Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Rationale

My reasoning behind creating this proposal is principally due to the following:

• Useful for those who do not wish to be nominated on WP:RFA, either because they do not desire admin powers or because they would not be confident with them.
• More people being able to quickly deal with vandalism is by no means a bad thing.
• It devolves power to the community (see DevolvePower).

I accept that some might say that is an unnecessary addition to Wikipedia, duplicating requests for adminship, but I believe that people who want to contribute to Wikipedia but do not wish to become full-fledged admins will benefit from the times when rollback can be used. I welcome discussion on this proposal. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)

I support this excellent idea.

I am not currently interested in becoming an admin, but I see where this feature would be useful by itself, and if I were given access to it, I would probably do a little more counter-vandalism work. (And every little bit helps!) Unfocused 29 June 2005 04:36 (UTC)

Revocation

This is a good idea; I've heard it said that adminship is akin to being given a mop, bucket—and shotgun. There's certainly no reason why responsible editors shouldn't be given the mop.

On the other hand, the bar is set pretty low here. Perhaps there ought to be some mechanism for withdrawal of the rollback privilege if it gets misused. Certainly allow for a couple of warnings–this tool isn't as potentially harmful as the rest of the admin toolbox–but there ought to be some way to undo a mistake. If I remember correctly, a blocked admin is still able to use the rollback feature (unless this has been fixed..?) so someone who uses rollback in an edit war can't be stopped without bureaucrat or developer intervention.

At the same time, the people who object to a rollbacker are most likely to be vandals. Obviously we'll need to be careful in how the privilege is withdrawn, too. Any thoughts on the best way to handle this? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 30 June 2005 22:22 (UTC)

You raise a good point and one which I have been considering for a while. I think I am right in saying that in fact only stewards can revoke privileges. One thing's for certain - if we are going to be more liberal in the way the various admin powers are handed out (which I hope we will do), we also need to ensure that there is a clear system to remove them promptly if it turns out that giving them was a mistake. Regarding the blocked admin being able to rollback, that definitely sounds like a bug rather than intentional design.

I believe it has been suggested in the past that bureaucrats should be given the ability to revoke permissions also - bureaucrats are trusted Wikipedians and should be given the discretion to deal with situations like this. An alert page for people misusing the rollback function, maybe something along the lines of the 3RR page, could be done. A user could report someone using the rollback function for something other than vandalism, providing diffs, and a bureaucrat could remove the privilege. The 3RR system is quite vandal-proof as it is, an emulation of this could work quite well. Thanks for your comments! Talrias (t | e | c) 30 June 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Is this feasible?

Is it technically possible at this time for a user to be granted rollback ability without the rest of the normal admin functions? Maurreen 1 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)

Yes. It's a MediaWiki 1.5 feature. There's a page on meta about this but I can't find it. Eric119 1 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)

See m:MediaWiki feature list#Permissions (the bottom bullet point). Talrias (t | e | c) 1 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)

It is possible, but not currently enabled on Wikipedia. Even stewards can only set rights to be sysop, bureaucrat, steward, bot, checkuser, or boardvote. There's no option for "rollback" and no one with "userrights" access who can add that option. See also meta:Help:User rights, Wikipedia:User access levels (and its talk page). Angela. 20:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

See #Rollback group added for an update - this is now possible. Angela. 21:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Per TimStarling's comment below, this was switched off, and as far as I know, is not working right now. ral315 06:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Raising the bar

I think the proposal to require just five support votes is a little too easy. Instead, I'd like to suggest:

• Accept both support and oppose votes.
• Require five net support votes after three days. Maurreen 1 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

I agree that five support votes in an of itself is too low of a bar. It is easy to imagine a group of POV editors banding together to obtain the needed five votes. Instead a system similar to that used by WP:RFA should be used, with voters encouraged to use a more lenient standard than that used while voting for administrators. --Allen3 ^talk 17:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think that since for the most part people won't need this for an emergency we should due a vfd style setup accepting accept votes, oppose votes, and neutral votes as well as comments and have requests open for anywhere from a couple days to a full week depending on what timeframe seems to work the best. Jtkiefer 20:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a major need for this, but I also don't see it as a big problem, and it could have some benefits. In general I think we should make this priviledge both quicker and easier to give and to revoke. I would also say the bar for deciding consensus on giving this out should be slightly higher, such as the proposed 5 net support votes of users with over 100 contributions and say a month on the project. At the same time, I agree the standard for giving this out should be pretty low, such as one month and 500 productive edits of any kind. I'd say this with a caveat: that any bureaucrat (only stewards and developers can revoke admin status currently) could revoke this priviledge easily, such as at the second obvious misuse of the priviledge. With that restriction to reduce the likelihood of abuses, it guess it would be nice to have another say one or two thousand editors that could use this tool responsibly. That would make the overall average time to revert vandalism go down I would think. Another side benefit is that this could even make it easier to identify people that should or should not be given admin priviledges. The downside with this whole proposal is that it takes time to evaluate the candidates (could be a lot, especially if we want a lot of users to have this priviledge), someone to administer the process, and takes time away from other productive editing. - Taxman ^Talk 16:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

A 3-month bar has been added to the project page. This seems a bit lengthy to me, as a good editor can generally be sorted out in a month of consistent activity. I support Taxman's 1 month and 500 edits bar.  BD2412 ^talk 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary.

This page introduces yet another level of complication into the hierarchy which so many users have complained is already too stratified; moreover, I would not trust anyone with the rollback feature who I would not also trust with deletion, protection, and the other admin abilities (which are, incidentally, indispensible in vandal-hunting). I am unconvinced of the necessity of this page, and am of the opinion that no additional policy or bureaucracy should be introduced unless strictly necessary. — Dan | Talk 17:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A fair point - my reply is that this is not an issue of trust, but an issue of what the user wants. If someone doesn't want access to the deletion tools, the protection tools, and generally isn't interested in active janitor work, there isn't any reason to give them the tools to do so. On the other hand, encountering vandalism can be done actively (on recent changes), or passively - simply by browsing through articles. Rollback would allow them to quickly remove any vandalistic changes, and get on with editing which they would prefer to be doing. Time spent doing slow and manual reverting is time that could be spent writing articles, time which could be better spent by giving them a rollback tool. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Being an admin means that one can - and should - to quite a bit more than vandalism patrol, like blocking users and protecting pages and stuff. Many people just don't want to do that, but that is, IMO, no reason not to make stuff like RC patrol easier for them. I am an admin on de: (although I left there), and the one thing I miss is the rollback button. I used to use the JS replacement, but this one hasn't worked for days - not to mention that I have to switch browsers when I want to use it. I actually like doing RC patrol, but I don't really want all the rest of the responsibilty back. Nevertheless, I have considered many times to run as an admin, simply to enable myself again to do decent RC patrol. I very much support this proposal for exactly that reason - I want rollback and nothing else. (OK, being able to see deleted pages is also nice, but not really such a big thing.)

Rollback also differs from all the other admin powers in one important respect: Everybody can undo a rollback, while no non-admins can undo a block or a protection or a deletion. So yes, that would be an additional layer - but a very usefull one, IMO. Because, that much is obvious: If only admins are able to do decent RC patrol, as they are now, then much BS gets through, despite the rather large number of admins we already have. Why not let trusted users share that workload? -- AlexR 16:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

As has been shown by a number of recent RFAs, adminship can also be active or passive. Several candidates have passed despite stating explicitly their "laziness" and intention to use admin powers only occasionally. If a trustworthy person wants to be able to roll back vandalism, there's no reason not to give him blocking and deletion rights as well. Again, this process does not provide enough benefit to justify the additional complication and hierarchy, both of which should be avoided like the plague. (Sorry to take so long in replying - I tend to leave comments and forget about them. :-)) — Dan | Talk 15:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrongheaded approach

We should grant all 'powers' to all editors as much as we are permitted by the risk of damage to our infrastructure. Because rollback has little long term risk and can even be implemented by the users browser without the grant, we should be very liberal in granting this feature. It would be desirable to grant it to all users with >100 edits, like move, and to revoke it from anyone who habitually uses it to revoke non-obvious-vandalism without comment including admins. Gmaxwell 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, however I suggest that the rules be something like this, If a user has over 300 article edits then he automatically gets the rollback feature, however to prevent abuse any admin can temporally disable it for a 24 hour period or something like that. --Eliezer 05:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

yep, i used to do tons of vandal hunting under my old name, Wolfman. but it was just enough of a pain without rollback that i gave it up. never wanted to be an admin, but rollback sure would be nice. it only saves a few seconds, but that's exactly why it's a convenience & not a danger. Derex 20:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Two comments

First, how is adding 'Hi James!' to the bottom of an encyclopedia article not vandalism? Admittedly it's very minor vandalism, but it's clearly adding nonsense.

Maybe it was a bad example; I was trying to think of something which fitted into the "newbie test" definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. I'll change it to something better. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Second, I'd say the sufferance policy for voting needs to be a little stricter. To keep sockpuppets out, I'd prefer something like a minimum number of edits (e.g. 250) by the time the vote starts. Also, it seems rather easy to get five people to support most anything, so I'd prefer if the number of supporters required was increased. (I'd think about allowing only existing rollbackers, including admins, to vote, but I can see that getting far too TINC'ish). Radiant_>|< 21:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a fair idea - it does say that the person's first edit must have been 1 month before they vote, to stop people signing up to vote support, but you have a fair comment. I'm more interested in seeing if people think it's a good idea to have this, rather than the exact precise details of who is or isn't allowed to vote. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

also, add confirmation of rollbacks

The current system takes getting used to; it's confusing when you rollback a page not to get confirmation of any kind. You can accidentally hit the loink when looking at a history page or watchlist... so this should be fixed before adding anotehr few hundred users of the tool. +sj +

Erm—being very quick is the whole point of the rollback button. Adding a confirmation screen would soak up time and bandwidth from people who are fighting vandals.

I haven't tested this, but is it possible to just rollback the rollback with a second click? If not, you can just revert the rollback the old-fashioned way, should you accidentally use it. I would hope that you're not accidentally clicking it that often. :-)

Now for a question out of left field—is it possible to move the rollback button using a skin? That might solve the problem for any inadvertent rollbackers.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - I first discovered this immediately after the 1.5 upgrades when edit conflicts didn't happen. It works just as you think it would - reverting edits by you to the previous person. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Too much effort, too little gain

I don't think this proposal is a particularly good idea for the simple reason that it is yet another policy page (with voting!) that needs to be dealt with. We need to watch the bureaucracy and this is definetly not worth the effort. I also don't like the implications of possible abuse, creating yet more hierarchy to the community, etc, etc.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Consider it another feature, that besides for making edits, if a vandal vandalizes a page, one can also easily revert it. --Eliezer 12:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I too have doubts over more bureaucracy. Since a software change is going to have to happen anyway, by the looks of it (to remove unblockability of rollback), it would be better to go down the road of automated software bestowal. For instance users with X edits (100?) get initial access, but restricted in some way (no more than 3 per page per 24h? no more than 25 per 24h?), with restrictions gradually removed, automatically, as their edit count increases (all restrictions gone by Y edits, perhaps 1000). Any abuses under such a system should be limited enough to be dealt with through normal procedures. Remember: voting is evil. Rd232 ^talk 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is this necessary?

Why do I need permission to do something I can do without permission? --Alterego 17:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

You don't; this is a proposal to give it out to people who choose not to use the javascript feature, for various reasons (such as they are wary about using javascript from a 3rd party script; they have javascript disabled). Talrias (t | e | c) 18:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

They don't have to use it in a third party script - they can just copy the entire thing in from Sam's website to /monobook.js. If they have javascript disabled then they realize they have restricted themself from experiencing the Internet already. --Alterego 18:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It's still a third party script (as it wasn't made by the person using it or by Wikipedia). Another reason is that, as it can be emulated using a script, why not just give out the permission so they don't have to emulate it with a script? Talrias (t | e | c) 18:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a mistake in thinking here - people don't need permission to use this script. If it is integrated into the software then it is a feature everyone sees. It's absurd to give someone permission to do something they don't need permission to do. --Alterego 18:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I mean the software permission. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Because this will get more publicity, and more vandal fighters can only be a good thing. I only found the script while randomly browsing, thought "That's cool!", came back the next day to install it and couldn't remember how I got to it. It isn't linked to on Wikipedia:Tools, or in fact anywhere in the Wikipedia namespace that I can find, and I guess that is with good reason as it is so open to abuse. A proper system for granting (and possibly more importantly revoking) this ability would be much better. the wub "?/!" 08:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

For those who are curious where the script can be found, the original is available as godmode-light.js at sam.zoy.org/wikipedia. Modifications and further info will likely be found around WP:US. ∴ here…♠ 06:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Low Bandwidth User Interest

I know that many people have broadband connections. But don't forget, there are still many living on 56K bps or slower (as in my case [26k]). My [in]abilities as an author to articles, limit my effective rolls here on WP. I have tried many things, but I enjoy vandal hunting (and copyediting [1]) best.

Due to limited bandwidth, the current steps require loading:

1. Diff page (plus content)
2. Content page
3. Edit page
4. (send) Edit page ...and pray it transfers ok.
5. Content page

Example (20K article):

1. Diff + Content = 40K
2. 40K + Content = 60K
3. 60K + EditPage = 80K
4. 80K + Sending = 100K
5. 100K + Content = 120K

While an article of a standard length, can make the process very time consuming to the point, that I've NOT reverted vandalization (obvious or not) that I have seen. With a [ROLLBACK], it's narrowed down to just the diff page (in the example, a total of 60K [Diff & Content (rollback) Content]).

I have found tools made available (such as CDVF and GodMode), but none successfully lower the amount of time/data transfered, particularly during a rollback. A [ROLLBACK] feature (already implemented, yet not made enabled on WP) would be a great tool and would increase my personal efficiency. …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 18:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with this, I'm using god-mode-lite currently as well. Even on my broadband connection it can be fairly slow and often unreliable. Also I guess it must put more strain on the server. the wub "?/!" 08:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, this is one of the most sensible arguments I've heard. So I've finally decided to support. Drini (added by Guy M per hist)

Another option

I'm in favor of enabling rollback for more users. An option to consider other than this "requests for rollback" page might be to simply have existing admins sponsor users who want rollback. And if any admin sees a user abusing rollback, they can suggest that it be removed. Of course, this is all dependent on changing the user rights system to allow rollback to be granted individually, etc. kmccoy (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You'd have to seperate the userrights thing to who can grant what. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 17:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

This is possible at the current time. There are no technical reasons why this cannot be implemented. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like a very easy way to implement giving rollback to people this without creating beaurocracy. If a user has gained the trust of an admin, there is little risk of abuse. If any admin can revoke the rollback, than abuse can be stopped. -- Samuel Wantman 23:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This too would be better than voting. Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Rollback group added

Tim Starling has now added the "rollback" group to all Wikimedia wikis. I don't see a way for bureaucrats to assign this right, but stewards can. However, there are currently no policies for when stewards can assign this, so there's no guarantee they will do so. Angela. 21:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Switched off again. People weren't actually meant to find out about that. It's not useful without a specialised user interface. -- Tim Starling 21:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nice, but...

but doesn't seem likely to happen soon. Since it requires a software upgrade, please discuss on bugzilla or contact the developers. Radiant_>|< 13:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't require a software upgrade. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no; refer to Tim Starling's comments above. While the 'rollback' flag exists, there isn't any interface set up to change it. My impression–and please, correct me if I am mistaken–is that only stewards have access to it at the moment because it requires direct manipulation of the database to modify. Allowing bureaucrats to set the rollback ability would require modifications to their interface, which (I think?) requires developer intervention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Radiant—this proposal is and will remain dormant until the developers can be persuaded its implementation is a priority. The last comments on this Talk page were made more than a month ago, and there haven't been any substantial edits to the proposal for about that length of time either. Talrias, it's a fair idea and worth bringing up on Bugzilla, but there isn't going to be further progress here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect - the developers will enable the feature when there is community support for it, not the other way around. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Stewards don't have database access. See also mediazilla:3317. Angela. 23:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

A refinement

This appears to be sound and well thought out. I do have some concerns with use of sockpuppets to obtain this privilage, so perhaps it should be five users already possessing this power or something like that.

Alternatively, the use of this rollback could be restricted to IP edits only (as this is the source of almost all vandalism) and so could be provided to all registered users. It thus becomes a privilege of registration and a useful motivator for users to both register if (unregistered) and if registered, to log in.

When using this tool the user should be able to select from a menu of reasons for the rollback, with pre-canned text (similar to test1, test2, etc.) or to enter into a text box. The status of the IP could also be presented (e.g. this is an AOL account with dynamic assignment but the user remains logged in at this time, or similar). For such accounts an instant message- like system would be useful - the IP would get the message but it would not be saved as an IP history, to be seen by subsequent users of that IP.

Since the rollback of registered user edits should require explanation and justification, this may be done through either the normal rollback or (much to be preferred) an overedit, where the critical editor will rephrase to ensure NPOV, accuracy, grammer, spelling or similar. I have seen far to many useful (but badly phrased) concepts reverted completely, rather than thought about and re-written.

At the time an edit is initiated, the system could recognize that an IP is being used, determine if it a fixed IP has been used before. If not, a brief welcome could be presented simply stating that this is a public resource and that inappropriate edits my be considered vandalism, which is highly discouraged, and suggest that the user register. I will be working on a more detailed logic flow of this process and will present it here.

Thanks, Leonard G. Leonard G. 14:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• An addendum to my comment

It has ben suggested that the rollback tool would be too useful in edit wars - so perhaps its use should be restricted to use against IP edits. Also note: If an IP edit is rolled back it should be rolled through all contiguous edits by that IP. I have seen linkspam IP edited in by masking it in the middle of a series of valid edits. When an editor casually checks only the last edit (via diff on the watchlist, nothing bad is seen - I always check edits via history. Actually, the watchlist diff could be greatly improved if it showed not one edit but rather all contiguous IP edits.

All this is rather academic for myself - I have given up chasing vandals and have taken up a longer term method - simply round robin check all edits en block since my previous edit for those articles that are on my personal list articles named in my user page). Watch list? - no see, no stress.

Favorite quotes:

"Don't worry - be happy." - Meher Baba

"What, me worry?"" - Alfred E. Newman

Limited rollback?

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

While this a technical question if such a rollback were available it would encourage the savvy vandals to sign into an account. Would this be a good thing? While many labour under the illusion that you edit anonymously by not signing into an account actually that is completely wrong and anonymity is only achieved by signing in. A signed in vandal means the admins cannot detect where an IP is coming from, that masy have drawbacks in the way blocking happens. Just a thought, I am not opposed to said suggestion but we would need to analyse all the advantages/drawbacks, SqueakBox 17:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• My thinking is that your typical anon vandal does not know this (and anyway would not know that signing up would make them somewhat roll-back proof). Besides, I already see vandals getting rolled back by current admins all the time, and I don't know that this has driven them to sign up. And a serious vandal (like a He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named-on-Wheels) will know to get an account for anonymity even if regular uses can only roll back his vandalism the old-fashioned way.  BD2412 ^talk 00:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

When did this page become active?

Umm... am I missing something here, but when did this page become active? Squeakbox just nominated himself, but IMHO, I think it is unwise to start using this page without any clear consensus, given the amount of opposition and discussion, and the fact that this is still a proposed policy without any signs of becoming policy. Many thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought the idea was no trolls opposing, just yes votes, but it is clear that it would be identical to the admin process, begging the question, well why isn't this person an admin, SqueakBox 00:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

My apologies if I sounded harsh; I certainly didn't mean to. What I was saying is that I think it is a bad idea for this to be used when it has not been accepted yet, and the whole idea has neither reached consensus nor policy yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

A couple of concerns about the proposed policy

First, there is the statement that rollback should be used strictly for vandalism. This isn't actually our current policy on administrator use of the rollback tool—we merely expect admins to exercise good judgement, and to be aware that they may be called upon to explain their reverts if such reverts are not obviously reasonable. (An admin who abuses reversion may face sanctions imposed by the ArbCom, or by an annoyed community.) Is it the intent of this policy to restrict the use of the revert tool by non-admins, to try to rewrite policy on the use of the revert tool by everyone, or was this just an oversight?

The interpretation of what the rollback tool should be used for should be in line with Wikipedia policy on admins using the rollback tool. I apologise for the oversight - I wrote that it should only be used for vandalism as how I had been using it when I drafted the proposal. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Second, we have the statement,

While access to the rollback feature will be given out liberally to Wikipedians who request it, misusing the rollback feature may result in the permission being revoked.

There isn't yet any suggested framework for withdrawing rollback permission, and the proposal as written explicitly forbids opposing any candidate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally believe we can follow the same policy on removing rollback as removing adminship (in other words, we don't need a new procedure). Talrias (t | e | c) 21:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The current procedure for de-adminship seems to be to go through ArbCom...which, with the current backlog, can take a couple of months. If you're going to set the bar so low to give out this privilege–candidates cannot be opposed–it seems that there is a certain asymmetry to your proposed revocation procedure. Also, you might ask the ArbCom if they really want to deal with the added caseload.

Incidentally, editors can still use rollback while blocked. In other words, if an editor with rollback permission is engaged in an edit war, the only way to stop them is to find a steward to clear their rollback flag. I'm not sure if I want to be handing that privilege out so easily. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You are allowed to oppose (of course), this was a bit unclear - I've clarified. In my opinion, the ability to use the majority of admin powers while blocked is probably a bad idea; I think this should be changed. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No opposition?

Squeakbox has added a claim that oppose votes will not be accepted. This seems like a bad idea to me, just because five of all wikipedians think you should have rollback doesn't mean you should. That seems like a rather bad idea to me. How do others feel about this? --fvw* 04:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

All it takes is a cabal of vandals/POV pushers to agree to support each other with no oppose option (I'm not saying that Squeakbox and those that supported him fall into this camp however).--ElvisThePrince 10:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Err... am I missing something here, or I am correct that this is a proposed policy that has not reached consensus yet? I have serious doubts that this proposal will ever become active or reach consensus. Is there any plan to attempt to make this page policy anytime soon? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 15:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is a proposed policy. What doubts do you have about the proposal? The procedure will become policy when there is approval from the community that the proposal is a good idea, and there is not significant opposition to it (same with any proposal). Talrias (t | e | c) 17:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If you allow no votes how does this differ from a normal Rfa? To my mind in nothing differs, in which case it is pointless. I think more than a cabal of vandals this procedure is vulnerable to sockpuppets, but my question does need answering if we are to move forward, SqueakBox 15:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It differs from RFA because the end result is getting just the rollback privilege, rather than the ability to block, protect, etc.. Why does it need to have a different procedure? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Finished?

When is this brilliant idea going to be open? FireFox 16:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

We have to get some sort of community consensus before we can start it. Plus, it would be good to hear from a developer, once and for all, if this is even feasable. Should we perhaps start a poll below to gauge consensus? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. FireFox 19:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is feasible, the permission group to grant people just rollback is easily created. I am working on adapting the Makesysop special page bureaucrats have in order to make it possible for them to grant rollback in a similar manner. What this proposal needs is support (which I believe it has, it's just not visible enough). Talrias (t | e | c) 19:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Talrias, the proposal doesn't seem to have broad support yet—it's just been mostly ignored for a while, and a lot of editors and admins have been suspecting it just went away. There hasn't been any attempt to answer the concerns I list a couple of sections further up, so I definitely can't support this proposal right now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The concern I see you have raised but we haven't really discussed here is how to remove the privilege if someone is abusing it. Apart from this, do you have any opposition? I think this is important so I will start a discussion in another section. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Oppose. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Rollback button. If a rollback button is already freely available there is no point to the proposal, but it is easy to see how if this proposal became policy we could end up with people demanding that one has to go through a popularity contest in order to get what is know available to anyone who knows or can find the relevanty webpage, something I would strongly oppose. So to me this proposal could, while having been well meaning, make rollback more difficult rather than easier to obtain, SqueakBox 20:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Though I do not know how useful this process will be, I support its creation. Andre (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A few things to clear up before a poll

• This would not give somebody something they already couldn't do if they wanted to. It just shortens a process people already have the power to do.
• This wouldn't create a new caste in the "Hierarchy of Wikipedia". We won't have a list of people with rollback access. It's just something nice to have.
• Some people want the rollback feature, but do not want the additional responsibilities that come with being an Admin.
• This feature would only be granted to trusted users.
• This feature can be taken away if the person abuses it.
• Many people shy away from RC Patrol because it takes too long to revert vandalism. The good outweighs the bad.
• if adminship is truly "No big deal", this shouldn't even be a discussion. It should be generally available to those who want it.

However a couple of questions remain.

1. Should there be minimum requirements to meet before it could be granted?
2. What is the process of revocation?
3. Should we allow "oppose" votes?

There may be a few more, but I can't think of them now. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Revocation proposal

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

I like - see my expanded views below. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 20:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with abuse

What I would like to see here is a brisk and simple pathway set up for revoking these permissions if deemed necessary. As obtaining this power will apparently involve less scrutiny than obtaining adminship, I think it's only fair and reasonable that the power is revoked without further question if it's felt that the ability to roll back is being abused.

Remember that rollback is a powerful revert; it removes all of a particular user/IP's last contributions to an article, and in the hands of a careless vandal fighter who doesn't bother to check what he's doing (and we have those), it could be a disaster.

Personally, I don't like the red tape associated with dealing with people who mess about, so here's the "deal" I propose. We grant these vandal fighters this power, on the understanding that they've no more power than anyone else, and on the understanding that they'll only use it to revert vandalism. If they abuse it twice, they lose it; and they don't get it back. Why twice? Well, it's only fair to give a warning, especially if the first time was an accident - I don't think there's a single admin who hasn't messed up, and sheepishly rolled themselves back.

Thoughts on this, anyone? Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added a section on how the privilege may be revoked (basically, it is at a bureaucrat's discretion whether or not to remove it). I don't think it is necessary to say that someone is not allowed to reapply a third time - hopefully the community is self-regulating enough not to hand out the car keys a third time after the car has been crashed twice! Talrias (t | e | c) 21:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstood, I think, what I meant there. The reference to "abus[ing] it twice" means, as follows:

If a user is given the rollback privilege, and misuses it once, they get warned by a bureaucrat or other user, and must immediately correct themselves. Any future violations within a set time, say a month, leads to them losing the privilege. The reference to "not get[ting] it back" was me indicating a preference that, once a user abuses the power, so they have demonstrated they can't use it. However, I'm open to the idea that users can learn from their mistakes, and so can re-apply. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 21:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Easy come, easy go

This should be a very easy permission to get. Ask and you get it. It really isn't a powerful enough feature to need to revoke, but if someone is being silly then anyone can go to a steward and ask for rollback to be revoked (this wouldn't apply to admins who have rollback as part of the package). Regular edit warriors should definitely lose the power. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I just don't see the need to wait for five editors to support. This seems unnecessarily onerous to me, for something that can be useful for just about all editors. The more editors have it, the better, and the greater will be the social cost of having it revoked. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I'd note that we'd need to fix the loophole that lets editors rollback while they're blocked. Liberally handing out an unblockable rollback privilege could have...unpleasant...consequences.

Also, has anyone asked the bureaucrats if they want the added responsibility and workload associated with managing–and revoking!–another user privilege? How does the community feel about creating more bureaucrats to deal with that load? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

I wholeheartedly support this idea

I do think that a method of gaining rollback without necessarily conforming to the standards set by RfA would be a really neat idea. To be honest, one of the things which really galled me as a non-admin was the inability to automatically rollback (well, I mean, there was Sam's script, but that was too slow for my liking). Besides, the latitude for abuse on rollback is more or less nil, and after all perhaps the gradual allocation of privileges might prove a better test of someone's suitability for full adminship later on. This is sort of the beginning of what I initially proposed on the RfA talk page about incremental adminship - although, I think I somewhat ill-timed my musings since they were slap bang in the middle of the whole GordonWatts debacle. If I did have a suggestion, though, I might possibly say that the 5 users is a bit unnecessary considering the latitude for abuse is comparatively low; that said, in addition, some criterion on not having made any vandalism-related edits from the account being given privileges might be worthwhile (since it would be possible to really annoy the hell out of admins by rapidly reverting vandalism removal). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 23:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I support this as well --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 14:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

but maybe just a button to revert

"...but maybe just a button to revert..."

Read what I wrote above. Reverting and rolling back are not quite the same. What do you mean by "just a button to revert" - I don't understand what you're on about. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 03:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I fully support this. Shall we send it to the polls? --Blackcap | talk 06:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record, but there are several issues that are still on the table before it is ready to go to a vote. Lord Voldemort and I–among others–have listed some of them in various sections above. To wit, we shouldn't be trying to vote on this until...

1. The conditions under which this power are granted are clear—there are several proposals above, including
   • After a certain period of time/number of edits, perhaps at the same time page move ability is granted
   • Following a vote on a special page (with or without oppose votes, with various thresholds suggested)
   • Upon request to a bureaucrat (with various minimum standard thresholds, or not)
2. The conditions under which this power can be revoked are clear.
   • Request for withdrawal by bureaucrat/admin (note that this will lead to accusations of 'abuse' and flame wars on WP:AN/I.)
   • Request for withdrawal by certain number of editors
   • ...?
3. We have some opinion from the bureaucrats
   • Are they prepared to take on what looks like might be quite a bit of extra work for these promotions (particularly for the schemes involving voting)?
   • Will we need additional bureaucrats to handle the work?
4. The ability to remove the rollback privilege right now is only held by stewards and developers, not bureaucrats. Removing the privilege may take significant time. Should the power to remove rollback be extended to bureaucrats? (Is this technically possible?)
5. Editors can use the rollback button while they are blocked. Do we want to extend this unblockable revert power (remember, right now only stewards and developers can pull the privilege) to a large population of editors? Would it be more appropriate to wait for this loophole in MediaWiki to be fixed?

Food for thought. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to respond to some of those questions with some thoughts of my own when I saw that you had made this comment. It's not being a broken record, it's very important. Rushing into things without proper discussion is a recipe for disaster.

I think the system as I have proposed (and just updated) is workable, basically someone who wishes to have the rollback ability applies for it on a special page, after 4 days if there is consensus (and at least 5 support votes), the person gets rollback. A bureaucrat can at his/her discretion remove the rollback ability for any user. The standards to become a bureaucrat are high and there's only a few of them, so I believe we can trust the ones we have to make appropriate decisions on this matter. I've spoken to a few bureaucrats and they are willing to do the necessary stuff required by this page. I think the benefit this will bring to Wikipedia will be well worth the payoff of extra time spent by Wikipedians voting and managing this page.

In regards to software changes, I agree that the loophole of being able to rollback while blocked should be fixed before this goes ahead to allow an admin to block someone who slipped through the voting net and was abusing rollback. Bureaucrats will be able to remove the rollback ability, and this will be possible when the interface to manage this is completed. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I had forgotten about rollback being unblockable; that needs to first be remedied. There's some opposition to removing these sort of loopholes (such as being able to unblock yourself if you're an admin, or this rollback one) largely due to admins testing blocks on themselves and other such things, as I understand it, and the rogue admin problem isn't very high. Even if that wasn't a problem, then it would certainly take a while before the developers could get around to this, so I suppose it'll be some time before we can implement this feature.

An alternative to changing the software would be to have this feature go through the same process that an RfA goes through (seven days, 80% support). It would be less demanding than an RfA, and if you pass, you'd get rollback. I think this would work fine. It's no more work for the B-crats, and it would mean that abuse would be less likely. --Blackcap | talk 16:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

See bugzilla:3801. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's been requested that bureaucrats comment here, so here goes. I still oppose this process for the same reasons as I have stated above (it's an unnecessary complication), but if it gains consensus in its favor I will do promotions as required. If we lack bureaucrats, more people will request bureaucratship. — Dan | Talk 15:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

A couple of things

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

I support the idea

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

OPPOSE RFR

I think RFR is adds more bereaucracy to Wikipedia. I propose a more radical idea, that ALL registered users get the rollback button. After all, we already have the move button which is far more destructive, and we can rollback anyway using the history button. So keeping autorollback is just a hassle. Borisblue 14:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that giving all logged in users access to rollback would encourage revert wars. Yes, this would add bureaucracy - but it would also increase the number of people who would help with removing vandalism promptly. I believe that in the long run that this proposal will lead to a better quality encyclopedia. The cost of some minor extra bureaucracy is well worth that. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, in addition to Talrias' comment, rollback is unblockable, which is a problem if we give it to everyone. Blackcap | talk 21:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

See bugzilla:3801 - this has been reported to the MediaWiki developers. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, I've heard. I was just commenting that, as of now, that's still a problem. Blackcap | talk 21:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone useing the rollback button in a revert war is makeing a mistake and will be neutrilised by the 3 revert rule in short order.Geni 05:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

There has been a proposal for a while to allow editors to request rollback privileges, as a step 'in between' admins and regular users. The discussion has died down but it seems that most people consider it a good idea. The main issue is that no interface exists for enabling rollback privs, so we must either ask a database user to enable the prevs, or ask a dev to create such an interface. So what would be the best course of action,

1. Open up requests for rollback (either here or at WP:RFR) and ask a database user to grant them;
2. Post a feature request and not do anything until it's implemented
3. Consider the proposal impractical and forget about it

Radiant_>|< 23:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Two looks like the best course of action to me, although I do think there is a rollback user status coded, I remember it was enabled at one time, but it is currently disabled. Once we know we can technically make users rollback only, then we should start with RFRs (which I fully support). -Greg Asche (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Since we are fairly liberally creating admins - is there a great need for this? Is it not just annother set of polls to distract us from article work into process? Are there many people we'd trust with rollback but not with other tools? And would rollback be awarded significanly earlier than adminship? Would the few extra roll-backers make much difference? It seems to me most obvious vandalism is reverted pretty quickly. In any case some non-admins have rollback already (I think monobook alterations can give it). I suspect folk want rollback - as without it admins beat them to revert - well, so what, as long as it is reverted? --Doc (?) 23:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

A quick glance at the talk page makes clear that this proposal lacks consensus. Even if the technical ability exists, the process needs either a poll or more time in discussion before it can be put into practice. Incidentally, it would be nice if further discussion could be directed to Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges rather than here. — Dan | Talk 00:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is a way to do allow rollback to non-admins via javascript. Because of it's potential use for vandalism, I won't describe it or say much more than that it exists here, but there is a way. All it requires is for a proven vandalfighter to ask someone who knows about it (i.e., me) and after a quick check to prove they are legit, it can be applied. Plenty of non-admins have it, and quite a few admins know about it; I would suggest activating RfRoll as a place for users to note themselves, and a trusted admin (as it takes an admin to edit someone else's monobook.js) could check the user and grant the code. -- Essjay · Talk 14:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I find Essjay's idea interesting as it would lead to an informal process. However, my only concern about creating a class of rollbackers whose hierarchy would be between the editors and admins is that it would complicate things on RFA for people who may not be interested in rolling back but interested in other admin tasks. Personally, I may just need the rollback tool but I'd still go for an RFA as additional abilities in the hands of a trusted wikipedian definitely wouldn't hurt. --Gurubrahma 14:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I don't want to seem mean here, but do we really need this? I mean we are here to make an encyclopedia, and some of the benefits of becoming a janitor is the rollback button. I'm sure if someone wanted it, they could just add in the javascript in their monobook.js. It's notable and nice that users fight vandals, but I did it for quite awhile w/o the rollback button. Also, admins as it is get into disputes over rollback, because it doesn't give a reason for the rollback. For normal users, I think it's better if they have a macro, or type in the reasons why. IHMO. «»Who?¿?^meta 15:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but please direct this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges, where it belongs. — Dan | Talk 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the talk to Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges where it belongs as per Dan's uggestion. Let us continue there. Thanks, Dan. --Gurubrahma 09:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Please read #Why is this necessary? and #Low Bandwidth User Interest, which explains why the javascript workaround is not suitable for everyone. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Per Talrias. Im one of the few who just can't somehow get the mono.js per Labtop wont read it. So I have to revert the vandalism manually which is sometimes a bit hard and annoying. Im going to try this out and lets check if this idea whould work. I want this proposal to be only for certain cases like me --JAranda | watz sup 23:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Whats all this messing around with voteing?

There are probably two ways (three if you count becomeing an admin) a user can get a rollback button. One of those two I'm certian of although I'm not sure I've ever seen it in action. Since we can't stop people useing these methods short of outright blocking what is the point of this policy?Geni 20:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the rest of this talk page, the reasons why are given above. This question has been asked (and answered) at least three or four times. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It only appears to be answered once and the answers given seem to largly boil down to people being paranoid. You don't trust 3rd party javascript? Fine we can get someone on the development team to clear it (if you don't trust them why are you here). You don't want to switch javascript on? Run a second browser with it switched on. It isn't widely advertised? that can be fixed.Geni 02:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As it says in the "low bandwidth" section, running the javascript rollback simply does not work for some people, or it takes a v. long time. The hardcoded rollback is much faster. We have the capability, rather than use a workaround, why not use the actual software implementation? Talrias (t | e | c) 12:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm mostly worried that this will end up as some sort of probationary adminship. All this voteing and stuff. Who cares if people have a way to make a terminaly stupid move in a revert war?Geni 19:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think quite a few supporters wouldn't mind giving rollback to every registered editor, but as that has been almost completely shot down, this was a step up. And this wouldn't necessarily be a probationary adminship, since there are many people who would like the rollback button but have absolutely no interest in being an Admin. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And let me just reiterate my points from above:

• This would not give somebody something they already couldn't do if they wanted to. It just shortens a process people already have the power to do.
• This wouldn't create a new caste in the "Hierarchy of Wikipedia". We won't have a list of people with rollback access. It's just something nice to have.
• Some people want the rollback feature, but do not want the additional responsibilities that come with being an Admin.
• This feature would only be granted to trusted users.
• This feature can be taken away if the person abuses it.
• Many people shy away from RC Patrol because it takes too long to revert vandalism. The good outweighs the bad.
• If adminship is truly "No big deal", this shouldn't even be a discussion. It should be generally available to those who want it.

--LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

In response to your statement that people "do not want the additional responsibilities that come with being an Admin" – there are no such responsiblities. Everything on Wikipedia is optional. As I have pointed out above on this page, many a recent candidacy has succeeded despite the user's making clear that he will be using his admin powers rarely or for only a few purposes. — Dan | Talk 05:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, this last point just isn't true. Even if you don't plan on doing sysop chores, Admins are looked up to in the community. They are to be seen as the "face of Wikipedia". If people have problems, where do they turn? Admins. Admins may not want to be role models, but they are. And it is not just a case of good people make Admin, because there are a few Admins who don't seem like good people, but are still looked up to and respected because they are Admins. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we be ready to vote on this now

Should we. We have been talking for over 3 months on this and I think its ready for voting --JAranda | watz sup 01:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No. A cursory glance at the above discussion makes very clear that no consensus exists, not to mention the software feature is currently disabled. The former problem is of course the salient one. I've moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Archive. — Dan | Talk 05:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Javascript solution (godmode-light.js)

I'm happy to see the user script conversation moving toward higher public awareness. Everyone interested should have this ability available to them.

godmode-light.js was somehow not linked or simply explained here. This script adds rollback functionality through a javascript function added to a sub-page of your user page. See more info at WP:US or from the source at Sam's page. ∴ here…♠ 06:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's important to remember though, that using a javascript emulation is just a stop-gap measure, and not suitable for everyone. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! I've been trying to decide what, other than granting rollback to everyone all the time, would be worth the additional process here. Honestly, I think rollback for everyone is likely the best solution. Slight limits I find workable include: anyone who asks, logged in, 100 edits, non-admins lose rollback ability after 1RR until other changes made to page, etc. ∴ here…♠ 17:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If people are going to revert war I'd rather they did it with the roleback button.Geni 17:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The 1RR should not apply to reverting vandalism. Currently even the 3RR excludes reverting vandalism. --Bruce1ee 05:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Need additional comment ability in rollback

I'm using the javascript godmode-light.js mod for rollback functionality (see previous or WP:US, but I'm frustrated that I can't leave additional comments when using it. Many of the rollbacks are to edits that may have been in good faith from anons unfamiliar with External Link guidelines. Often I'll suggest a better page or explanation to WP:EL or whatever when doing it by hand. Unless through multiple user edits, a reason for the revert seems more important than the username of the last edit version. Does the builtin feature allow this and/or is there any way to add it to the javascript?

Auto: ( Reverted edits by 203.122.53.88 to last version by Dan East )

Hand: ( rv linkspam by 64.107.9.244 -- try link at List of news aggregators )

∴ here…♠ 06:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I cannot speak for the javascript, but there was some discussion about adding an additional place to add further comments. I think it was taking place at WP:AN. If i can find the actual place, I'll leave another little note. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

See discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive15#Using rollback. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Follow discussion MediaWiki_talk:Revertpage... ∴ here…♠ 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

god light does not work with Internet Explorer

--Adam1213 Talk+ 13:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course it does. It may be that you've disabled some feature or changed the security settings. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

rejected

I have changed to rejected tag since the board itself has stated that this will never happen due to privacy policy issues and the impossibility of implementing it. As of now the arbcom has been given checkuser access however I'm not sure whether they solely hold it or whether they have the power to give it out at their will. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you quite certain that you've placed this tag on the correct page? While I suppose it's possible that the Foundation has rejected this proposal, I'm very surprised to hear that it was on account of conflicts with the privacy policy: hundreds of admins use the rollback feature every day, and many others utilise a javascript extension to the same end. The rollback function is simply an editing tool designed to make simple reversions (usually to restore vandalized pages) quick and comparatively hassle-free. Your allusion to the very different Checkuser privilege leads me to wonder if it isn't these pages you were aiming for? However, if what you say is indeed true, would you mind linking to a page attesting to the Foundation's decision? Regards encephalon 07:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't true. The softwear can already make requests for rollback a posibilty. I suspect this policy will fail for other reasons.Geni 09:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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