Tim Starling (talk | contribs) View by Tim Starling |
|||
Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
===Users that endorse this view=== |
===Users that endorse this view=== |
||
* With respect to accidental rollbacks, that's true - when I first got the bit, I had to get used to the idea that there was an extra link out there I could accidentally click on. If you Firefox and are used to scrolling with the wheel mouse, it's easy to accidentally click the rollback link if you aren't expecting to be there. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 14:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
* With respect to accidental rollbacks, that's true - when I first got the bit, I had to get used to the idea that there was an extra link out there I could accidentally click on. If you Firefox and are used to scrolling with the wheel mouse, it's easy to accidentally click the rollback link if you aren't expecting to be there. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 14:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
== View by Tim Starling == |
|||
The point of restricting rollback is not to waste the time of our valued non-admin patrollers. Faster non-admin revert (in terms of human time) would be a useful feature, providing appropriate measures against abuse are included. This feature is in fact already provided by various unofficial client-side scripts, but integration into MediaWiki would reduce server load and provide centralised control over the details of the user interface. |
|||
What exactly constitutes "appropriate measures against abuse" is obviously controversial. Possible mechanisms include: |
|||
* Rate limiting |
|||
* A two-click interface, to protect against accidental rollbacks and provide the opportunity to enter an edit summary |
|||
* Trust mechanisms (e.g. RFA) |
|||
I want us to stop wasting the time of "untrusted" users, so I favour rate limiting and two-click over trust. |
|||
[[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] ([[User talk:Tim Starling|talk]]) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Users that endorse this view=== |
Revision as of 14:52, 7 December 2007
It has been announced that regular users are to be given access to the previously administrator only Rollback function. This has the ability to significantly change the way edits are reverted on Wikipedia.
There are several options available which should be examined.
- Following the original configuration through and allowing the rollback feature to be enabled as planned
- Deciding to change the configuration but still permitting non administrators to have access to the rollback feature, either by new user groups or by limiting the access to autoconfirmed users only.
- Not making any changes to who has access to rollback, leaving it for administrators only.
Please feel free to create your own view, or endorse other proposals. Before commenting, please take a look at the following pages;
- Help:Reverting#Rollback for relevant guidelines on when and when not to use rollback.
- Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Rollback for regular users
- Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges (inactive proposal)
- Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges/Poll (poll concerning the above proposal)
Currently planned implementation
The currently planned implementation is as follows.
- FIVE rollbacks per TWO minutes for new users.
- FIVE rollbacks per ONE minute for autoconfirmed users.
- NO limit whatsoever for administrators.
View by Titoxd
- Have the process remain the same, but add a method to remove rollback capabilities temporarily or permanently. (Although I imagine blocking works...)
Users that endorse this view
- Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- As long as there is a method to take the tool away short of blocking, I don't see the problem. --B (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Orderinchaos 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- With the same caveat as B. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
View by Antelan
Giving such tools to non-admins (such as myself) could be useful or could be harmful, but it is extraordinarily difficult to know a priori. Therefore, I am proposing this meta-plan: I suggest that we use whichever plan that Wikipedians find most agreeable. With that plan, do the following:
- Implement the plan for two weeks.
- Turn the rollback feature back off for at least two weeks. At this time, open a new discussion.
The evidence that we will accumulate over the 2 week period will be useful in deciding whether this should be a long-term feature for regular users. The 2 week window, likewise, will minimize the amount of "damage" should there be an unexpectedly 'vandalous' response. This process will allow us to have a more evidence-based discussion instead of a purely theoretical one.
Users that endorse this view
Antelan talk 02:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
View by Ryan Postlethwaite
The rollback button is quite an important tool, and in the right hands, it's extremely helpful in reverting vandalism. In the wrong hands however, it has the potential to do some serious damage to the project;
- It could easily be used by a vandal to go on sprees of mass reverting random contributions - due to the fact that they are simply roll backs, they may well go unnoticed for quite a length of time. An edit limit of 5 per minute would still mean that the average user would be able to opperate at much higher speeds than normal, and therefore cause damage much quicker. I mean, imagine a mass rollback of User:ClueBot??
- Rollback is marked as minor, therefore doesn't show up in all RC feeds, so therefore edits made by new autoconfirmed users would not be checked as rigourously - this ties in with the theme above that vandalism would be less easy to detect.
- It is also highly likely that this tool would be used in edit wars which has a couple of implications; 1) Users could edit war at a much faster pace at one click of a button - it would most likely lead to edit wars escalating exctremely quickly into blind reverts. 2) An automated edit in an edit war (which would not be accessible to everyone) would just make the situation worse, and antagonise the opposite side.
All in all, I think giving rollback to autoconfirmed users is a bad idea, maybe some way that admins could give it to trusted users would be a good idea however - but obviously there would have to be an easy way to remove it as well.
Users that endorse this view
- Ryan Postlethwaite 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redrocketboy 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Undo is sufficient, and there's a load of anti vandal rollbaklike tools out there. Seriously, no need for us lowley non-admins to have it :) Cheers, Redrocketboy 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ryan sums up my concerns pretty well. I like the idea of giving it out, but dislike the idea of doing so automatically and without review. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is almost exactly what my concerns are. I too like the idea of giving the feature to trusted users, but not without a review as Luna Santin has noted. -MBK004 02:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I get the shakes just thinking about it. If this goes into effect, I hope someone is already writing The rollback wars of 2008. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty much exactly my ideas on the topic. Orderinchaos 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I do agree. I would hate to have a rollback-war with a squad of vandal-sockpuppets. Acalamari 03:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, automatically giving it to everyone would be absurd. Twinkle and popups are just fine for those of us who are occasionally held back by our non-admin access. The Hybrid T/C 03:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Daniel 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is about right. I think it has too much potential for misuse, and it's easy enough to install Twinkle or popups. On the other hand, a rollback usergroup would be perfectly fine. Let admins hand it out or remove it at will, and it's just a feather duster handed out by those with mops, great for cleaning the wiki. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Giving absolutely everybody some amount of rollback would be a very bad idea, for these reasons. Dreaded Walrus t c 03:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree entirely. Twinkle gives pretty much the same functionality while asking for an edit summary. I can only imagine the havoc that could be caused by vandals with a rollback button. —Travistalk 03:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think using Twinkle and other tools like it is good enough. As others have indicated, they are easy enough to install, and already have some hoops to go through in order to get them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Húsönd 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I could see this, but only if it's Bureaucrats granting/removing as it is an admin ability. (Which is apparently how it would currently work, per talk page. - jc37 08:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it should not be automatic. I think we should grant it on demand to anyone who is not a disruptive user, but having it be automatic would just cause problems. --B (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
View by Rschen7754
Rollback is a very useful but very dangerous tool. In the wrong hands, it can be used in edit warring, when it should not be used (reverting good faith edits), etc. Therefore, a RFA should be required to obtain access to this tool.
Users that endorse this view
- Rschen7754 (T C) 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ryan Postlethwaite 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redrocketboy 02:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tools like Twinkle are sufficient, I think. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Community input of some sort strikes me as a need, here, either through RfA or some similar process with a lower bar. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing was broke. The status quo is fine 哦, 是吗?(review O) 02:54, 07 December 2007 (GMT)
- Endorse per my above comments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- See my comments on Ryan Postlethwaite's view. Acalamari 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Generally my view also. However I don't agree an RfA is required, but some process where trusted users get it and the rest don't is important. I would say a PROD-like process would be more appropriate. Orderinchaos 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Undo button is sufficient for most users (myself, for example), those who want more abilities can use Twinkle or other tools. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Twinkle and such already give power to those technically minded enough to figure it out; unfortunately, if official rollback were offered to all users in the default interface, I'm afraid it may end up being overused. --krimpet⟲ 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, automatically giving it to everyone would be absurd. Twinkle and popups are just fine for those of us who are occasionally held back by our non-admin access. The Hybrid T/C 03:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Daniel 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- If bots have to go through confirmation, and admins have to go through confirmation, then confirmation should be required for this. - jc37 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Húsönd 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
View by Robertgreer
- Given all the admonitions in Help:Rollback#Rollback and Help:Reverting#Revert_wars_considered_harmful this is a terrible idea; leave this in the hands of admnistrators!
- N.B. I am not an admin. Robert Greer (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Users that endorse this view
- Yep. Redrocketboy 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse per my above comments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- See my above comments. Acalamari 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very much indeed, leave it with the admins. -- Pepve (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Húsönd 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
View by Ckatz
The rollback tool is extremely useful. As a non-admin, I find I use the TW version on a regular basis, and was happy when that functionality became available. However, offering access "system-wide" would be a mistake, as it would allow for quick and easy abuse. (I've seen many cases where vandals have taken advantage of the relatively new "undo" feature to restore their handiwork after I've cleaned it up.) The current restrictions, wherein regular users have to use TW or similar scripts, is sufficient. The users who are likely to go to the trouble of installing the script are also likely to be ones who will use proper judgement before using that script. --Ckatzchatspy 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Users that endorse this view
- Twinkle is good enough, since only well-established users with intents to remove vandalism and warn them use this feature. Most vandals do not care about installing scripts, such as Twinkle onto their userpages. Having this feature to any user will be wiki-chaos. I personally use Twinkle and I recommend it to anyone who wants the rollback feature and has good faith in this very large Internet project. Johnny Au (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Húsönd 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
View by CBM
Rollback is not particularly better or worse than the undo feature or automatic rollback tools available through javascript such as Twinkle. On the other hand, the lack of an edit summary and the automatic 'minor edit' mark make vandalism patrolling more difficult. The ability to revert from a user's contributions page is more prone to abuse than the ability to revert from page histories.
Thus, giving all users rollback would be more acceptable if:
- Edits by non-admins are not automatically marked as minor.
- The revert function for non-admins is limited to page histories, not user contribution lists.
- If possible, Javascript is used to prompt non-admins for an edit summary when reverting. Barring this, the edit summary of the edits being reverted is included in the automatic edit summary.
Users that endorse this view
View by Mr.Z-man
Rollback should not be given to all users, only those who have passed the "autoconfirm" threshold, the same restriction for semiprotection and pagemoves which is currently set to 4 days. This can and should be raised. The threshold can also be set to require a minimum edit count and it may be set to require a confirmed email address too. My proposal is to give rollback privileges to autoconfirmed users (with the same 5/min limit) and raise the threshold to reduce the risk of sleeper account abuse. Perhaps 7 days and 100 edits. Mr.Z-man 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Users that endorse this view
View by Orderinchaos
Essentially I'm in agreement with Ryan Postlethwaite's comments above re the general situation. I have a specific proposal though for granting rollback to trusted users: a PROD-like process where people are nominated to gain access.
- Must be nominated by administrator (can't self nominate or get another non-admin user to nominate)
- 5 day waiting period, where userpage is in a category eg "Users awaiting rollback confirmation" or user is listed on a page to this effect
- Anyone can object, remove the candidate from consideration and post reason for doing so. Vexatious/egregious removals would be considered disruptive.
- After its expiry, any administrator can grant access to tool.
- Once granted, it can be taken away by a consensus at AN/I for minor/more general cases, or immediately by any administrator in an emergency situation.
Orderinchaos 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Users that endorse this view
- Orderinchaos 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with this view too. Acalamari 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, sounds good. I'd suggest "Anyone can object" becomes "Any administrator can object", for anti-trolling purposes (of course, if there is a concern, it can always be raised in an appropriate venue and if an administrator agrees, then they can remove the person from the category). Daniel 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like this idea. Mr.Z-man 03:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) Just what I had in mind, with one difference. Instead of "Anyone can object", make it "Registered editors with 100 mainspace edits" or something to that effect to keep out new accounts and sleeper-socks. -MBK004 03:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec x2) Sure, this is the right idea. Nihiltres{t.l} 03:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is good. Especially Daniel's slight variation of the wording. --Dreaded Walrus t c 03:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is the best way to handle this. Captain panda 03:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is probably too close to WP:RFR, but I wouldn't mind this. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, this proposal doesn't seem too bad. Húsönd 08:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment on this view by jc37
I don't like the idea that admins can give this ability. Admin abilities should stay as granted by bureaucrats. And going in hand with that, admins then shouldn't be able to remove the ability either. (Though I have an alternate suggestion, below) While removal of admin abilities have thus far been a Steward ability, I suggest that, in this individual case, the ability be given to bureaucrats, if it's to be given "on site". - jc37 04:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Other comments
How is creating yet another procedure going to be good for Wikipedia? We have RFA for everyone who needs more privileges. It works, don't fix it. -- Pepve (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
View by Esskater11
Its basicly the same as Orderinchaos in a sense but with looser criteria and a different way to grant the tools
- Anyone can nominate them selfs and give nominate others
- Must have at least 2000 or 1500 edits (note this excludes myself)
- The community will then try to reach consensus on whether or not they want the user with these tools. If consensus is reached for "support" a Admin will come and grant the status.
I feel that this is more community driven and fairer as the Community decides who is given these tools. Esskater11 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Users that endorse this view
- Me duhhh Esskater11 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Some BASHY thoughts from Dmcdevit
< Dmcdevit> If you and 99 other people donate… < Dmcdevit> * $40 – We can deliver 100 million pageviews of free information! < Dmcdevit> * $30 - We can undo 35 million edits! < Dmcdevit> * $20 - We can rollback 35 million edits! < Dmcdevit> Now do you understand?
=D --AmiDaniel (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
View by B
If we do implement the rollback for non-admins, having an "RFA lite" is a bad idea that would only create an unnecessary hoop to jump through. Access should be granted on demand to any user that is clearly not disruptive. --B (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Users that endorse this view
- B (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- No need to create extra bureaucracy every time we entertain a new feature. Antelan talk 07:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
View by Angela
The help page on rollbacks says that they "should be used with caution and restraint" and that "it is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor" to use rollback as opposed to reverting manually with an edit summary and explanation. I've seen newbies with rollback privileges at Wikia (where the requirements for adminship are very different to here) and they constantly violate these rules. Rollback to a newbie, who can not be expected to read the help page first, is simply something you do if you disagree with the edit made - it isn't intuitively something used only in cases of obvious vandalism. Enabling this feature will lead to many "slaps in the face". Many rollbacks will be made by accident or because people do not know when rollback is supposed to be used and these will be hard to detect. Angela. 13:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Users that endorse this view
- With respect to accidental rollbacks, that's true - when I first got the bit, I had to get used to the idea that there was an extra link out there I could accidentally click on. If you Firefox and are used to scrolling with the wheel mouse, it's easy to accidentally click the rollback link if you aren't expecting to be there. --B (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
View by Tim Starling
The point of restricting rollback is not to waste the time of our valued non-admin patrollers. Faster non-admin revert (in terms of human time) would be a useful feature, providing appropriate measures against abuse are included. This feature is in fact already provided by various unofficial client-side scripts, but integration into MediaWiki would reduce server load and provide centralised control over the details of the user interface.
What exactly constitutes "appropriate measures against abuse" is obviously controversial. Possible mechanisms include:
- Rate limiting
- A two-click interface, to protect against accidental rollbacks and provide the opportunity to enter an edit summary
- Trust mechanisms (e.g. RFA)
I want us to stop wasting the time of "untrusted" users, so I favour rate limiting and two-click over trust.
Tim Starling (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)