→Granting rollback privileges: -fixing |
Tim Starling (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
::[[User:FunPika|<span style="color:blue"><b>Fun</b></span>]][[User_Talk:FunPika|<span style="color:green"><b>Pika</b></span>]] 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
::[[User:FunPika|<span style="color:blue"><b>Fun</b></span>]][[User_Talk:FunPika|<span style="color:green"><b>Pika</b></span>]] 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Developer dictatorship == |
|||
Excerpt from #mediawiki: |
|||
<pre> |
|||
[15:48] <Werdna> TimStarling: so, can I switch the permission required for rollback to edit // grant the rollback permission to all users? |
|||
[15:50] <TimStarling> Werdna, you've got a long life ahead of you, no need to make yourself a martyr just yet |
|||
[15:50] <TimStarling> I suggest you promote the idea on the english wikipedia first |
|||
</pre> |
|||
I think the configuration change is a good idea, which is why I gave Werdna the go-ahead to implement and promote it. But if there's strong opposition to it, it's not going to happen. The general guideline I use for developer decision-making is: |
|||
# Decisions made solely for technical reasons can ignore community opinion. For example, disabling features to maintain site performance, or refusing to enable an extension which is poorly written. |
|||
# Developers may take a leadership role in cases of community disinterest, or a failure of the community to reach consensus. |
|||
# Except for technical decisions, community consensus for or against a given decision should always be respected. |
|||
It looks like we're heading for consensus against in this case. Which is a pity, because as I say, I think it's a good idea. |
|||
-- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] ([[User talk:Tim Starling|talk]]) 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:26, 7 December 2007
RfC?
Could we turn this into something similar to an RfC? It might make consensus easier to see. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wherever it takes place, someone should be sure to move the conversation from the Village Pump. John Reaves 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Convenience link: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Rollback for regular users. Pagrashtak 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment
Given that I started this page/Request for Comments, I don't feel it entirely appropriate to comment on any of the proposals, but for the record, I'm not happy that a wider discussion didn't take place before the implementation was announced, and it appears there's going to be widely differing views on the implementation, whether it be over the technical details of it all, or fears about the rollback tool being abused. Personally, I don't think it should be available to all users, there are no real sanctions when the tool is misused apart from a block, which might not be appropriate, and I do think it might promote edit warring and will result in the loss of useful edit summaries. Nick (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Old bug
Just thought I'd mention that there's an old bug regarding this issue: bugzilla:3317. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Granting rollback privileges
Some of the proposals suggest granting privileges on an individual basis. However, some of the suggestions seem to be somewhat outside of what the software can actually do. There is currently an extension to allow rollback rights to be given and revoked on an individual basis. the default setting is for it to be assigned by bureaucrats, but this can be changed to allow admins to do it. There is currently no way for one usergroup to be able to grant, but not revoke (or vice versa) rollback privileges. The extension is currently used on Wikia. The other options, from a technical standpoint are through the use of the group permissions variables. This can allow it to automatically be assigned based on usergroup - user, autoconfirm, emailconfirmed, sysop, bot, etc. The threshold that determines "autoconfirm" can also be changed to require an account be sufficiently old and have a certain minimum number of edits. The current setting is 4 days, 0 edits. The 2 systems cannot be combined - we can't grant it automatically and still be able to remove it with the GiveRollback extension. Mr.Z-man 07:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- So if nothing is changed as it stands right now, Bureaucrats can give and take? - jc37 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another special page for bcrats? Can't we just use $wgAddGroups and $wgRemoveGroups to combine all the bcrat right changing powers into one special page? Then the devs just have to do all of the config changes needed to make this possible and add the following lines to localsettings.php.
- $wgGroupPermissions['rollback']['rollback'] = true; (the actual rollback button)
- $wgGroupPermissions['rollback']['markbotedits'] = true; (bot rollback for hiding mass vandalism from the recent changes used by adding &bot=1 to the end of a vandal's contribs url)
Developer dictatorship
Excerpt from #mediawiki:
[15:48] <Werdna> TimStarling: so, can I switch the permission required for rollback to edit // grant the rollback permission to all users? [15:50] <TimStarling> Werdna, you've got a long life ahead of you, no need to make yourself a martyr just yet [15:50] <TimStarling> I suggest you promote the idea on the english wikipedia first
I think the configuration change is a good idea, which is why I gave Werdna the go-ahead to implement and promote it. But if there's strong opposition to it, it's not going to happen. The general guideline I use for developer decision-making is:
- Decisions made solely for technical reasons can ignore community opinion. For example, disabling features to maintain site performance, or refusing to enable an extension which is poorly written.
- Developers may take a leadership role in cases of community disinterest, or a failure of the community to reach consensus.
- Except for technical decisions, community consensus for or against a given decision should always be respected.
It looks like we're heading for consensus against in this case. Which is a pity, because as I say, I think it's a good idea.
-- Tim Starling (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)