool? Isn't your statement the polar opposite of everything WP stands for? Justin chat 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, because generally speaking, this doesn't allow an edit summary to be made. If it's used in a content dispute, it will engulf the situation becuase it would be seen as a blind revert. Undo and twinkle allow summaries to be made so it isn't that bad. We need evidence to suggest that users aren't going to revert via rollback in content disputes, and for that, we need evidence that they know some basics about wikipedia editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, Twinkle should have requirements similar to that of VP. —Kurykh 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be pointless. It's a javascript library... I can set my browser to use it with or without approval (or an account for that matter). So you'd effectively be requiring everyone tha won't abuse it to go through a process, and everyone that will would simply load it locally. Justin chat 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denying requests to new users? 

message: "As an anti-spam measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes."
:I'm guessing admins don't have a throttle, and vandals certainly don't have a throttle, what's going on here?--Heliac (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't know but since you seem to be rolling back stuff which quite obviously isn't vandalism, it seems quite a good move to me e.g. Rollback a legitimate DRV comment or this removal of "Mark McCandless you are wrong this is not based on a true story" or this correction of tense and plenty more besides --81.104.39.63 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been discussed here, to avoid duplication of discussion. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, has since been archived... updated link to archived discussion SQLQuery me! 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  soft on vandalism? 

message: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rollback_consensus ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, the ArbCom case seems to have closed, or is at least not listed on the main page. JustinContribsUser page 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was declined and archived. Acalamari 18:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom case 

message: I just discovered that with NAR I appear to be able to rollback the addition of a protection template to a page. I didn't try it (I know that's not what rollback is for anyway), but this could be a potential oversight in the rollback permissions, as I definitely don't normally have rights to unprotect a page. Maybe we should ask the devs to make NAR unable to rollback edits that changed a page's protection status. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually click on the button you get an error message. (I tested it in my sandbox.) Hut 8.5 10:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Only administrators can protect or unprotect a page. However protection templates (like any other template) can be added and removed by any editor capable of editing the page, without affecting the protection status. You can rollback the edits, but you can't rollback the protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at this. The page is protected, and you can see the rollback button on the edit that protected the page. If you click it, it tells you that you've undone my most recent edit (the protection). But then if you go to the history, it's not actually done anything. Don't worry, you can't undo protection. --Deskana (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you made an edit after that, would rollback work on that edit? Alexfusco5 16:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes– Gurch 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This causes a potential problem for protected pages as protected pages can be rollback using rollback by non-admins Alexfusco5 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No - you can only rollback the edit if you have the necessary permission to edit the page. If the page is fully protected so only admins can edit it you won't be able to rollback unless you're an admin. Hut 8.5 18:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I just tried it on my sandbox and I got an error message when I tried to revert it, as the page is protected. There is no security issue. --Deskana (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, ok, I didn't realize that the protection templates don't actually grant protection status. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 12:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the report.  There wasn't any security issue here, since as people pointed out, the button didn't actually work.  The interface was wrong, though.  I fixed it in  so that it won't display the button if you don't have permission to use it on that particular page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights issue with NAR 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/January 2008 is now complete, in that there are no more requests which will need to be added. Clearly we need Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/February 2008, but the though occurs we need a general archive page with all months ongoing. Thoughts? Pedro :  Chat   09:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore that. I'm crap. Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied. Pedro :  Chat   09:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: I'm replying to B's comment above. Oh good grief, 2/3 of the community wanted it implemented as is. Of the objections, many of them were objections that would also apply to Twinkle. If someone proposes a better methodology, ok, but until then, this isn't going anywhere. --B (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand the comment. Are you saying we need more role accounts, or that we need less (there are obviously some, we just haven't found them all)? And how does this pertain to RfR? Justin(c)(u) 23:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's saying we need more, but I can't see the relation to rollback either... --Tango (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't there a GFDL compliance issue with having accounts with more than one user? Justin(c)(u) 23:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. GFDL attribution may be applied to an entity (i.e., group). GracenotesT § 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing Symptoms, not problems 

message: Can someone explain what Pedro means? I do not see the logic in this edit. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: to save repeating it. Are we really gooing to edit war over something so trivial?? Pedro :  Chat   22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't make any sense. Is there a guideline which can relate to this case? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: MOS:DATE#Full date formatting calls the style Pedro prefers "International format", tho ISO time is not really considered "American time designation". / edg ☺ ☭ 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. MOS only really realtes to articles, but still relates in this context - my point is that for simplicity let's keep it as it was. No need to make it complex. Pedro :  Chat   22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which layout are we supposed to use per se? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter much on Talk pages, but MOS:DATE#Dates describes ISO dates (2008-01-10) as uncommon in English prose, and ... generally not used in Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the "International format", but for what it's worth, "2008-01-10" never means October 1. The leading year means an ISO date. Incidentally, this is how dates are normally written in Chinese. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edg - do you live in the UK? I guarantee you're wrong, as 2008-01-10 certainly means 1st October to me and plenty of others (WP:OR not withstanding !!!). So, any how, can I just change this back to a clear format (my original intention) now? Pedro :  Chat   22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do live in the UK, and I've never seen "2008-01-10" meaning "1st October". -Halo (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "American time designations"? 

message: I've just noted a slew of denied requests from february on grounds that the user doesn't have any experience vandal fighting. I checked the Request for Rollback page and did not see anywhere a requirement that users have any experience vandal fighting. In fact, I saw it said that Rollback may be granted to any user in good standing, who is known not to edit war. Why are you people denying requests on a semi-official page, on grounds that don't exist on the project page? That's disrespectful, and just plain bitey. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, think this tool should be granted rather freely. So long as there is no obvious evidence of edit-warring and the user is in good standing, we should really be defaulting to granting access. SQLQuery me! 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know about others, but I have always had a requirement of at least some evidence of vandal-fighting and, if applicable, the correct use of the undo button and of scripts. —Kurykh 06:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have that requirement, then apply it to personal requests to you for rollback. It seems inappropriate to me for someone to apply a personal standard to a semi-official request page. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So I'm forbidden from using judgment in my decisions now? Then why not just have a bot grant everyone rollback if they have a clean block log? RFA had no explicit standards, so should we just indiscriminately grant the tools? —Kurykh 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RFA states that you will be supported or opposed based on the individual voter's opinions, as cracked out as they may be.  What is happening here is more akin to saying "The standard says that you can get it  if you do this good, but I'm not going to give it to you until you meet this unstated even higher standard, which you don't know what it is because it's not noted on the page". ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On RfA, no standards are engraved anywhere except during and on the nominations themselves. Supposedly competent candidates get shot down because they did not meet the unstated higher standard that continuously creeps upward nowadays. So the comparison you stated is not valid. Also, from WP:RBK, "any administrator can grant rollback to a user using his or her own judgement," so this process is also based on individual judgement, except in this case it is of admins, not b'crats. —Kurykh 00:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RFR needs to reflect then that line you quoted from WP:RBK, otherwise people who haven't read WP:RBK won't know why they are being denied.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If they use it for vandal-fighting, the 'pedia wins, no? If they don't use it at all, no loss, no? If they use it to edit war, well, it's easily removed. Why not err on the side of trusting the requesting user? SQLQuery me! 07:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The only standard should be "user in good standing, who is known not to edit war." Let's not start to let standards "drift"...once people start to apply their own (higher) standards when acting requests they'll just keep drifting up and up...let's keep it easy come easy go...simple. Admins should keep to the same simple standards. RxS (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If the amount of experience they need is that minimal, why not just give them the tool anyway? Are you seriously arguing "I'm not going to give you this tool that will make vandal patrol easier, until you do it the hard way first"? That's very very bitey. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The revert tool can be more trouble than its worth, so it shouldn't be given out freely. If a past/sock edit warrer got this tool it would mean more work for us. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Past sock/edit warriors are not users in good standing not known to edit war, and are ineligible for the tool. We're not talking about them. We're talking about users in good standing, that don't regularly revert vandalism. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: So it's bitey because people who do not have even an inkling of knowledge about the task which involves this tool are temporarily inconvenienced? What is with this notion of instant gratification? —Kurykh 00:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's bitey because they shouldn't be forced to do it a "hard way" in order to gain access to a more effective way, especially since the end result is a benefit to the encyclopedia. The easier they can revert vandalism, the more beneficial to us it is. If they screw up, we take it away. How hard is that? Seems like a colossal failure to assume good faith. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW Kurykh, I want you to understand that I'm speaking in general terms here, not accusing you personally of being bitey or not AGFing.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, I understand, but I disagree. We're not forcing them to do it the "hard way" first; we just want to know if they know what they're doing and what they'll be doing. —Kurykh 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple "I know how to revert vandalism, and will use this tool to do so" should be sufficient then, in that case. Why should they have to show evidence of past vandalism reversions? We should just be able to take them at their word that they know what they're doing. If they don't, remove it. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I just requested the rollback feature, and it was denied because "the undo tool should be enough for me" since I haven't done enough vandalism reverts (I've done only about 20 or 30 out of 600 edits).  It just doesn't feel like a good enough reason, since I feel I have done some and it'd make things easier for me.  It feels like we must not only show that we won't misuse it, but show evidence that we will be very actively using it, as if there were a limited amount of them to give around. Solid Reign (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a good reason at all, I'll give you rollback. John Reaves 15:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly my point. Why are we denying people on a semi-official page, for shitty reasons like that? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm baffled by that decline too, to be honest. After a look at the user's contributions, they have clearly done vandalism-reversion, and have done it correctly. I think that giving Solid Reign rollback was a good decision. Acalamari 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There are three templates available: Template:Rollbackgiven, User:NoSeptember/Rollback, and Template:Rollbackgiven2. I hope you'll find them useful. Acalamari 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  uh, what the hell? 

message: As previously stated, I am going to keep readding it, particularly as I compromised on the wording. How does it misrepresent the situation at all? Why don't you want people to be informed about the discussion which is going to reevaluate the future of this page? -Halo (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep adding it and you will be blocked. John Reaves 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, John beat me to the revert, here. --Deskana (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So just to be clear, we're still going through on the discussion, but we're getting rid of the template, right? Out of curiosity, why? Is it just too early, and we'll re-add it later? Just wondering what's going on. Justin(c)(u) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Halo, as a general rule, any time you find yourself saying "I'm going to keep doing X" you should foresee being blocked as a very strong possibility, no matter what the action. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The template 

message: Would those active on this page be able to help out here? Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that - upon use of this feature (for the first time), I realized in consternation that it simply reverted without an option to produce an edit summary. While it makes things expedient for non-admins, it's also very impersonal. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to be able to edit the edit summary, then use undo. Undo can revert the most recent consecutive edits even if they are not made by a single editor. In fact, undo can revert any consecutive edits (even if they are in the middle of the history) as long as there is no conflict. Warut (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, of course I know - I was just mystified at this Rollback function didn't allow user's to specify the rationale. I use it with caution. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that undo will only undo one edit at a time, while rollback does several - as long as they're all from the same editor. However, rollback never works if someone else has edited the page since. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom edit summaries for Rollback 

message: It seems that there are different people have a problem with each standard someone uses to not give rollback. I agree that personal requests should be dealt with the admin's personal discretion, meaning they set their own standards for those requests, but should we assert that on this page, the one and only requirement is that they have no recent editwarring? Not taking into account editcount, time spent here, or number (or quality) of reverts? Just the one standard? Sorry if this seems angry, but I just want to make sure that we have a firm standard to be set. We seem to have the reverse of instruction creep: when it started, we had all these unwritten standards, and now people keep stripping it down :) Maybe this could be one of the things addressed on 10 April. Justin(c)(u) 22:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be that rollback goes to anyone who doesn't revert non-vandalism edits without a personal summary and that should be the only requirement.  Time here, edit count, vandalism reverting history, edit warring, etc. should all be irrelevant to the addition of this trivial tool. John Reaves 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have very simple requirements: demonstration of correct vandalism-reversions (i.e. I expect to see "undo" used for vandalism-reversion, not for content disputes), no recent blocks for edit warring, and no sign of recent edit warring. If a person uses rollback rarely, I don't mind as long as they use it correctly. Acalamari 22:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit warring is irrelevant as long as it's not done with auto summaries. John Reaves 22:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus TW does about the same thing (and it does more or less the same thing [if not more] as rollback), so it is, as John Reaves described, a trivial tool. <3 bunny 02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TW gets removed if abused, and I'm not willing to grant rollback to blatant edit-warriors. Acalamari 03:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's unreasonably punitive and discriminatory.  Edit warriors can have TW and still be edit warriors.  Why can't they have rollback?  It's just as easy to remove were they to edit war with it. John Reaves 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: User:Dnvrfantj: I note that rollback permission was granted less than 3 days after this account was created.  Now, I will admit that I am somewhat of a conservative when it comes to granting folks this right; I would be hoping to see that, at minimum, a user has been here long enough to be auto-confirmed before they receive this permission.  I'd also hope that a certain level of suspicion would be raised when a brand-new user focused on new page patrol, RC patrol, and the CVU in their first three days, while building a hoax/attack page in their userspace - and then magically marking  the hoax/attack page as patrolled when it was copied to article space. This editor is now indefinitely blocked. I respectfully ask that administrators granting rollback actually look at some of the edits of the user before automatically flicking the switch. I know it's just a tool, and it's not a big deal. But if this editor's activity to date had actually been looked at, it would have quickly become apparent that he was problematic, with or without rollback.  Perhaps someone might wish to remove his rollback permission now.  Thanks, Risker (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they abuse rollback? No.  I'd give Willy on Wheels rollback as long as he didn't abuse it. John Reaves 04:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get this straight. You have no intention of removing rollback permission from someone who pwned Wikipedia? You'd happily give it out to a vandal?  This falls within the range of  "exercis(ing) good judgement" part of adminship? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.  Risker (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing it from an indef blocked user would be rather futile don't you think?  My WoW example was only to point out that rollback isn't a bargaining tool or a reward or something that is refused for punitive reasons. John Reaves 05:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, what are the requirements? 

message: Rollback allows a user to revert edits quickly - but I don't see how it can do any permanent damage (just like everything else on a wiki). I requested rollback just because I thought it'd be useful - I don't use it that much anyway, and would only use it for vandalism, test edits, etcetera, certainly not content disputes (I tend not to become involved in those anyway). Eventually I want to have the admin tools, because to me helping the encyclopedia by performing sysop processes according to the policies and guidelines which I know and understand would be an enjoyable thing for me to do (my last RfA closed at something like 69%, hope the next one is successful), but for now rollback just seems like not that big of a deal if given to non-admins, and can't see where the controversy is coming from. Having said that, I'm not really a recent changes patroller, and reverting good faith edits using rollback could be problematic.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When your next RFA is succesful, you'll discover that those extra buttons are just as little a deal as rollback. Trust me. Pedro :  Chat   20:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So I've been told. That's Wisdom Sarcasm : ). On a serious note though, obviously the rollback feature (by virtue of its current form) was designed to combat vandalism or undo minor/silly errors with ease. I also fail to recognize the logic behind the controversy. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's with the process. I don't see anything wrong with either, but I think the problem is that people think it was introduced without consensus. No further comment (by comment, I mean ranting directed at those people). Justin(c)(u) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being an administrator is no big deal either, it is pointless for an administrator to abuse the tools, as they would lose their sysop privileges. So I do not really see the logic behind the controversy for either one. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being one isn't, but becoming one is. While abuse would be pointless, it could be very destructive (Twinkle recently included a "delete batch" feature giving administrators the ability to delete all pages on their watchlist, categories, and possibly all pages linked to on a page. The feature has since been removed, but still). Rollback is much less (but still to a degree...) destructive. So they're kind of a different situation. Justin(c)(u) 21:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There were a lot of issues which people were unsatisfied with. By and large, I didn't agree with them but as I understand it, amongst the things people were worried about were; the process used to reach the decision to grant roll back, the fear that the damage (e.g. from revert warriors) would outweight any benefit, the concern about creating more bureacracy, the concern about creating another class of users, the perceived ad hocness of the way rollback is granted, whether we can trust admins to grant roll back responsibly... and many things I forget. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the big deal here? 

message: We're not used to having a tool that ANY administrator can take away at any time. I think subconsciously all of us are scared of misuse of the tool, into thinking that it will be really hard to stop, that we'd need to go to arbcom or stewards or some other group to remedy a bad user. This is not desysopping, or banning, or anything so great. All we have to do in the case of a user misusing rollback, is take it out of their permissions. It's that simple. One step, anyone reported on AN/I can have it done in seconds. With it being THAT easy to fix, why are we fighting so hard to not give it to people? We should give it out freely (with the obvious "good standing/no history of edit warring" restriction) and take it away just as freely. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with SWATJester, we don't need to go to arbcom or a steward if a user misbehaves. Any admin can remove it at any time if the user abuses it. I say if a user abuses Rollback, take it away from them until they prove they can properly use scripts or undo. Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way are we "fighting so hard to not give it to people"? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen the Request for Rollback page lately? Every single request up there has been denied, on basis of "not enough vandalism reversion".⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? The recent two were just accepted. Acalamari 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking circa February 16, at the point where I first started posting up here. There were a half dozen cases up here, all denied for lack of vandalism reversion. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That I do find poor rationale: "They won't use it" is listed on WP:AAAD. If you disagreed with them, why didn't you ask the concerned admins? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To comment on the recent trend highlighted by SwatJester, I do not a high volume of experience in counter-vandalism patrolling as an essential criterion for any RfR. Whilst it is indeed useful, and I certainly take it into account when reviewing any application, I view community trust as the primary requirement. Perhaps, in order to bring in a little stability to this process, we might look at drawing up a more formal, peer-reviewed criteria for RfRs, as oppose to the more vague standards we have at the moment? AGK (contact) 12:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: So perhaps we need more than 2 options, maybe ,  and ? Mr.Z-man 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think I see part of the issue 

message: The request page doesn't currently discuss how admins are supposed to handle requests very well. From this talk page and the history of the request page, I believe they should either put  or  and then a bot will archive the request but it doesn't actually say Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like I'm right so I made an appropriate change to the header Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help for admins 

message: Hello, i was wondering how this feature differs from the Rollback buttons available through Twinkle, i have just begun using twinkle and i was wondering whether i should have put a request here first, or if not what advantages i could gain from getting approval here?
PiTalk - Contribs 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Twinkle and rollback are not different versions of one another, although there are certainly rollback. For a start, rollback is an in-built feature of MediaWiki, and hence is capable of quicker operations (and thus more reversions); however, Twinkle features facilities for reporting vandals, adding warnings to talk pages, etc..., as well as something of an "imitation" of rollback, designed for non-administrators. Comparing Wikipedia:Rollback feature and Wikipedia:TWINKLE should hopefully  flag up the differences to you. As for advantages, it really is a matter of personal preference :) AGK (contact) 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You will note if you are on patrol and you are using Twinkle, editors using rollback will beat you 9 times out of 10.  Rollback privilege is much faster, but less versatile, it just does one thing.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference From Twinkle 

message: I am not sure if that's really true. Being granted for Rollback right is not an honour, but I would think that's a sign of trust. Afterall, certain applications were denied because they 'can not be trusted with the tool'. --Cahk (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not a sign of community trust in that there's no community discussion. Rather, one to three admins trust that the user won't misuse it. Mr.Z-man 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is for sure not an honor, nor is being a admin, crat', checkuser, oversight....ect. Tiptoety talk 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback is not an honor or a sign of community trust 

message: While I acknowledge that directing WP:ROLL to Requests for Rollback is reasonable, do we really need to pair it with WP:RICK? Or is this intended to head off more nefarious vandalism? I'm loathe to concede that we Rickrolled ourselves, but if we did it for a good reason, I'll have to live with it. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcuts 

message: I've noticed that when I rollback a page, it doesn't get automatically added to my watchlist like undoing the edit does. Is there any way to get that fixed? What's the appropriate place to ask?Kww (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is a feature I don't want. ViridaeTalk 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose the adding of that feture Mww113    (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 14:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: MediaWiki rollback is just a simple but quick revert tool to remove vandalism, it's not designed to add pages to your watchlist, and I don't think that adding pages to watchlists would be a feature that would be added to MediaWiki rollback. Acalamari 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kww, you may prefer to install the Twinkle rollback module, which allows for automatic addition of pages on which a rollback is performed to one's watchlist. Of course, Twinkle does not operate at as quick a pace as the in-built rollback feature, but it does provide the functionality you are looking for, as well as a more seamless warning assistance system. Full information is on WP:TWINKLE, if you are interested. AGK § 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If you really want it, you can make it a request on BugZilla. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlists 

message: How can I propose that rollback is revoked from an editor? User:Barkjon is indiscriminately reverting edits by anonymous editors. Sam Staton (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just left a warning on his page about it.  If he continues, please let me know and I'll remove the tool.  - Philippe | Talk 16:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: In the future, you can ask any administrator, or leave a note at WP:AN or WP:ANI. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Preferably ANI so we can solicit multiple opinions, and have a big, drama-filled argument over it. :-) Grandmasterka 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revoking rollback 

message: I am looking at the history of the bot, and it seems that it is skipping over names with special characters, and users that don't have a userpage. Or perhaps I am interpreting things wrong. Sam Barsoom 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, there are accepted requests still on there from last month. Maybe someone should contact the bot owner and see what is up. Tiptoety talk 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...well it looks like the bot just got them after all. Tiptoety talk 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the bot missing things? 

message: ... But is the April 10 discussion still on? It seems like no one has problems with it anymore. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume so, though like you said if no one makes a big deal out of it we might just be able to float right on by without all that drama. Tiptoety talk 04:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens April 10? John Reaves 05:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There will be a humongous discussion that could potentially result in the plug being pulled on this process I think. FunPika 10:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure rollback is here to stay. It had consensus to be implemented and I find it unlikely there will be consensus to pull its plug. (1 == 2)Until 13:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets not start the actual discussion right here and right now, I think we where just trying to decide it we are even going to start it in the first place. Tiptoety talk 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a need to. There haven't been many complaints in the past month (about the process, at least), so it would seem people are fine with it, or they just don't want to argue. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe the process has been a success, to be honest. I think the reasons for opposing rollback for non-admins have been disproven: one argument was that "vandals would get it", and that hasn't happened; another was that we "didn't need it", and as I expected, many people who couldn't use Twinkle requested to have rollback; other people thought that a new class of user would be created, and yes, while there is a new userright group, rollback is less of a big deal than adminship is; the other major argument was that it would become "too bureaucratic", and that hasn't happened either. I can think of some people who were unsure of the process at first, but changed their minds about it over time; plus, there are several people who opposed rollback who have now either requested it or have granted it. Also, many, many people like the idea of rollback being "easy to give, easy to take". I see no reason for a new poll or discussion, and in fact, I think creating a new poll or discussion would be far more bureaucratic than this process ever will be. Acalamari 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep in the spirit of the original rollback proposal, we should probably ask arbcom to approve a poll to get consensus on whether or not a new discussion is necessary :) Mr.Z-man 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd generally agree with Acalamari above. In my opinion, rollback has proved to be a valuable addition to the Wikipedia 'anti-vandalism frontier' and has helped reduce the amount of disruption caused by unruly IPs or newly (even maybe older ones too) registered accounts to a minimum. This launch co-inciding with the release of huggle has made a significant difference to the way AIV and some users operate. I'd be sincerely surprised if the process was 'pulled'. Rudget (review) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: EEK. We are really not here to discuss rollback, technically should not be until the 10th. We are simply discussing if we are going to have a discussion. Wait, huh? Maybe this is something for Wikipedia:Request for process. Tiptoety talk 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where will the actual discussion be held? I'd like to contribute. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, at least that makes the most sense to me. Tiptoety talk 00:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere at all makes most sense to me. – Steel 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could not agree more with you on that one. Tiptoety talk 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole notion that no one seems to really remember there was supposed to be a discussion on April 10th to be a strong indicator that the non-admin rollback "experiment", with a minuscule number of exceptions, has been a success.  I agree to send it to WP:RFN.   Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I for one hope that the discussion for the 10th will be going forward as planned. GlassCobra 19:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, if only to see whether people's opinions have changed, rather than speculate whether opinions have changed. Myth-making is a dangerous business on Wikipedia. There will be people saying any discussion will be a waste of time, but I would suggest that this is not actually so. There is no point in quieting people down by saying "let's discuss in three months time", and then try and avoid that later. There was a commitment made to have such a discussion/review (can anyone provide a diff?), and that commitment should be honoured. There, I've managed to go the whole post without mentioning my opinion on rollback - that comes later, remember folks? :-) But we have three days to calmly and civilly set up a discussion structure that has a clear start and end point and a way to judge the result. And people to moderate it. In fact, more like two days. Ideally, to see how opinion has changed, duplicate the previous poll and ask people to say whether their views have changed. Actually, I suspect we should have spent three months deciding the discussion structure. Wikipedia:Requests for process is meant to be a joke? Why didn't anyone tell me??? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no need for discussion.  Rollback has worked out just fine and if you have something to say, say it now.  I don't understand why there is a need to wait.  Also, this is intended to be a discussion, not just a bunch of people saying "yep, looks good to me" right?  If so, there should be a question or topic or something to address.  John Reaves 06:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We usually have a discussion when people want it, not on set dates. If the point was to wait and see if rollback is working, I think we determined that weeks ago. (1 == 2)Until 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unfortunately that was not the case here and the previous discussion was closed with a promise to revisit it. I do not think that promise like that should be made to shut people up, and then not keep the promise. I feel that there are enough users who oppose rollback (maybe their voices are not here right now) that a discussion would be a good idea. Tiptoety talk 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm trying very, very hard (and failing) not to point out the opinions held back then by some of the people arguing now that no discussion is needed. <deep breaths> All calm now. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we do not need to discuss "rollback", but instead things like, do we make certian requirements for users requesting rollback such as X amount of edits, no blocks for 3RR within the last X amount of months...ect. When should rollback be revoked? I think those are issues that contiualy keep coming up that need to be adressed. Tiptoety talk 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't want to stuff beans up people's noses... 

message: Okay, so as agreed a few months ago there will be a community discussion regarding non-administrative rollback. The prior discussion was postponed to April 10th with the promise that the discussion would continue for those that had concerns regarding rollback. While I have my own personal opinions, we should not simply dismiss the fact that this conversation was promised to take place simply because some users think it is currently working. If a promise was made to revisit the topic in order to stop users from discussing it, the promise should be kept and the users that where quited because of it should get their chance to voice their opinions. I have created a few sub-headings with topics that seem to need addressing or have been issues multiple times before. Feel free to add more. Tiptoety talk 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We had this discussion last week didn't we? See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Rollback permission modification. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I have not seen that addition to WP:RFR. Tiptoety talk 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it got overwhelmingly rejected with almost everyone who commented happy with the current system. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess I did not look hard enough, maybe another proposal other than the one at VillagePump will be suggested. Tiptoety talk 01:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no reason why we need to standardize our requirements. One does not even need to use this board to request. While one should not "ask the other parent", it really only takes on admin to approve a person. It can also be easily taken away. I think it has been going well so far. (1 == 2)Until 01:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, agreed - just look for possible indications that they will abuse the tool - if there are none, grant it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But each admin can look at different contribs differently. I know I have denied a request before because I thought the use would abuse it, and someone turned around and granted it because they thought they would not. Tiptoety talk 01:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And which of you was right? :-) Its easy to grant; its easy to remove.  Possibly it is easy to misuse.  But Undo is a right rather than a granted privilege, and I don't know that it even has rate limiting.  Given that the average size of a rollback is about 1.2 edits, the main difference would seem to be that the supposed misuser having to click once rather than having to click twice to do exactly the same damage. What's the big deal? Loren.wilton (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Rollback is easy to remove: if the admin who granted it ultimately made an error in giving that user rollback, then the rollback can be removed. It's that simple really. This isn't like adminship where we have to be more careful in promoting people. Acalamari 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Because removing it is quick and painless, this makes the issue of standards for granting it less important.  No need to do work to standardize. Friday (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Friday: removing rollback is easy, and therefore, standards aren't needed. It's up to the judgment of the admin granting rollback. If an admin made a mistake in giving someone rollback, the rollback can be taken away. Rollback is not a big deal at all: it's just a simple tool. Edit count is not important. Acalamari 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I've personally removed it from 3 or 4 people, always with a post to AN/I for a review - there's never been any problems with it, and it gets sorted quickly and efficiently. The status quo is fine in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are sure they are abusing it, consider a warning, but then just take it away. If you are not sure then either let it be or seek the advice of your peers. (1 == 2)Until 01:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: If someone is misusing it, go ahead and take it away, and then discuss and/or warn.  This way, it ends up in the log.  If they ask for it back later, the misuse will be known.  If they can show they've learned better since then, give it back.  Friday (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, and if their use is questionable or borderline, it's certainly possible to bring up one's concerns without being accusatory or threatening. If it's clearly abusive, take it away. If it looks possibly necessary but you're not sure, just ask on ANI. Or, well, pretty much like we do it already. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Not sure if that is a good way to handle it, just like WP:BLOCK you should not block a user just to record past incidents in their log. Remove first, ask questions later? Tiptoety talk 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: If someone is misusing rollback, the best thing to do is discuss it with the user in question first. Then, if they persist in misuse, they can have it taken away from them. I see no need to go to AN/I unless it's an unclear case (which seems unlikely to happen). Acalamari 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would obviously depend on the situation and context. Administrators are chosen for their ability to use discretion, and when we disagree we defer to consensus. We also defer to consensus if we do agree. But we can act in absence of any consensus if we do so with sense and in line with policy. Sometimes you will warn/talk with the user first, other times you will revoke first, other times you will go for the advice of others, and other times you just do nothing. (1 == 2)Until 02:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but what constitutes "abuse"? I have seen many users interpret abuse of rollback differently. Tiptoety talk 03:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is a good place to start: Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When not to use the Rollback feature. Generally any revert that should have an edit summary, ie any revert of a good faith act, is not appropriate. (1 == 2)Until 04:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to need some expansion, like not in content disputes, ect... Tiptoety talk 04:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Because removing this is not nearly as serious as a block. A block takes away all editing privileges, this takes away one feature. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like any admin can grant rollback, they should be able to take it away just as easy (with good reason of course). Tiptoety talk 04:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, just like a block, the removal of rollback rights will be noted in the editor's permanent record. And, what is more, why not give people a chance to change their actions before you forcibly change them? Just because this is not as severe as a block doesn't mean that revocation of the privilege doesn't merit some sort of warning beforehand. (With the same caveat about extreme cases as before, of course.) Antelantalk 04:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying not warn them, but they should not get four of them. Tiptoety talk 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Four warnings before blocking? Impressive. Anyway, as a non-admin without rollback, I have "no dog in the fight". But when I saw suggestions of "revoke first, ask questions later" (mentioned up above), I felt compelled to respond. Antelantalk 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I totally agree with you, I just feel that it should be revoked pretty quickly if the user is abusing it (after a warning mind you). Tiptoety talk 04:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, I think we're on the same page after all. Antelantalk 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Because there have been issues with it, such as the question of requirements for rollback, and how to revoke it. Along with users saying above that they have concerns they wish to address during this discussion. All this can do is build a stronger consensus on the whole deal, something that was questions from the get go. I see nothing but progress being made, and from the looks of it no one has an issue with the actual idea of rollback. Tiptoety talk 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If people want to discuss they will, if they do not they will not. We just need to observe what the consensus is at any given time. (1 == 2)Until 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 6 day poll? It was longer than that I can assure you. Is there a problem with the current system? I' d be pleased to hear your thoughts if there is, but going back to the original infghting isn't constructive and isn't going to help us now. Let's look for ways to move forward from this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't. I distinctly remember it being referred to disparagingly by Doc glasgow as the Christmas holiday coup d'etat, because of how quickly it was run and the awful timing, when many Wikipedians were gone on holiday. I think it would be best if everyone re-read the arbitration request (diff from Jan 19, just before request was archived) to freshen up on the opinions of both sides. GlassCobra 20:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The poll ran, all told, from 30 December to 8 January. That's nine days  rather than six, does not include Christmas or any day near it, and whatever way it was referred to disparagingly doesn't change basic arithmetic. Incidentally, other than New Year's Eve (and perhaps the subsequent day to recover from overindulgence), I can't think of any holidays in that period, and none that typically involve traveling. --Random832 (contribs) 14:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Having the running pitch battle we had when people genuinely believed there was the potential for massive problems is one thing, but starting a new, massive running pitch battle when it has been demonstrated the worst fears of most who were involved with the aforementioned pitch battle have not and will not be realised is completely unnecessary. If there is a genuine grievance or a good suggestion with which we can improve this process, then let's hear it, but discussion for discussion's sake is completely counter productive and any plan to try and force the removal of the rollback permission from Wikipedia will turn into a complete blood bath, with the potential to alienate the thousand or so Wikipedians who have been granted rollback to date. Let's not do that, please. Nick (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess I'm curious if GlassCobra (and others) would like discuss doing away with the feature, or discuss the 'consensus' that got it approved?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's a novel plan: How about we just allow anyone to voice their objections on this here talk page. If lots of people still object, we can hear what they're saying. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would absolutely be interested in discussing this; as I said, that's what I thought this discussion was intended for. The whole point of this was that we had drafted a rollback poll back in January (Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Draft poll), but it was closed for three months to let tempers cool down. Why have we not picked up from where we left off? GlassCobra 14:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so now that we have decided to have a discussion... does anybody have anything to say? (1 == 2)Until 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Polls are evil.  I agree with Until (1==2), let's just have a discussion instead. :-) If a poll is still necessary, we'll discover that fact soon enough. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think GlassCobra is saying that we have another poll, but instead determine what the consensus was of the previous poll we had (correct me if I am wrong GlassCobra). While I do not agree with it, I think that many feel that there was a whole lot of consensus gathering going on for a week or so, but not a whole lot of actually determining what the consensus was. And then, all the discussion and polls where stopped. I think GlassCobra is suggesting that we continue where we left off, and that appears to be determining a consensus on this whole deal. (Hope I did not put any words in your mount GlassCobra, feel free to correct me if I am wrong).  Tiptoety talk 04:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What on Earth would be the point of attempting to determine the outcome of a three month old poll? The granting of rollback has proceeded rather smoothly for all this time, I find it rather difficult to believe that the views expressed on that poll are still indicative of what the community feels. Whether or not there was consensus for rollback at the time of it's implementation is far less relevant than whether or not it has consensus here and now.--Dycedarg ж 04:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its that time. 

message: There have been a few issues before with some admins having higher standards for granting rollback for others, creating confusion for the user that just had his request declined and the user before him with less edits and a worse edit history was granted it. Does there need to be certain requirements? If so what? Tiptoety talk 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We had this discussion last week didn't we? See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Rollback permission modification. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I have not seen that addition to WP:RFR. Tiptoety talk 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it got overwhelmingly rejected with almost everyone who commented happy with the current system. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess I did not look hard enough, maybe another proposal other than the one at VillagePump will be suggested. Tiptoety talk 01:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no reason why we need to standardize our requirements. One does not even need to use this board to request. While one should not "ask the other parent", it really only takes on admin to approve a person. It can also be easily taken away. I think it has been going well so far. (1 == 2)Until 01:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, agreed - just look for possible indications that they will abuse the tool - if there are none, grant it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But each admin can look at different contribs differently. I know I have denied a request before because I thought the use would abuse it, and someone turned around and granted it because they thought they would not. Tiptoety talk 01:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And which of you was right? :-) Its easy to grant; its easy to remove.  Possibly it is easy to misuse.  But Undo is a right rather than a granted privilege, and I don't know that it even has rate limiting.  Given that the average size of a rollback is about 1.2 edits, the main difference would seem to be that the supposed misuser having to click once rather than having to click twice to do exactly the same damage. What's the big deal? Loren.wilton (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Rollback is easy to remove: if the admin who granted it ultimately made an error in giving that user rollback, then the rollback can be removed. It's that simple really. This isn't like adminship where we have to be more careful in promoting people. Acalamari 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Because removing it is quick and painless, this makes the issue of standards for granting it less important.  No need to do work to standardize. Friday (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Friday: removing rollback is easy, and therefore, standards aren't needed. It's up to the judgment of the admin granting rollback. If an admin made a mistake in giving someone rollback, the rollback can be taken away. Rollback is not a big deal at all: it's just a simple tool. Edit count is not important. Acalamari 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need standardized requirements for users that are requesting rollback?

message: *I have personally seen very few users abuse rollback, and the ones that have usually through talking with them correct their mistakes and we all move on. I have only seen one user had it removed, and think the best place to discuss removal of rollback is WP:ANI, just like how it is now. Tiptoety talk 01:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've personally removed it from 3 or 4 people, always with a post to AN/I for a review - there's never been any problems with it, and it gets sorted quickly and efficiently. The status quo is fine in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are sure they are abusing it, consider a warning, but then just take it away. If you are not sure then either let it be or seek the advice of your peers. (1 == 2)Until 01:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: If someone is misusing it, go ahead and take it away, and then discuss and/or warn.  This way, it ends up in the log.  If they ask for it back later, the misuse will be known.  If they can show they've learned better since then, give it back.  Friday (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, and if their use is questionable or borderline, it's certainly possible to bring up one's concerns without being accusatory or threatening. If it's clearly abusive, take it away. If it looks possibly necessary but you're not sure, just ask on ANI. Or, well, pretty much like we do it already. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Not sure if that is a good way to handle it, just like WP:BLOCK you should not block a user just to record past incidents in their log. Remove first, ask questions later? Tiptoety talk 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: If someone is misusing rollback, the best thing to do is discuss it with the user in question first. Then, if they persist in misuse, they can have it taken away from them. I see no need to go to AN/I unless it's an unclear case (which seems unlikely to happen). Acalamari 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would obviously depend on the situation and context. Administrators are chosen for their ability to use discretion, and when we disagree we defer to consensus. We also defer to consensus if we do agree. But we can act in absence of any consensus if we do so with sense and in line with policy. Sometimes you will warn/talk with the user first, other times you will revoke first, other times you will go for the advice of others, and other times you just do nothing. (1 == 2)Until 02:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but what constitutes "abuse"? I have seen many users interpret abuse of rollback differently. Tiptoety talk 03:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is a good place to start: Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When not to use the Rollback feature. Generally any revert that should have an edit summary, ie any revert of a good faith act, is not appropriate. (1 == 2)Until 04:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to need some expansion, like not in content disputes, ect... Tiptoety talk 04:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Because removing this is not nearly as serious as a block. A block takes away all editing privileges, this takes away one feature. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like any admin can grant rollback, they should be able to take it away just as easy (with good reason of course). Tiptoety talk 04:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, just like a block, the removal of rollback rights will be noted in the editor's permanent record. And, what is more, why not give people a chance to change their actions before you forcibly change them? Just because this is not as severe as a block doesn't mean that revocation of the privilege doesn't merit some sort of warning beforehand. (With the same caveat about extreme cases as before, of course.) Antelantalk 04:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying not warn them, but they should not get four of them. Tiptoety talk 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Four warnings before blocking? Impressive. Anyway, as a non-admin without rollback, I have "no dog in the fight". But when I saw suggestions of "revoke first, ask questions later" (mentioned up above), I felt compelled to respond. Antelantalk 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I totally agree with you, I just feel that it should be revoked pretty quickly if the user is abusing it (after a warning mind you). Tiptoety talk 04:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, I think we're on the same page after all. Antelantalk 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How should rollback be revoked?

message: I read with interest the title of this thread: Its that time. It is indeed. We set a deadline, from whence discussion would re-commence. Did we, however, suggest that such discussion need take place, regardless of the: 1/ demand for it; 2/ requirement for it? Discussion with a view to re-reviewing the RfR process is unnecessary, and I suggest we do not engage in it. The process is working fine, and in fact, I believe it is working great. There is no requirement for a discussion, and hence no requirement to upset the balance that has developed here.
I do not recall a rule of "we suggested a deadline after which discussion re-starts, herego said discussion must take place, lest hell consume us all". We needn't open this discussion—why, then, are we doing so? Anthøny 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there have been issues with it, such as the question of requirements for rollback, and how to revoke it. Along with users saying above that they have concerns they wish to address during this discussion. All this can do is build a stronger consensus on the whole deal, something that was questions from the get go. I see nothing but progress being made, and from the looks of it no one has an issue with the actual idea of rollback. Tiptoety talk 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If people want to discuss they will, if they do not they will not. We just need to observe what the consensus is at any given time. (1 == 2)Until 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: I was under the distinct impression that we had postponed discussion from the original proposal because of how agitated tempers on both sides were getting, and that when we re-convened, we could re-open the issue about whether this feature even has legitimacy, or ever had it, for that matter, at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Draft poll. Have we all forgotten about the six-day poll and the false report of consensus to the developers? GlassCobra 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 6 day poll? It was longer than that I can assure you. Is there a problem with the current system? I' d be pleased to hear your thoughts if there is, but going back to the original infghting isn't constructive and isn't going to help us now. Let's look for ways to move forward from this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't. I distinctly remember it being referred to disparagingly by Doc glasgow as the Christmas holiday coup d'etat, because of how quickly it was run and the awful timing, when many Wikipedians were gone on holiday. I think it would be best if everyone re-read the arbitration request (diff from Jan 19, just before request was archived) to freshen up on the opinions of both sides. GlassCobra 20:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The poll ran, all told, from 30 December to 8 January. That's nine days  rather than six, does not include Christmas or any day near it, and whatever way it was referred to disparagingly doesn't change basic arithmetic. Incidentally, other than New Year's Eve (and perhaps the subsequent day to recover from overindulgence), I can't think of any holidays in that period, and none that typically involve traveling. --Random832 (contribs) 14:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Having the running pitch battle we had when people genuinely believed there was the potential for massive problems is one thing, but starting a new, massive running pitch battle when it has been demonstrated the worst fears of most who were involved with the aforementioned pitch battle have not and will not be realised is completely unnecessary. If there is a genuine grievance or a good suggestion with which we can improve this process, then let's hear it, but discussion for discussion's sake is completely counter productive and any plan to try and force the removal of the rollback permission from Wikipedia will turn into a complete blood bath, with the potential to alienate the thousand or so Wikipedians who have been granted rollback to date. Let's not do that, please. Nick (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess I'm curious if GlassCobra (and others) would like discuss doing away with the feature, or discuss the 'consensus' that got it approved?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's a novel plan: How about we just allow anyone to voice their objections on this here talk page. If lots of people still object, we can hear what they're saying. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would absolutely be interested in discussing this; as I said, that's what I thought this discussion was intended for. The whole point of this was that we had drafted a rollback poll back in January (Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Draft poll), but it was closed for three months to let tempers cool down. Why have we not picked up from where we left off? GlassCobra 14:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so now that we have decided to have a discussion... does anybody have anything to say? (1 == 2)Until 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Polls are evil.  I agree with Until (1==2), let's just have a discussion instead. :-) If a poll is still necessary, we'll discover that fact soon enough. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think GlassCobra is saying that we have another poll, but instead determine what the consensus was of the previous poll we had (correct me if I am wrong GlassCobra). While I do not agree with it, I think that many feel that there was a whole lot of consensus gathering going on for a week or so, but not a whole lot of actually determining what the consensus was. And then, all the discussion and polls where stopped. I think GlassCobra is suggesting that we continue where we left off, and that appears to be determining a consensus on this whole deal. (Hope I did not put any words in your mount GlassCobra, feel free to correct me if I am wrong).  Tiptoety talk 04:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What on Earth would be the point of attempting to determine the outcome of a three month old poll? The granting of rollback has proceeded rather smoothly for all this time, I find it rather difficult to believe that the views expressed on that poll are still indicative of what the community feels. Whether or not there was consensus for rollback at the time of it's implementation is far less relevant than whether or not it has consensus here and now.--Dycedarg ж 04:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of "community discussion" 

message: Some people have brought up that certain standards are the admin's own preference. If one admin would grant rollback to someone, and another admin wouldn't, there should at least be a discussion. Since there doesn't seem to be any, it is left up to the admin. Thus, this page isn't all that necessary, all that's needed is the category (for the requests only, other things should be discussed, but the main part of this page and the controversy surrounding it is how the requests are handled). Forum shopping wouldn't be possible, as a thorough admin would notice in a user's contribs whether they've asked for it before. I don't know. I'm really tired, maybe I'm just ranting. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 03:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same can be said for protection requests, vandal reports, username violations and several other amin related areas. Those actions could be requested on the talk pages of admins, all of whom could simply place themselves in a category, but having a centralized place to submit those requests seems wise. All those requests are also accepted or rejected based on admin discretion, and rollback should be treated with the same approach. - auburnpilot talk 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but those decisions are generally made based on a policy that guides them. Tiptoety talk 03:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But not policies with strict standards, rigid numbers, or bare-minimum requirements. For all its content, the protection policy is pleasantly vague enough to allow discretion. I'd wouldn't mind seeing a similar approach, but I would be opposed to setting strict edit requirements, time limits, etc. - auburnpilot talk 03:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but there at least should be policy to fall back upon in difficult cases or when admins disagree on whether or not to grant a user rollback or not. Tiptoety talk 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Admins are unlikely to disagree on granting a rollback request if the first admin that sees it grants it -- who else is going to notice or care?  Admins are only likely to disagree on granting the request if it is refused the first time and the requestor either submits it immediately again or brings a gripe to AN or ANI or wherever.  And if the request shows up at ANI, I suspect it will be handled like most everything else there -- by discussion. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen cases on RFPP where one admin (semi-)protects a page, at the same time that an other admin declines the request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This page is a noticeboard for people to make on-topic requests for rollback. It allows interested users find interested admins. If the page serves no other purpose than that then that is enough. But I will say that I have seen discussion on this page about application, not all the time but when it is needed. (1 == 2)Until 04:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we even need this page? 

message: I just asked for and received rollback rights, and promptly goofed in my first use of rollback (didn't realise there is no chance to review changes before committing). I think there needs to be some information on this page to help a new holder of the rollback right to understand how the feature works. I'm WP:BOLDly adding a sentence to the article. Please feel free to improve it. --Jdlh  | Talk 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Admin School RollBack Section is the best place. I try to advise editors of its existence when granting rollback. Pedro :  Chat   20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that the page could use a little re-wording/addition on how to use to tool since we commonly give it out without knowing if the user knows how to use it. Maybe just expalain exactly how to revert, the fact that it does not add pages to your watchlist, and that it does not warn users. Also, I know that when I first started using rollback, and was going through a users contribs and decided to rollback I would click the "rollback" tab next to there edit thinking it would like me to a diff of their edit, but that is not the case. Maybe there would be a way to explain that you must manually click "diff" before reverting. Tiptoety talk 03:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training editors with rollback rights 

message: Though it is pretty much late to report it now but still I thought to go on. User:UzEE reverted my edits here using Rollback(during an edit war, whereas my edits were not vandalism. Can an Admin please have a look at it? --SMS  Talk 21:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 1.5 months ago.... MaxSem(Han shot first!) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, but still a violation is a violation, whenever it was done. --SMS  Talk 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A violation that old will be ignored, however. We will now AGF and assume that UzEE has learned from his/her mistake. —Kurykh 22:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok! --SMS  Talk 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can an Admin review this user's Rollback right? 

message: Due to a recent revocation of rollback, and some associated discussion on my talk page permanent link I have to say that the recommendation to read Wikipedia:Rollback feature is not overly obvious. I'd quite like to put the following at the top of the page;
                     	
Before using Rollback	Before using Rollback
It is strongly recommended that editors with Rollback read Wikipedia:Rollback feature before using the tool. Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed.	
It is strongly recommended that editors with Rollback read Wikipedia:Rollback feature before using the tool. Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed.
Thoughts or objections welcome. Pedro :  Chat   10:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. There is no value in having the above banner if the guide it directs to is inaccurate. Pedro :  Chat   09:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Not sure why we really need to discuss this change, all it is is a summary of what the whole page already says, just in a easier more precises way. Just apply WP:BOLD and add it to the page. Tiptoety talk 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally prefer at least some discussion before WP:BOLD edits! However I agree, this is getting nowhere so I've done it. I'll look to change the actuall Wikipedia:Rollback feature page to make it clearer as well. Pedro :  Chat   21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BOLD and discussion above, I made some changes to try to make it clearer when the tool is allowed to be used. - Neparis (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This should do. Pretty clear, obvious and unambiguous. Nice work. Thank you all, people. I wish this has been done earlier. It would have saved me some heartburn. Well... better late than never. Cheers. This community never ceases to amaze me. Wikipedia works, and against every impossible odds. Err... looks like I'm getting all sentimental. Cheers anyways. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header changes 

message: From the top of the page:
:"User scripts have been written that mimic the functionality of rollback, but they merely hide details from the user, and are much less efficient, both in terms of bandwidth and time."
What does it mean when it says they "merely hide details from the user". What details, and why "merely"? Ashton1983 (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User scripts like Twinkle operate by using 'undo' to quickly revert edits. It's made so users aren't hassled by having to manually undo edits each time, instead an automated way of doing it is employed making the process quicker and more efficient. It hides the 'undo' details (as in, everything that goes on when you manually press 'undo') and 'merely' because it isn't an actual rollback in the technical sense since rollback is much more efficient because of its using the database directly instead of merely editing the page. -- Mentisock 11:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Thank you for the explanation. Ashton1983 (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merely hide details?