Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archiving

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)

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)

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)

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.--Doc^g 23:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Null rights changes are no longer logged. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why this discussion on potential abuse is rather pointless

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)

How about you stop disrupting headers to prove a point. Nakon 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. How about that. And what if I don't stop? -- Cat ^chi? 18:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you know what happens when you disrupt the project. Just stop. Nakon 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And that would cure what? People can continue edit warring without the tool. -- Cat ^chi? 13:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback removal

Rollback has been removed from Qst per misuse and edit-warring here. I doubt this is the proper use of the tool, and it has been removed to prevent further incidents of this nature. This is just a notification, as I believe we haven't set a rule regarding removal of the tools yet? Criticism/Comments regarding the removal are welcome — DarkFalls ^talk 10:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, that's the sort of thing that some people warned would happen. I'm slightly confused - I wanted out of curiosity to see the original request QST made for rollback but I can't find it. It's not in the log, or anywhere in the history of the RFR page. What am I doing wrong here? • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 11:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to be a private request to an administrator. — DarkFalls ^talk 11:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suspect Qst privately requested Moreschi give the user rollback, or Moreschi offered privately and Qst accepted, as private requests between these two users have occured in the past (for example, "Moreschi ... left the code for that on my talk page because I requested to him on IRC", said by Qst). Daniel (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to make sure, from now on, that discussions like this (about removal of rollback from an editor) go to WP:ANI, and not to this talk page. I've updated the rollback page to that effect. This talk page is for discussion about the process (just as WT:RFA is for discussion about RfA); it's not the right place for reviewing rollback removals. I also think that, except in emergencies, we should discuss first, reach consensus, and then remove rollback. Walton^One 15:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to bring that stuff to AN/I?? Isn't it busy enough? If one admin can give it, another can remove it...easy come easy go. Let's stop the bureaucracy creep while we still can..RxS (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The fear of "bureaucracy creep" is something which is really holding back the development of Wikiepdia institutions. Ensuring accountability of admins, and making sure that decisions are fair and that users accused of misconduct have a chance to defend themselves, is more important than avoiding bureaucracy. I think, in time, that the volume of requested rollback removals will get so large that we'll need a specific noticeboard for them, but for the time being they can go to ANI. Walton^One 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If that happens, then we really should turn the tool off. But I hope not. An, BTW, holding back the development of Wikiepdia institutions is incredibly desirable.--Doc^{g - ask me for rollback} 16:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we need institutions in order to ensure that administrators, bureaucrats, and other holders of power are accountable and can't just use their powers however they wish, and that disputes are resolved impartially and consistently, giving a fair hearing to both sides.

As to your other point, it is inevitable, given that rollback is being given out generously to most people who ask, that there will be a fairly high incidence of people abusing it in edit wars. At the moment we don't need a formal process for removal, because there aren't that many requests - but in time the volume of requests will grow. Walton^One 16:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, this is supposed to be a lightweight process. I view rollback as an "easy come, easy go" tool that should be handed out to almost anyone, but taken away at the first sign of abuse. If we get to the point where we need another noticeboard for removal requests, that's a sign it's become more trouble than it's worth. Chaz ^Beckett 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If people abuse the tool, we remove it. But if this ends up wasting time and resources in paperwork, then the experiment is deemed to have failed and is switched off. Those who promoted this indicated their belief that process and instruction creep would NOT be the result - I was slapped for expressing my doubts, but I'm willing to be proved wrong. If I am right though (and indeed if you are right) then my opposition will have been vindicated - and I'm sure the proposers will have the good grace to admit it.--Doc^{g - ask me for rollback} 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see a reason to go to AN/I in a case like this. It was a clear abuse of rollback, and I'm apparently not the only one who supported this whole thing because of the "esay come, easy go" nature of it. --Conti|✉ 16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is everyone so terrified of the idea of a small increase in bureaucracy and process? Too much bureaucracy is the least serious problem that we face on Wikipedia. In this particular case, Qst has been given no chance to defend himself; nor can he, since he's on holiday (according to his userpage). There has been no examination of the evidence and no discussion. Unfairness is IMO far more problematic than excessive bureaucracy. Walton^One 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, there is no such thing as a small increase in bureaucracy, the growth arrow for bureaucracy points only in one direction, up. The time will come when there will be a request for clerks here, a IRC channel etc. This is the only chance we have to make this a light weight process where granting and removal really is no big deal We can decide right here that rollback rights are not worth arguing about and not worth wasting AN/I time. If someone gets the right, cool..if an admin thinks they've been abusing it, fine. Admins are trusted users and if someone gets it taken away they have other options for vandal fighting. RxS (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucracy is simply not a major problem on Wikipedia. Making things a "light weight process" means that they are more open to abuse, arbitrary discrimination, and unfair and partial decisions. Walton^One 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, then we should have rampant abuse with about every other admin action. Mr.Z-man 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The reason we don't have too much abuse of admin tools is because we have processes like DRV. The admin tool which is most often abused is blocking - which, not coincidentally, is the one which is least circumscribed by rules and process. Rules and process are IMO a good thing, because they ensure that admins have to give a fair hearing to everyone involved in a dispute, and allow the community to weigh in. I'm not saying admins can't be trusted to make decisions, but I'm saying their decision-making powers need to be clearly defined and circumscribed by strict rules and procedures. Walton^One 11:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are already processes in place to handle abuse by admins (which, in of itself is rare). However, given how rare that is (when compared to the number of admins) you are arguing the solution before the problem presents itself. Removing the rollback tool isn't a block. The user can still participate in the exact same fashion with or without the tool. Doc warned of this instruction creep when this whole thing first started, and I'm overwhelmingly happy to see so many opposed to it. Justin ^chat 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of more bureaucracy and process, I just don't see why we need to go to AN/I for clear cases like this one. We don't do that with all deletions, blocks or protections, either, just with the possibly contentious ones (or those that need discussion for some reason). --Conti|✉ 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the "Requesting removal of rollback" section REALLY need to be there? I don't believe this was added with support by consensus, so I suggest it be removed. If a user has a valid complaint over removal of the tool, there are a number of places to argue their side. I'd like to avoid turning this into a mini-RfA so quickly. Justin ^chat 21:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please leave the section in place. I know that users have a number of places to argue their side, but an inexperienced user may not know about them; all the section does is indicate how users can complain about an abuse of rollback. This isn't a step towards turning it into a "mini-RfA" (although I personally don't think that would be such a bad thing). Walton^One 11:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this event shows that the system does work. --Merovingian (T, C) 23:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

...and refocusing the topic

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia talk:Rollback for users

I suggest the general discussion on rollback be moved to this talk page. -- Cat ^chi? 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How many similarly named discussion pages do we have at this point? Will adding another one do any good? Gracenotes^T § 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Rollback rights pile-on

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)

I thought the software didn't log stuff like that? Hut 8.5 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

(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)

Mike.lifeguard said above that it didn't. Must be a bug. Hut 8.5 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

25 minutes [1] :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

This has been fixed on trunk for a day or two, r29526. The fix should be live since last night. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback lolcat not enough

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)

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-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree, give it a chance. Even if I do understand Avruch. Rudget . 22:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It already has. It'll get a lot worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(reset) Well, take for example Equazcion's request. There was some discussion, and some less flattering history came to light. I think that that request proved that this can work. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

No, it worked great! No instruction creep, no bureacracy, just discussion. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples of creeping bureaucracy; requests are now being denied because people didn't use the right template [2]. Another editor denied due to having less than 400 edits [3]. And on it goes. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have to point out that both of the examples you provided happened on the 10th, which was during the first day or so of this process. In example one, nowadays, if someone uses the incorrect template, normally someone here will fix it for them (I do anyway): it's not that hard to fix; and in example two, it wasn't just the amount of edits, it was the experience of the user as well. I believe I've granted rollback to at least one person with less than 500 edits. I don't see any "creeping bureaucracy" at all on this page, and as Mr. Z-man said above, the only way it would become bureaucratic is if people keep making suggestions that would make it bureaucratic. Acalamari 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  - I see it already. But, the only proof is to see what this looks like 6 months or a year from now. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Move protection

Is move-protection necessary? I don't really see a need to keep it protected any longer. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Oh, ok. I thought it was protected as a move vandalism preventative measure. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one case where preventative protection is a good idea, given that the page has already accumulated many revisions. Gracenotes^T § 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Rollback summary

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. Gracenotes^T § 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

User:Santa on Sleigh

Santa on Sleigh (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) | give rollback

Sometimes it goes down the wrong chimney, and I need to get it back fast. Anyway, I think you can rest assured I will not abuse it. I haven't revert warred since....well...I was tempted to break the 3RR when they said called me a legend - but to be "legendary" is not bad, huh? Plus, I always give generously when people ask nicely, so I'm sure you will.--Santa (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, because I see little or no history of vandalism reverts at all, and more just giving out Christmas cards at Christmas time. jj137 ^♠ 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no use for +rollback for this user. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No use for it, but also no reason not to give him rollback. Hmm.. Wizardman 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets hope that Santa doesn't rollback next year. :) Rudget . 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Viridae ^Talk 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What possible reason can there have been to give this account a user right designed for reverting vandalism? WjBscribe 21:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed to

Not done per concerns by JJ137, MZMcBride, WjBscribe, and myself about inexperience with vandal reversion. He only has 2 very minor edits to articles. Mr.Z-man 21:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence they will abuse it? No? Good, then why deny. Viridae ^Talk 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I thought it was supposed to be a "no deal" userright. "Easy come, easy go". No "needs it/doesn't need it" deliberations. Is this the first sign of a newborn bureaucracy? Миша 13 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any editor in good standing may request the rollback feature on this page. An editor who wants the tool should be known not to edit war. <-- Right from above, user seems to pass both. Granted, I doubt he'd use it. A discussion such as this was inevitable though. Wizardman 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should give this user the benefit of the doubt and grant them rollback. If they use it incorrectly, then take it away. If they never use it, it doesn't matter. This editor has no history of any disruption that I can see. Rollback is no big deal: it was designed to be granted, and then quickly taken away if necessary. Acalamari 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I think this should be no big deal as well, but we still have to use more than just AGF. The user here has only a handful of serious edits, and only 2 to articles. While discussion is not required, after people have expressed concerns, there should be some sort of discussion before granting. Mr.Z-man 22:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Also, if there is a consensus to grant (it seems to be shifting), I would not be opposed to anyone undoing my removal. (It looks as if the first granting wasn't logged to begin with) Mr.Z-man 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This user right is a tool to make vandal fighting easier. It should be given to those who have at least a minimal involvement in vandal fighting and ideally the admin who grants it should be conviced that they can correctly identify vandal edits so we can be reasonably sure they will use the tool properly. WjBscribe 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that our rollback policy is still not clearly defined, so we are really just throwing personal opinions at each other. And the place to discuss these issues is not here under the request of this user. Let's move this to the talk page. NoSeptember 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my un-blued point below...... Pedro : Chat 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You have claimed ownership of your sock. The Santa sock belongs to... ??? Completely different situation. Though since self-rollback is acceptable, this user may have a need for it if he posts a malformed Christmas greeting ;-) NoSeptember 22:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done and settled then. The community is hereby encouraged to formulate clear criteria for rollback or else we can only rely on plain ol' WP:AGF. Миша 13 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this should be undone. This is someone's alternate account—for that, there is very little doubt—and rollback requires transparency of use. Until the account declares who they are an alternate account of, I cannot possibly leave this user with access to rollback for transparency and accountability reasons. This situation is bordering on ridiculous when we give a powerful tool (oh, and it's powerful in the hands of someone who knows how to use it—the various capabilities available to the user with regards to recent changes means a lot of crap can go flying past without being noticed) to an alternate account with an undeclared owner. Daniel (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF out through the window, then? Also, with all the throttles and everything, it is my understanding that, if anything, Twinkle is actually faster than non-admin rollback (edits ain't throttled). So, how powerful is it, really? Миша 13 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to AGF, why not give it to all users upon signup? Daniel (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you're picking on my personal view on the rollback mess, but did I ever explicitly oppose the idea of a widely-available rollback? No. In fact, faced with fait accompli I'd prefer the idea of rollback being added to autoconfirmeds' portfolio rather than the way it is now. Миша 13 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One reason not to grant it automatically to all users is a vandal can easily create dozens of sleeper accounts. Even when granted quite liberally by admins, the sleeper account issue is solved by requiring userrights flagging. We have granted maybe 500 times so far, this is tiny compared to the number of accounts that would have it if we gave it to everybody. NoSeptember 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback#User:Santa on Sleigh

(move from my talk page Viridae ^Talk 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC))
I'm totally confused. Why did you think this user had need of a user right that enables them to revert vandalism more speedily? WjBscribe 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the rights. Even before granting, 2 admins had concerns over inexperience/lack of need. I was about to decline the request before the database lock but you beat me to it. I've also left a comment on the RFR request about this. Mr.Z-man 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you ever heard of the Grinch??? More seriously, my criteria is no evidence that they will misuse it, with enough edits to see a bit of editing history. My default position is giveing it, unless they fail either of those. Viridae ^Talk 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Its an anti vandalism tool - I think users need to demonstrate they have some involvement in reverting vandalism. WjBscribe 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Its also No big deal^TM, it doesnt matter one iota wether they use it, as long as they don't misuse it. Viridae ^Talk 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I really don't see the problem here either: in the pretty unlikely event that "Santa on Sleigh" decided to abuse his rollback privileges (which he could've received just as easily via Twinkle), the rollback bit could be removed just as quick as it was given, and whatever few reverts he gets in could be quickly re-reverted. It doesn't seem like a biggie. krimpet ✽ 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a bit of a leap to say they were consensus to implement rollback. It is certainly a leap reading through the comments people made in the relevant discussions to say that there is a consensus for rollback to be given out to any account of any standing regardless of need that has no history of edit warring. I am deeply unhappy with the idea that WP:AGF should govern how rollback is given out. Much as I support the idea that we should limit the amount of bureaucracy in the assignment of this right now its here, I would hope that admins would verify that there is a basic need for rollback and a competence to use it. WjBscribe 01:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the username and user page of Santa on Sleigh is a little too close to Willy on Wheels to be granting rollback? I'm not saying he is Willy, but this hardly seems like a serious account. Chaz ^Beckett 03:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the contribs, its not a paticuarly serious account, but there is nothing there to say there will be rollback abuse either. Viridae ^Talk 03:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on the Talk Page?

Is there any evidence that giving Santa on Sleigh rollback would harm the Wikipedia? DuncanHill (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And, "This user right is a tool to make vandal fighting easier. It should be given to those who have at least a minimal involvement in vandal fighting..." so we shouldn't make it easier for people to fight vandalism until after they have been fighting vandalism? Have I read that rightly? DuncanHill (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm frankly stunned that anyone would deny Santa Claus anything, after all he has done to improve the world and Wikipedia. People better hope that, come December, Santa doesn't remember how he got kicked around in January. Jeffpw (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I checked my the List of who's naughty or nice, and discovered that [this] was not very truthful. I hope that satisfies everyone. Well, must be off.....to revert war with Rudolf.....only joking.--Santa (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote remove.. Prodego ^talk 01:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds? Not missusing it, not abusing it, and there is no evidence that they will. Viridae ^Talk 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"not an honor"

This page currently says:

Rollback is not an honor or a sign of community trust, it is merely a technical feature and getting it is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.

I realize that's as we might wish things would be, but how true is it really? (Notice, in particular, the number of times the word "trust" gets used on this page, and in individual requests, whether accepted or denied.) —Steve Summit (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes its true, it is not a measure of how good you are, just that have not been bad. Viridae ^Talk 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust is implict in this process. If trust was not a factor, everybody would be given this feature all at once. It might not indicate a high level of trust, but it does indicate trust. Trust is a sliding scale (e.g. "someone I trust" might not be "someone I'd trust with my life") For example, admins are trusted, but CheckUsers are even more highly trusted, etc. You can abuse the English language and dance around the terminology all you like, finding different ways to say "we only give this to users who seem somewhat trustworthy", but it doesn't change the objective reality of this process. That embarassingly naive phrasing is just another example of Wikiality; we think if we say it enough it becomes true — TheBilly^(Talk) 18:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And many question the validity of this process for that very reason. The argument in favor of using a procedure like this to grant rollback was largely based on it being no big deal. There's a very valid question of whether or not trust should even play a role. I disagree strongly that it should, as this fundamentally violates WP:AGF. Any implication that this tool is about trust, will only create what I've been arguing it will create: a new social class. The debate about the user above being denied rollback simply because he doesn't have enough "vandalism reverts" is a perfect example of how this procedure should not work. Unless a user has a clear history of trolling, they should be granted access to the tool.

This tool is easy come, easy go. Instead of assuming bad faith (which denying the tool is), the privileged should be granted until it's abused. This comment by User:NoSeptember is most illuminating: "One reason not to grant it automatically to all users is a vandal can easily create dozens of sleeper accounts." Vandal's can already create sleeper accounts, they can already edit pages (with or without an account), and so it goes. These argumentum ad metam are getting truly old. By introducing hard limits on rollbacks the idea that it can be used as a tool for vandalism anymore than any other tool, some of which available to anyone, is simply nonsense. This is instruction creep for the sake of instruction creep. Justin ^chat 00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Encouraging newer editors to fight vandalism

Could someone explain to me how denying rollback to less experienced editors encourages or helps them to fight vandalism? DuncanHill (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Denying new editors assumes they're up to no good. Provides another elite echelon for people to climb in the wikisocial ladder. But, no worries. It's no big deal! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- They don't actually need to go through this process - they just need to ask a friendly admin. Why aren't we telling them that? EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Also, what is the process for someone who was denied rollback here after the usual 5-7 minutes review? Because there is no policy against simply asking a more friendly admin in case they are denied here. Shouldn't they be told that? EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    - {{sofixit}} Do tell them! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't say "fight" vandalism, it glorifies it. John Reaves 20:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "glorious" about fighting. DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Glorify" and "glorious" have different denotations. John Reaves 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

- - - - Very well :) In that case I suggest that the following be added to the "Process" section: This page serves only as a convenience and is not an official process. No decisions made here are binding or final. Any user is free to reapply to any administrator as described above. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
        Why have the page at all? Just have it say contact any of the administrators in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"[This page] is, by design, entirely informal"? Hehehe, we shall have a "revert-cabal" yet ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He he actually I wouldn't mind tagging this the same way medcab is because there is nothing official about this or the criteria being used here. It is completely arbitrary. There is no policy that requires anyone to install Twinkle first (IE users?), have a specific number of edits or suck up to anyone to get this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When did rollback become necessary to fighting vandalism? WjBscribe 00:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of anyone suggesting it is necessary. I am saying that it is helpful and enables editors to be more productive. DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If necessity is the barrier of entry let's remove rollback from everyone. Admins and 'crats included. Of course no one needs rollback, but if we are going to exclude users for arbitrary reasons (low edit count, low vandal-revert count) than we may as well exclude everyone. I get this overwhelming sense that the granting/denying procedure is a tool to make ourselves "feel good" instead of actually having a fundamental purpose. Do I need to go through some absurd procedure to use WP:TW? No, but I certainly do need to be cleared by X number of admins on whether or not my edit count is high enough, or if I've reverted enough vandals. Someone jokingly claimed they would only grant rollback privs for users who contributed to FA article(s). Is that how far it has to get before it's just silliness? Justin ^chat 01:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is not necessary to fight vandalism. I fight vandalism all the time, using the ordinary edit (and now undo) buttons, and I find the process perfectly straightforward. It baffles me what all the fuss is about rollback. Who needs it? —Steve Summit (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has suggested that it is necessary. It does however make things simpler and quicker. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I needed it. I have a dialup connection, and reverting a long vandalism spree is slow and impractical for me. So far I have used rollback about 3 times, experimentally. Normally I revert using a javascript tool, which for reverting a single edit works much better for me.

I'll just add that rollback is not that big a deal, just a slightly faster, less bandwidth-expensive way to WP:REVERT. Abusing rollback is hardly different from abusing another means of reversion. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle?

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)

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. Gracenotes^T § 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What if their browser or internet security measures do not support Twinkle? DuncanHill (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rollback permissions "bug"

Denying requests to new users?

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)

I had been wondering the same thing. Viridae ^Talk 04:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I suggest that people desist from giving such advice. —Kurykh 04:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Rollback is quicker so we need evidence that it isn't going to be misused. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

In my opinion, Twinkle should have requirements similar to that of VP. —Kurykh 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

soft on vandalism?

"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)

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)

This has been discussed here, to avoid duplication of discussion. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And, has since been archived... updated link to archived discussion SQL ^{Query me!} 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rollback_consensus ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Note, the ArbCom case seems to have closed, or is at least not listed on the main page. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It was declined and archived. Acalamari 18:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only?

While several people believe that rollback may only be used to counter vandalism, or claim that this should be the case, that restriction has no basis in policy, and has never been policy. See for instance Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann and Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll for information on the subject. Hence, it is incorrect for this page to forbid that.

It's similar to the idea that "people may not remove warnings from their talk page" - some people think it's policy and some people want it to be policy, but in fact it isn't, and that restriction has never been supported by consensus either. >Radiant< 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand.... This page is NOT policy, so text in the page does not refer to policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not nearly that black and white. It was discussed, voted and implemented with that restriction. We can put whatever (consensual) restrictions we want on this usage of rollback, and one editor can't veto it...for good, bad or indifferent the vandalism restriction is part of rollback in this implementation. I'm going to restore the language. RxS (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was mostly restored before this, I made a minor change...expected to > should only. RxS (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I advise you to get a wider consensus that rollback can be used against disruptive edits beore you call this invalid. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

lol... we actually need a wide consensus on this whole idea... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have consensus on needing consensus? *innocent look*--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As an admin I have always been told that while vandalism is the primary use of rollback, other uses are acceptable if there is proper communication and the use of the tool makes sense. Admins are expected to be able to act intelligently while being given due discretion. I also think regular users can use this discretion at their own risk of being wrong.

If a regular user is capable of showing this level of intelligent discretion then I will not be taking away their rollback because a use of the tool did not fit into a specific set of rules. However I would consider any such action a use of WP:IAR and as such I would want to be very convinced that it was in the best interest of Wikipedia.

One example would be a new user who in good faith went about converting every metric unit to imperial, then once being told about our manual of style agrees that the edits need to be reversed but there are too many. Another user could help this new user reverse the edits with the rollback tool. This would be a perfectly acceptable use of rollback because there was proper communication and it makes sense to do so. 1 != 2 17:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not this again... next thing you know we will be having polls about having polls again. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One obvious non-vandalism use of rollback is for reverting one's own edits. I wouldn't be happy to see people habitually using rollback for purposes other than that and removing vandalism, but I take Radiant's point that the page misrepresented policy and I think it constituted instruction creep. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should word it as strong advice, not a rule. We can be clear about the spirit of the rules, and less strict in the wording. The main points in using this tool for me are "Proper communitcation or lack of need for communication(such as vandalism reverts)", "Not for content disputes", and "For the benefit of Wikipedia". 1 != 2 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To encourage this notion that rollback is a big deal, or that it's a "slap in the face" (as I believe some page once described it), is to encourage ownership and drama. We don't want to encourage ownership and drama. Rollback should be construed to mean exactly one thing: that edits are being undone. If it's non-obvious WHY, some explanation is required, and well, we have talk pages for that. Friday (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered many editors using popups, god-mode scripts, and similar tools in a manner that is unacceptable, e.g. edit warring, undoing other editor's work without edit summaries, etc. In these instances I have always taken the position to explain and warn these users that these behaviors are unacceptable and that if they continue misusing them, it may be considered disruptive enough to warrant a block. No difference with this bit either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current description of inappropriate use of the rollback function? "If a user is using the rollback tool in an inappropriate manner (e.g. to revert good faith edits, or to pursue an edit war), and will not respond to a polite request to desist, any administrator can be asked to remove rollback permission." That sounds about right to me, and "rollback is for vandalism only" isn't mentioned anywere. --Conti|✉ 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, using rollback to revert a lot of edits at once should still be done with an edit summary, just remembering to use the same edit summary used for all the rollbacks. eg. "rolling back all edits from this point to this point, as agreed here". Otherwise people arriving later to look at the edit will not understand why it was made. This process could be used to rollback a bot's edits, for example. To get the edit summary, you have to use a script to insert the edit summary for you. It is sometimes easier to use a bot (or ask someone to use a bot). I recently wanted to rollback ImageRemovalBot (after restoring several images and adding rationales), but because I wanted to use an edit summary and don't have a script to do "rollback + edit summary", I used undo instead. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want an option to change the rollback summary, add

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js');

to your user Javascript page. It adds a tab to the top of any page with rollback links (history, diffs, contribs) that, if clicked, prompts for an alternate edit summary for all the rollback links on the page. Using a blank summary or clicking "Cancel" will use the default summary. Mr.Z-man 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also User:Gracenotes/rollback.js which has a (*gasp*) special user-replace feature! O: O: O: Gracenotes^T § 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rights issue with NAR

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) _{P.S. Please don't take away my rollback rights :)}

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)

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)

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)

If you made an edit after that, would rollback work on that edit? Alexfusco⁵ 16:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

yes– Gurch 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 r30187 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)

Fixing Symptoms, not problems

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)
It's a probem, and I'm new so do not fully understand it, so a brief overview. The root problem is a large amoount of spamming (vandalism). Secondary ones are matters of differences in informed opinion. From the little i've seen and experienced, this leads to a large turnover of admins and other positions, who get burnt and left with a bad taste in their mouths. Newbies, not as thick skinned as me, just run way. Inclusion? NOT.

Roll back is one approach but it seems we're fixing the symptoms, not the disease.

Am I being stupid if I suggest that the idea of Role Accounts should be one that needs to be strengthened, where the role - its authority and responsibilities (& rewards?) - is well defined? The idea of peers sharing an account, and the load attached to it, seems like an obvious way that peers can be contacted, knowing full well that one can speak on their behalf. Members of ability, knowledge and opinion could inform each other, and sockpuppets may easily be ignored as irrelevant to trusting groups. Just an idea. But it represents a bit of utility, in this wiki wacky world of gross independence and incomplete resolution, to me.--Simonfj (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Isn't there a GFDL compliance issue with having accounts with more than one user? Justin^(c)_(u) 23:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No. GFDL attribution may be applied to an entity (i.e., group). Gracenotes^T § 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is still a disputed process.

This process is still subject to a binding poll as it was implemented without consensus, and I'm certainly not the only one who thinks that. Until such a poll takes place whereby it is introduced /with consensus/, it's disputed in my view, hence the template at the top of the page. -Halo (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

And just because some don't like it (many of whom are offering nothing constructive to the fine-tuning of the process) doesn't mean it's disputed. It's been working the majority of the time, and it's only been up for a week. Unpopular would be a better adjective than disputed. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is disputed until there is another poll, and that poll has been delayed until the dust settles. Don't assume that just because there is less vocal opposition that it's not disputed, many people still don't like the way this policy has been forced through. -Halo (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For that tag to stay, you need to do more than say so. I removed the tag previously as no one was actually disputing it. Mr.Z-man 17:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There are people disputing it, just not at this talk page - see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback/Draft_poll. As previously stated, a poll needs to take place and consensus needs to be got otherwise this process will remain disputed as it hasn't got the community's blessing. -Halo (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And while people continue to debate whether there is consensus to start a poll to get consensus on whether there was consensus on the first poll, this process is working fairly well and being actively improved here. I don't see people complaining that this process doesn't work or is failing horribly and I don't see any evidence of that either. If you have an actual objection to this process and how it works, please share it. Opposing based on lack of consensus seems to just be opposing for the sake of opposing. If this has a net benefit (though its probably to new to tell for sure), why try to get rid of it by opposing it outright rather than suggesting improvements (or at least trying to prove that it is harmful)? Mr.Z-man 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Where was this poll advertised? 304 Support, 151 Opposed in a poll conducted during the holidays, is most certainly not appropriate and does not represent consensus from any perspective. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist notice, WP:VP, RC feed, Template:centralized discussion, WP:AN/I, the mailing list - it was advertised in a lot of places, then someone opposed to the proposal closed the poll. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how did I miss this... How long was this open? Seems that there was not enough exposure... and if I missed it, many others may have missed this as well. In any case, 304 Support, 151 Opposed is not consensus. Note that I am not necessarily opposed to the proposal, just that it does not look good at all the way it was done (to say the least). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

... and look and the drama/mess now being reported at WP:AN/I... Who needs this sh*t? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No one. That's why admins removed access. Why not take a look at countless threads about Twinkle abuse stored in AN/I archives? This is nothing new. Gracenotes^T § 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the Democratic candidate received 304 electorate votes in the upcoming United States election and the Republican candidate 151, surely there would be a great outcry from the conversatives of this nation: consensus has not been reached! But here, polling is not a substitute for discussion (in fact it may be an impediment to discussion), and I think discussion is moving along at the moment, so there's no need for a poll. Gracenotes^T § 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, consensus is not the same as veto. --Tony Sidaway 18:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a really good reason why this is bad. It can be abused? So can Twinkle. It can lead to wheel wars? So can blocking, but this is far less serious because at worse it's an inconvenience. Almighty process wasn't followed? Whatever, it's clear that the vast majority of Wikipedians wanted it implemented as is. I don't like having admins grant user rights? Admins can already block users - this is less destructive. We don't need another process? I agree and if you can come up with a better implementation, we can talk about it. --B (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

it's clear that the vast majority of Wikipedians wanted it implemented as is Ahem... really? I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is still a disputed process, and removing the box at the top of the page doesn't change that fact. The fact you think I need to comment every day to keep the "dispute alive" when it was generally agreed to wait before having another poll so it stops being disputed doesn't change the fact it's disputed. Having to re-add the template every other day is a joke and I'm struggling to assume good faith by those who do so. -Halo (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be the only person seriously suggesting that this is disputed now. One person suggesting this page is disputed does not mean that we should tag the page. By all means, offer some suggestions if you want change, but without doing so, you cannot honestly be expect for your argument that it is disputed to be met with acceptance. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The archiving of the ArbCom case seems to show that the process isn't as disputed as everyone makes it. It seems like the only thing left to do is to move on. Those arguing against it are the underwhelming minority, enough of a minority to determine rough consensus in favor of the process. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. I fully expect, at the end of the three months, to see a strong push for rollback to be kept, but without the bureaucratic process. In other words, it is not yet certain whether the current process will be kept, though it is almost certain that the rollback enabling feature will be left switched on. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I seem to like the idea of individual admins giving it out, but there could still be a need to have a centralized discussion page. Maybe if an admin turns it down as an informal request, they could send it here. Can we just remove the disputed tag? This particular discussion, the only non-archived dispute thread, hasn't been commented on in over a week (aside from this comment). Justin^(c)_(u) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove the disputed template than to show that the current process is likely to change - the discussion needs to be reopened proper somewhere at some point and a real centralised discussion needs to be made about how to go forward. As far as I'm concerned, until real consensus has appeared and the process is still liable to change pending community discussion, this is still in dispute. What the silence does show, in my view, is that there was a near universal agreement that stopping the heating discussion for a while would be good thing irrespective of anything else. -Halo (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been opened to ArbCom, which they rejected, we've had multiple threads on this, which have gone nowhere, and the process is functioning as it has been from the beginning. There honestly isn't much more we could do that wouldn't be redundant.

On a different note, maybe we should have an official process. I don't think anyone objects to the idea of individual admins giving rollback out. Maybe we should make it more clear that there are two separate processes, like a section for each, one detailing this page's process, and one dealing with the official process of asking an admin directly. The could both be handled in the same section, but having one for each makes it clearer that there are two processes. One official (which ironically, is the more informal one), and one not official (which ironically, is the... you see what I mean?). Justin^(c)_(u) 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not wanted to drag up the old argument but if the community couldn't agree on a process, surely it's a sign that the policy should have been scrapped from the off rather than implemented? Your essentially saying "The community can't agree, but it got implemented anyhow so it's been decided that's the way it should be" which is frankly a joke, is _not_ how Wikipedia works and sets a bad precedent by encouraging people to steamroll processes through again in the future knowing that the community will just eventually get tired of bickering and let it continue (as in this case). A better process would be letting everyone have rollback and removing it or blocking those who abuse it - the current "policy" is so ad-hoc that its existence is worthless as it is and less bureaucracy would be a boon to everyone. -Halo (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So you want the process to have as little bureaucracy as possible, right? But earlier you stated that the means setting up the process should be another poll, which is hardly the least bureaucratic, or optimal, means of obtaining consensus. Where can a poll be located in this consensus flow chart? If you have a dispute with the process, create your argument based on what process is now, rather than what it may or may not have been three weeks ago. I personally think the 2/3 poll was poorly designed, and I'd be hard-pressed to find a poll that would work for determining what the process should be. If a poll fails, that doesn't mean "design another one!". The fact that the current process is ad-hoc is a good thing: it means that we're not a bureaucracy; that we're always shifting and changing; and that we can freely adjust and append processes when needed. Gracenotes^T § 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I want a process with as little continual bureaucracy as possible, but one-off bureaucracy is inevitable. I don't think that's a contradiction - by your definition, an attempt to remove needless bureaucracy is bureaucracy and therefore evil because it can't be done instantly which is one big catch-22. The difference is that one is "management", one is "bureaucracy" in my view.

The fact the current process is ad-hoc with little sign of forethought or discussion is a bad thing - it shows that's it's all-but-useless and is completely up to interpretation.. I'm also against anything that gives admins added 'powers' and separates them further from ordinary users - again, since when have they arbitrarily been able to decide what users are allowed to do what with little recourse? Where did people agree it was acceptable for this to happen?

Do you think the answer to poll being rejected by the community is "do it anyway and no-one will care"? I agree that another poll isn't the ideal methodology - the correct way was "don't enable non-administrator rollback and find a way, if possible, for both sides to agree with compromise" but sadly that ship has already sailed and I'm sure both sides can all agree "design another poll" is the lesser of two evils at this point when the only other real alternative is to remove rollback from all users and disable this process until consensus /has/ been found.

Also, we're not on that chart, not only because it deals with article space rather than policy and because there was no "previous consensus". That's where there was the problem and that's where this policy went completely wrong. A flawed non-policy flow chart that deals with article-space wouldn't make for a good argument in my view anyhow. -Halo (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Were I to dispute another policy, would I be allowed to put that tag on the top, even if I was the only one currently arguing on the talk page that it is disputed? --Deskana (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Halo, I also ask you consider this: At present, there are few users who are on this page that agree with your concerns, or at least, few that agree anything should be done about it. It seems apparent to me that nothing will come of you disputing this process. Is it really is everyone's best interests for you to continue, then? By not disputing this, your comments will still be here. Besides, if I'm wrong and there are lots of people that dispute the process, then if we remove the disputed tag from the page, then more users will show up and voice there opinions here. So I ask, is it in everyone's best interests for you to continue disputing this? --Deskana (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In my view it is in Wikipedia's best interests that I continue to work towards policy being implemented through the proper processes and to keep objections being raised until it is. If nothing else, this prevents future policy changes being pushed through like this one has been so that steamrolling proposals isn't seen as acceptable nor an easy thing to do, discouraging imitations of the rollback mess. The principle is much more important than anything else (in particular any criticism of the current rollback policy). -Halo (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I would ask that you consider my suggestion that we remove the disputed tag and see if anyone else actually objects other than you. With all due respect, letting the page be tagged as disputed because one user is disputing it when many others do not seems illogical to me. It seems highly unlikely that were you to dispute any other process that people would allow it to be tagged as such, especially given that (from your comments) you don't even seem to be disputing the process itself at all, but future processes. --Deskana (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you just repeated yourself there and didn't actually reply to what I said nor my motivations behind keeping the box on the page.-Halo (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not reply to my suggestions, either. I've been trying to reach some form of a middle ground with you here. In my opinion you're completely wrong (just as in your opinion I am completely wrong), so I attempted to reach some middle ground where we could attempt to see if more people supported your views. Are you willing to attempt to reach some middle ground here? --Deskana (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied to "Is it really is everyone's best interests for you to continue, then?" with a resounding "Yes", so yes, I did reply to your question. In my view, I have taken the middle ground my considering it acceptable that this process continues despite lack of consensus. -Halo (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I might as well sum up my current view in a few words: As far as I'm concerned until a process passes via a widely-advertised poll or discussion with consensus, I will keep re-adding the box at the top of the page wherever possible because the process never passed with consensus in the first place.. If you don't like that box being at the top of the page, I'd suggest that the best way forward is gaining consensus so that my objections are moot - no amount of discussion trying to persuade me otherwise is going to change my opinion. -Halo (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask this: What does adding the box to the article solve? It seems to have been unsuccessful in generating discussion on the merits of the process, as most of the discussion above is about whether the process is indeed disputed - not on the merits of the dispute. I would recommend letting the box come down for a while, letting discussion simmer, and then raising the issue later - perhaps after next week, when we will have a full month's worth of data with which to evaluate the process and see where to go from here. Add notices to AN, ANI, and other relevant places (VP, perhaps) announcing the discussion, draw interest from elsewhere on the project, and we'll see what happens. But, right now, re-adding the box doesn't seem to accomplish anything. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes people aware of the situation and remains as a reminder that it's liable (if not likely) to change in the future and is not a policy or process that is set in stone (or indeed the fact it wasn't made by consensus). I've changed the phrasing from "disputed" to "controversial" and added a link to the page that was locked until March 11 for things to cool down and closer to the middle ground. Is this any more agreeable? -Halo (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I defer to consensus, but I think that's a much more reasonable option. It is controversial, as this discussion demonstrates, and it highlights the fact that the process will likely operate until at least the March 11 roundtable discussion thing. works for me, and thank you for making that change. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's acceptable. Now, we want it "widely advertised", which will generate the most accurate consensus, so how do we do this without canvassing? Maybe we should ask the signpost to run a story for it in advance, and then post something on the centralized discussion later? Justin^(c)_(u) 19:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is only canvassing, or more correctly it is only disruptive canvassing when you notify users with the intent to influence the outcome.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"American time designations"?

Can someone explain what Pedro means[6]? I do not see the logic in this edit. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[7] to save repeating it. Are we really gooing to edit war over something so trivial?? Pedro : Chat 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Which layout are we supposed to use per se? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Look guys, it's simple. 01-10 is the first of October in the UK and the 10th of January in the US. The 10th of January is the same in all English speaking countries. Let's just put it back and move on? How trivial is this? Pedro : Chat 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I've changed it back as a result of this discussion. Going off line in a mo, so apologies for a lack of further input. Pedro : Chat 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

uh, what the hell?

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)

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. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? SQL ^{Query me!} 07:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

And by the time people have finished complaining about not being granted rollback because they have no experience, they could have engaged in some vandal patrol so that they would get the tool. —Kurykh 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's not a good reason at all, I'll give you rollback. John Reaves 15:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

To me, the only criteria should be that the user is established and lacks anything that would positively (not argument from ignorance, specific blocks/edit warring) make them unfit. If the user hasn't done much reverting, I'd still grant it, but give them a reminder to be sure to read the revert rule pages and not to use rollback on good faith edits. Maybe a little template can be made for this sort of message. Voice-of-All 08:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think the only requirement should be a user in good standing with no recent edit warring but a handful of edits is really not enough to judge that. It should not matter that a user rarely reverts vandalism but it should matter that they have a quicker way of doing it when and if they do. -- Ѕandahl 09:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The template

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)

Keep adding it and you will be blocked. John Reaves 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, John beat me to the revert, here. --Deskana (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Custom edit summaries for Rollback

Would those active on this page be able to help out here? Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, what are the requirements?

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)

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)

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)

Edit warring is irrelevant as long as it's not done with auto summaries. John Reaves 22:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

TW gets removed if abused, and I'm not willing to grant rollback to blatant edit-warriors. Acalamari 03:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

In fact, rollback is even easier to remove than twinkle, because removing rollback only requires a change of user permissions, but removing twinkle involves editing a protected monobook, which is intrusive and disables other functions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What's the big deal here?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think I see part of the issue

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)

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)

In what way are we "fighting so hard to not give it to people"? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Huh? The recent two were just accepted. Acalamari 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

←A more formal process is probably the opposite of what is needed. I think we need to distinguish between not granting rights, and actively denying them. Some admins who are not prepared to grant the rights think that this means they should deny them, but this should only be done in the most blatantly obvious cases. Any administrator should feel entitled to grant the rights to anyone, even if this sometimes involves some responsibility in following it up with some sort of mentorship or oversight. Applicants should only be denied their request when it is clear that no admin will accept it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps we need more than 2 options, maybe {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{denied}}? Mr.Z-man 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Help for admins

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 {{done}} or {{not done}} and then a bot will archive the request but it doesn't actually say Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like I'm right so I made an appropriate change to the header Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Difference From Twinkle

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)

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)

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)

Rollback is not an honor or a sign of community trust

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)

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)

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)

Shortcuts

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)

Watchlists

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)

Now that is a feature I don't want. Viridae ^Talk 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the adding of that feture Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 14:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Revoking rollback

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)

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)

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)

Preferably ANI so we can solicit multiple opinions, and have a big, drama-filled argument over it. :-) Grand master ka 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the bot missing things?

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)

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)

Hmm...well it looks like the bot just got them after all. Tiptoety ^talk 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to stuff beans up people's noses...

... 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)

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)

What happens April 10? John Reaves 05:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Where will the actual discussion be held? I'd like to contribute. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here, at least that makes the most sense to me. Tiptoety ^talk 00:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere at all makes most sense to me. – Steel 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could not agree more with you on that one. Tiptoety ^talk 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I for one hope that the discussion for the 10th will be going forward as planned. GlassCobra 19:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Its that time.

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)

Do we need standardized requirements for users that are requesting rollback?

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)

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)

I ~~guess I have not seen that addition to WP:RFR.~~ Tiptoety ^talk 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it got overwhelmingly rejected with almost everyone who commented happy with the current system. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Personally I feel that users should at least have 300 edits, so that the admin who is reviewing the contribs has something to go off of, and we know that the user has had at least a little bit of experience around the project. Tiptoety ^talk 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, that is your personal standard. Other people will have less, some will have higher. Let's let admins use the judgement we promoted them for. Majorly (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Job 1:21 is fine, automated is not. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- ~~I'm confused - maybe I'm missing something, but other than the bible verse, what is Job 1:21? --B (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)~~ Never mind, I figured it out. But someone should point out that admins are janitors, not gods. --B (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope. If an admin thinks someone should have rollback, they can grant it. It's even less of not a big deal (does that make any sense?) than adminship. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't need a number of edits to get Twinkle. We trust admins for their judgement to not give this to trolls. No need for this sort of thing, IMO. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How should rollback be revoked?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If it's clear misuse, I say remove it. No need to even leave any message on a noticeboard, though the user in question should be informed. Majorly (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Per above, Job 1:21. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Okay, but what constitutes "abuse"? I have seen many users interpret abuse of rollback differently. Tiptoety ^talk 03:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

That appears to need some expansion, like not in content disputes, ect... Tiptoety ^talk 04:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not treat it like you'd treat a block (generally warn first, but in extreme cases act with 'prejudice'). Antelan ^talk 03:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.) Antelan ^talk 04:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying not warn them, but they should not get four of them. Tiptoety ^talk 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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. Antelan ^talk 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Hah, I think we're on the same page after all. Antelan ^talk 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone has been warned about their use of rollback and continues to misuse it (e.g. by rolling back good-faith edits) then the privilege should be withdrawn, with a possible note on WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say there's no harm in removing it and warning at the same time. People know what they're meant to do with the tools (vandalism only). Only in cases where admins are unsure if the usage is correct or not should it go to ANI for discussion (since that's already pretty backlogged). Again, my opinion. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I said above.. when I said "go ahead and remove it" I meant if you think that is warranted, of course. If you think it's better to warn, certainly do that instead. I just think that if an admin sees sufficient misuse that he wants to remove it, he can go ahead and do it without asking anyone's permission. Our goal here is to have competent rollbackers, rather than to punish simple mistakes. It looks to me like there's a general agreement here that this can be done by discretion rather than by a rulebook. Friday (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

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)

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)

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)

Purpose of "community discussion"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) what? Kim agreeing with Until 1==2? Amazing! :-)

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)

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)

Do we even need this page?

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)

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)

Yes, but those decisions are generally made based on a policy that guides them. Tiptoety ^talk 03:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Training editors with rollback rights

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)

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)

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)

Can an Admin review this user's Rollback right?

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)

It was 1.5 months ago.... MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, but still a violation is a violation, whenever it was done. --SMS ^Talk 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Ok! --SMS ^Talk 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Header changes

Resolved

– Header changed, Tiptoety ^talk 18:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

Support I was the editor who stood at the wrong end of the gun, and I survived only barely. Rollaback rights apparently are kept under a tight leash, and it would be mighty helpful to declare so. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would also recommend more explicit instructions/guidelines on the "rollback feature" page. As I have found out, rollback is for explicit vandalism and other edits that resemble explicit vandalism. The idea of keeping the interpretation of "nonproductive edit" somewhat open with a reference to it being "usually vandalism" is hardly enough. I say this particularly because plenty other Wikipedia policies/guidelines imply a more liberal interpretation of "nonproductive edit" that may or may not be related to "vandalism" as such. There is no indication on the rollback page that those interpretations do not necessarily apply to the rollaback feature. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Certainly anyone granted the rollback authority needs to understand what its purpose is and is not. "Nonproductive edit" could be a bit vague. Without redefining what vandalism is, it could be stated that it means things like I had mentioned before: gratuitous comments, vulgarities or obscenities, gibberish or extremely poorly worded and uncited nonsense, "hi mom" kinds of stuff, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other stupid remarks that have nothing to do with the subject. It could be added that these remarks usually come from IP addresses and red-link or single-purpose or vandalism-only accounts, and that the editor should be encouraged to (1) warn the user on its talk page and (2) turn in the user on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard if it persists. It should NOT be used in connection with any kind of content-dispute or edit-war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe some real-life examples of items targeted for rollback would be helpful. I use the criterion of what I call "stupid comments", which is risky because I know exactly what I mean by that, but some would interpret "stupid" to mean "something I don't agree with". Here's an example that you approved as being a good one to roll back: [8] It turned out to be a pretty good case, because I added to the already-existing warnings on the user's talk page, then checked his contributions and saw he had been nothing but a vandal for some months, and turned him in to the vandalism talk page, whereupon he was quickly blocked. That's a little extreme, because often these characters are one-shots who disappear quickly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here's another example [9] which another editor beat me to the roll-a-back. It's simply someone gratuitously changing something, either as a "test" or just to be stupid. Some editors will post a polite little warning about "your test worked" on their user page. My inclination is to do nothing, and see if they continue to mess around or if they disappear. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  - In this case, the guy immediately made another stupid change [10] so it's time for a warning, not a cutesy polite warning but a "stop it" message (as per my usual approach, rightly or wrongly). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  - He has now been warned twice [11] and the third today, if it happens, will be the charm. Sorry about all this stream-of-consciousness stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree it is important to make new rollbackers aware of when rollback should and should not be used. Although we could add a header to the top of the rollback requests page linking to Wikipedia:Rollback feature, there is still no clear explanation at Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Have a look at the wording in both WP:Requests for rollback and WP:Rollback feature: rollback is meant to be used as a fast method of undoing "nonproductive edits, usually vandalism". However, if you follow the recent discussion at talk page, it is clear that this explanation is vague and confusing and is being misunderstood by well-meaning editors in good standing. The explanation would be less vague if it gave a few clear examples. Baseball Bugs gave some examples above of what qualifies for a rollback. I'd like to add those to Wikipedia:Rollback feature if nobody objects. - Neparis (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Support New users to rollback who have never used the tool before should be pointed to a page that could tell them how to use the tool. In this case, it is Wikipedia:Rollback feature. There also needs to be a warning on the WP:Requests for rollback page about misuse of the rollback tool because rollback in the wrong hands could mean a lot of work. I hope this helps to clarify my views. Cheers, Razor flame 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merely hide details?

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)

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. -- Menti sock 11:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the explanation. Ashton1983 (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)