Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smith Jones (talk | contribs) at 04:05, 7 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1

Voting is evil

1. Oh BTW, what's all this "support" and "oppose" about anyway? While it's convenient to put one's comments in one section or the other to easily mark one's stance on this, I hope nobody comes up with a brilliant idea of actually making the results of this poll binding. Or did we start to enact policies by voting and I missed that? Миша13 09:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   True, voting is evil, but this case is different (and it's not a clear cut vote). The devs want to see consensus clearly demonstated and this method is far better in showing consensus rather than a long convoluted discussion that conclusions can't be brought from. You also miss out on the views of people that simply support or oppose is but don't have anything really extra to add to the discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Yep, this is an often-overlooked benefit of voting: It is relevant to know if a particular point of view is held by a few people, or a few hundred. Having a few hundred people say exactly the same thing does not lead to a better discussion than having a few people say it, and the rest say "yes, I agree".--Srleffler (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   The problem with voting in most situations on Misplaced Pages is that there is usually no ballot. In a "real" vote, the thing you're voting on is well-defined. "Who do you want to elect?" "Should smoking be banned in government buildings?" On Misplaced Pages, things are almost always constantly changing. Most pages continue to be heavily edited while the supposed "voting" is going on. What one would supposedly be "voting on" is continuously evolving. For a vote to be an accurate reflection of consensus, the thing being voted on has to be well-defined. • I note that this proposal appears to be changing as people "vote" on it. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What happens is we get a big mess, where some people are voting, but others are discussing.

1. This poll is absolutely absurd -- with little advertising, and a short window, I don't think this should be enacted without further discussion. Ral315 (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   Little advertising? It is/was on the village pump, the administrators' noticeboard, centralized discussion, and the watchlist notice. There aren't many more places to put it. Mr.Z-man 10:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah well, hehe - I didn't see it on my watchlist notice until yesterday. And maybe I should put a reminder on my left menu to visit all those pages you so happily stated ;) The first time I saw this page - Supports led opposes 3:1. --- Then again - there's only so many users you can notify 8)  — master son 15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   There are almost 300 participants so far, clearly it has been advertised well. I can assure you that it has not been selectively advertised to favor one side. If the people in favor are showing a lead it is because more people want it, not how the discussion was held. 1 != 2 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   Further discussion, like the kind going on at this page? Equazcion •✗/C • 11:03, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone keeps an eye on every one of those places. The watchlist notice is what brought 90% of the people here, and that was placed very recently. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 13:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No-one has to keep an eye on every one of those places, it's not like finding this page is a puzzle that requires pieces from stuff posted at each location. This is what WP:CENT is purportedly there for in the first place, the fact that it alone isn't enough is leading me to seriously consider nominating it for MFD (I've always considered it a bit of a backwater)—Random832 15:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

People are not just "voting", they are giving English descriptions of their opinions and responding to each other, that is a discussion. The poll is the format of the discussion, not the means of determining the result. 1 != 2 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not appear to be the case. When I tried posting an "English description", it got moved to "discussion", apparently because it wasn't a simple vote, but a reasoned response. I could have moved it back, I suppose, but I didn't want to get into an edit war. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, whoever did that was wrong. You are supposed to explain your opinion. 1 != 2 15:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I realize that it's not part of Wiki policy to consider voting good, but... well, voting IS good. We should be using votes for everything. Debate and discussion usually just goes around and around because attempts to put everyone on the same page will always fail. Voting is pure democracy with little room for anger and flames. It should be embraced. --Bishop2 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's nice, and I might even agree, but you're talking about changing a fundamental aspect of how Misplaced Pages works. If you want to propose that we overturn and strike WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, WP:Consensus, and WP:POLLS, you should propose it at the Village Pump. I will warn you that there is likely to be a large outcry against the idea. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, admin has already decided what they will do. Consulting users is a mere formality. Democracy within Misplaced Pages is a facade. I say this as someone who enjoys Misplaced Pages. But I enjoy it realising that it is not democratic: it is controlled at every level.--Gazzster (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether this is implemented is not up to the admins, its up to the developers. Mr.Z-man 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

the case for bureaucratic expansion has not been made

The proposal under discussion makes no case for the provision of rollback except to remark that other methods are "less efficient in bandwidth and time." The only effect of this proposal would be a saving of bandwidth (totally unquantified) and time (exceedingly minor), and an (easily quantifiable) increase in wikipedia bureaucracy as people apply for the tool and administrators reject/accept the applications and prosecute violations.

We have enough bureaucracy on wikipedia; I suggest we not create more without excellent reasons that are here completely lacking. Sdedeo (tips) 18:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually having to do multiple undo makes the edit history more confusing and does take a fair amount more time particularly with a slow connection (try using a modem with a large page). It's clear that some RCers are asking for this and that some admins are willing to partake in the process. If you don't want it and don't want to grant permission that's fine, but is there any reason why people who want it shouldn't get it when it doesn't negatively effect you?Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiple undos? If you need to undo multiple edits by a single editor, then a normal revert is more efficient. If you can't do that, because there are subsequence edits, then rollback won't work either. Rollback is far harder to use on a slow connection than "undo" or normal reverts. Guettarda (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me having to undo multiple times is faster then rollback? I'm somewhat doubtful but never having used rollback I can't actually say. What is a normal revert? You mean editing an older version of a page and saving? I do this sometimes but it can be annoying and is risky since it is relatively easy to accidentally revert a lot of good edits. Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken a rollback can work whenever you can undo. There are lots and lots and lots of cases when you can undo with intervening edits. For example, when someone modifies 'BUSH IS A GAY' but is unable to spell and has bad grammar so has to edit this vandalism several times. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to bureaucracy in general, and in particular on wikipedia, which is gradually accumulating an absolutely massive amount and, as a consequence, shifting increasing amounts of power to small subgroups and not the editors who make the bulk of mainspace contributions. Giving more authority to admins to certify people and punish violations of a new rule seems like something you need a great deal of reason for. Sdedeo (tips) 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see very little if any bureaucracy, there is not even a proposed system other than admin discretion. This is a new tool, not a new procedure. Perhaps more codified procedures will form if they are seen to be needed, but it seems we are starting out with system devoid of red tape. 1 != 2 20:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As per the proposal: you apply for the tool, and an admin reviews you and, if satisfied, chooses to approve your application. Admins are also responsible for prosecuting violations of the rules for this tool by revoking permission. The increase in bureaucracy and the concomitant increase in administrative powers granted to a subgroup (both the "approved user" and the admin who approves her) seems to give no significant benefit to the community. (The proposal is divided as to whether rollback is much more efficient or a "slight performance benefit".) Sdedeo (tips) 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Too often in Western society bureaucracy is viewed in a derogatory sense. While overbearing bureaucracy can harm efficiency, some bureaucracy is needed. Imagine how unorganized and unstandardized the processes would be, if we did not have the admin's noticeboard, RfA, and AfD pages. I think that as these are necessary for Misplaced Pages's efficiency, so would a "well-oiled" policy on a rollback feature help the efficiency. Mind, in my previous support comment, I mentioned hat this feature should go to very experienced users, and as there are not that many of users (comparatively) who would be able to make effective use of the feature, the feature's maintenance would not take away from the efficiency gained. Having used a rollback script, I can say that it is more time consuming than I would like.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While the benefit may be minor in your opinion, those who do not wish to gain from it do not need to even notice any new process. And I really don't view asking and then someone making a decision an overly bureaucratic decision. 1 != 2 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. No one is saying it will be compulsory for admins to partake in the process. If they don't want to fine. Nor is anything saying you need to have the tool. If you don't want to fine. But for those users who do want the tool and those admins willing to partake in the process why should we be denied just because people feel well I don't think it's necessary? Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just felt like mentioning something in the Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost. Apparently the code has now been changed so admins now have the power to grant individual rights to users (such as rollback, which is used as an example...). .:Alex:. 16:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, so now we can all go home. There is no need for non-admin rollback tool. Igor Berger (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, one of the whole reasons for this discussion was to decide whether admins should grant the tool and to who which hasn't be resolved. We already knew the devs we're probably going to add the feature and they had asked us if we wanted. What the admins added was basically what we think we want but haven't decided yet whether we do. In the event there is no consensus, we don't actually have to use the feature Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)No you're wrong. The signpost thing is precisely why we're discussing this. Basically if I understand it correctly, the devs told us they were going to implement the feature and whether we want some sort of non-adminstrative roll back. Eventually it was decided that an admin like roll back for non admins granted by admins is the best idea. The devs have implemented the feature which will enable them to allow admins to grant roll backs (and other tools). However it remains up to us to decide whether we want to ask the devs to grant admins the right to give roll backs. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe bureaucracy is "guilty until proven innocent", and just don't feel that the case has been made here. Put most broadly, this proposal is an opt-in variant of "trusted user", something that the community has objected to many, many times. I don't want to take up too much time with my objections here, so I'll leave it at that. Sdedeo (tips) 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But the issue there was there was no defined reason for a 'trusted user'. Here we are saying many users want this tool. Many users feel they have need for this tool. No one IMHO has been able to explain why they don't need this tool except to say 'well I don't feel this tool will be useful' which is somewhat unfair IMHO to those who feel this tool will be useful. I can understand even if I don't agree with those who argue that adding this will create too many extra problems but it seems excessive to deny this simply because you don't feel it will be useful Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If the user needs this tool so bad they should become an admin. If they do not want to be an admin than they could use twinkle It reverts the same way as the proposed solution and you can input a reason on non obvious vandalism. It is also better the way it is because it removes unneeded bureaucracy Alexfusco 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary must be mandatory for all users

I don't know if this is technically possible, but could the rollback for all people, admins included, be changed to require a mandatory subject entry? That would force all people to explain why they're reverting, even if it's just "rvv". That could help keep a ton of new people having this ability on the up and up. Lawrence Cohen 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me if possible Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be a pain with one of the more helpful features of rollback. If there is a user (or vandalbot) which does a large amount of vandalism in a very short space of time, their edits can be quickly reverted by clicking on all the rollback links in that user's contributions. This would take a lot longer if you had to specify an edit summary for each one (even TWINKLE doesn't force you to enter a summary). It would slow down RC patrol for some people too. Under the current proposal, only a small group of trustworthy users will be given the rollback button, and if they use it for anything other then blatant vandalism they will have the tool removed, so if we can't trust that every edit they revert is vandalism and need to make them give an additional summary they should not have the tool. Hut 8.5 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I've neved had access to rollback not being an admin. But wouldn't a general edit summary be acceptable and not really slow things down much? If you're reverting a user for vandalism then a rvv one time wouldn't take that long. If you're reverting a user for vandalism once and the second time because you simply don't like the person, well you shouldn't be doing that :-P Mind you I'm not convince this is that important but some people seem to think it is so I supported it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted this. I think that the current version is probably useful for admins. But I agree with it for non-admin usage. I've started a #Counter-proposal below. - jc37 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need an edit summary then do not use rollback. Rollback is for reverting bad faith edits where the content of the revert explains its purpose. If you need an edit summary then rollback is not the correct tool to use. 1 != 2 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with 1 != 2 - if you need an edit summary, don't use rollback. Guettarda (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this too, should there be now edit summary, rollback won't work. Marlith 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the revert was only intended for obvious vandalism? I probably misunderstood. Lawrence Cohen 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also used rollback for self-reverts - quite frankly, that's one of the best places for it, since you don't need to look at the diff and there's no fear of offending the person you're reverting. Guettarda (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle and other tools

Am I missing something? Two of the most common arguments appear to be either that twinkle and other tools can do this already (which doesn't really explain why we shouldn't add rollback) or that adding this tool is going to unleash a scourge of editors who will edit war, revert people they don't like and generally wreak havoc. It seems to me these are mutually exclusive claims. If twinkle and such can do it all already then I fail to see how adding this is going to somehow unleash all these bad editors. So far, the only thing I'm getting that's different from twinkle etc that may help stop abuse is that they force an edit summary. Is there something else I'm missing? Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In case people ask if twinkle can already do this why add it, well the point is other then the potential performance gain (and let's not forget it was the devs who asked whether we want it) both for the server and the user (especially for RCers using modem and other slow connections) there's also the issue of browser compatibility and the fact that people simply don't want to have to install custom javascript which does carry some small risk when the function can be easily and more effectively provided by the wikimedia software. However, if users really are the abusive kind, it seems likely to me they will take the effort to get a working browser and may not care so much about security risks. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TW is used for edit warring all the time. Expanding rollback makes it even easier. Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone usess rollback to edit war, he/she will lose that privilege quite quickly. --Conti|✉ 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

People use TW all the time, and keep the privilege. People use rollback to edit war even now - you just need to be discrete and well-connected. People misuse admin tools and keep them. There's too much politics and there are too many cliques in Misplaced Pages. We will see long arguments "yes, he was edit warring!", "no, you're just trying to take away the tool because he reverted your friend", "no, you're just protecting him because he's your friend". Crap like that happens all the time (albeit, usually using coded language). The more people that have rollback, the more it will be used to edit war. Even if the tools are lost immediately upon edit warring. Guettarda (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see how it would make it moderately easier to edit war, but how would it encourage it or cause more edit wars? Most people don't edit war just because they can, there is some sort of content dispute. Are users really that lazy that if they have to do a manual revert or use undo they will decide to just drop the issue but they will edit war if they have rollback? Edit wars rely on multiple people to do the reverting, so it will only make the individual reverts faster, not the edit wars themselves. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the consern maybe more with a renegate editor, who might have suffered centrain levels of an anxiety attack and just goes on a rollback mission! I recently seen a blocked editor do an edit to a user talk page. Are the dead Resurrected? Or the admin who implemented the block did not do it the right way, and an exploit has been created? How about if an editor with rollback has his user id and password hijacked, and the gohst editor goes mayhem? There are so many posibilities of exploits that are not even touched by this discussion. Admin participate in the community and have relationships accross all genre, but a recent change patrolman or conter vandalism member may exist in a limited sub group of the community. Shit happens. Igor Berger (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If something like that were to happen, we would revert, block, and move on. Rollback is just an edit. If its used maliciously or for vandalism we would handle it like any other situation that didn't involve rollback. Mr.Z-man 07:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you revert curl_init cronjob, how many computations will the rollback tool do in 10 minutes, 60 minutes. 60 minutes probaly 40,000 depeding on the server load. Make sure to put preventive mesures to restrict abuse. Say 3 operations per 5 minutes or ten minutes. The variable can be adjusted per user experience level. Maximum rollbacks 30 an hour, but this can also be increased with Trust ™! Igor Berger (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it someone who starts mass rollbacking everything is going to be blocked within minutes. If it really get so bad, the devs can get involved. If this really happens often then the devs will probably tell us we need to do something. If the devs don't then I don't know if we should worry about it. IMHO the far greater worry are people who use this to edit war, wikistalk or 'own' an article since it may take a while for them to be noticed but even then I doubt it'll be that often and when it happens they're gone Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But why would people be more likely to use rollback then TW? Perhaps I'm wrong but the vast majority of people who cause problems tend to be dedicated enough that they don't care if they have to change browser and use external code to do their dirty work so they are probably already using TW. It's the ones who want to improve wikipedia who don't necessarily have the time to dedicate to installing JS (which as I've mentioned is inherently risky even if the risk is small) and who may not want to be forced to use a certain browser. Also, the way I see it one of the problems with TW is that it's effectively somewhat unregulated by wikipedia. Yes I believe people can be banned from using TW but since it's not actually part of wikipedia it's somewhat of a tricky process. Rollback is part of wikipedia, granted to people who can be trusted with it and if it turns out you can't you lose it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback privilege criteria

I'm concerned about the vagueness of step 2 in "#The way it works", which currently states, "Administrators should check the history of the contributor to see if they can be trusted with the tool." I guess the theory is that admins can just look at the edit history of a user, make a decision, and flip the switch (or not). I've got nothing wrong with entrusting any given admin to make a determination. My concern is that this is a recipe for strife, discontent, and argument. Admins are people, and different people will have different takes. It is virtually a given that, in some number of cases, one admin would say "Yes" and another would say "No". Given that there's no "locking mechanism" on Misplaced Pages, I can totally see one admin explaining why he said "No" while the other is granting the privilege. What then? I expect a discussion between the admins, but without any defined criteria, it's going to come down to personal opinion, which makes for lots of long, drawn out discussions, wasted time and effort, the occasional wheel war, etc. And what happens when a user claims (in good faith) one admin's decision is unfair, that the admin is being too harsh? I'm concerned this will turn into WP:RFA all over again. As this says, "while nearly everybody seems to think there's something wrong with , literally years of discussion have yielded no consensus whatsoever". I would really hate to have the same happen to "Requests for rollback". —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest standards. With standards we will have no arbitrary giving of rollback according to one persons standards. Marlith 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Power trip toy

Rollback is not a creative tool; it is a tool for exerting authority. It is nearly useless to those editors who do the actual work of writing articles. It is admittedly useful to admins, trusted and vetted to police others' work. The trouble is, there are too many wannabe cops around the Misplaced Pages; people whose idea of "contributing" is to boss others around on their own private power trips. Thankfully, there is the RfA hurdle to keep them from living out their fantasies at honest editors' cost. Well, guess what, there is now a proposed way for them to be "little admins" without all these pesky checks and requirements: the user rollback! Whee! Potential for abuse? You bet. Misplaced Pages is already groaning under the weight of all these pests, who get a kick out of deleting, reverting, chastising, and pushing other editors around, but who never bother to improve an article themselves. Give them rollback, and watch the constructive contributors walk away. Freederick (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You realize that rollback is only ever used for cases of clear vandalism, and that an editor who used it for anything else would have his or her +rollback removed? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Would he? The criteria for removal are as vague as those for granting it in the first place. Besides, removal is hardly as automatic as you pretend: it takes time and places a heavy load on editors and admins. Someone has to post a complaint requesting admin assistance, an admin has to take the time evaluating the request, and then decide, quite arbitrarily, to remove or not. No thanks. Freederick (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not police. We are regular users with special tools. Every user is equally entitled to enforce policy, and the vast majority of vandal fighting is not done by admins, but regular editors. Little admins, big admins, stewards, 'crats, we are just users with different tools, same authority. Writing articles is of course essential, but the fact is that it just would not be possible if not for all the hard work others do keeping this place together. 1 != 2 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars are already reported regularly if page protection or blocks are requested, removing rollback would just be a minor extra step and not the point of not giving it out to everyone is so that we don't have to remove it very often. How is giving out rollback going to drive other editors away? Do we now assume that people will just immediately start abusing tools once they get them and rolling back positive contributions en masse? Mr.Z-man 03:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you that I have started to do a lot of anti-vandalism work and if I had to do hundreds or thousands of manual rollbacks before I was somehow given a special privilege to allow it, I would simply not have bothered in the first place. I can assure you, staring at a feed of updates so you can rollback people spamming profanities and racist or homophobic comments all over the place is not only a thankless undertaking, but perhaps the least power-tripping endeavor you could possibly imagine. I sense a bit of "only people who actually write articles are important" power trip in your comment, though. I've only created and edited a few dozen articles, but I am grateful to the people who "don't do the actual work of writing articles", but have monitored and reverted outrageous vandalism on said articles. As for a regular user exerting "power" or "authority" over trouble-making vandals looking to disrupt a resource we all appreciate? I can think of far worse things. Now, exerting "power" over someone that you simply disagree with is another, but then for those people who commit such abuses, how about *removing* the ability, rather than stripping everyone of it until they've somehow proved themselves. For many who have other things occupying their time, but like to drop i and lend a hand now and again as circumstances allow, there is a point where they won't care to bother. Cordell (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This keeps getting said at various places but I think a lot of people are still missing the point. Any vandal can already revert by using "undo". This could not be any easier from a vandal point of view. Rollback is not making it any easier for the vandal. It makes it slightly easier for the editor reverting vandalism and apparently a whole lot easier on the server. It also keeps the history tidier, one rollback is easier to understand than multiple undos when another editor looks at what has been happening. From the vandal point of view, tidiness is not a great concern; much easier to just carry on pressing the undo button than go to the trouble of getting yourself approved for a tool that does the same thing (and hopefully would be denied anyway). SpinningSpark 12:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't Limit the Usage

I disagree with the following bit: "Usage is limited to rolling back vandalism and reverting one's own edits." Here's why:

1. There's no reason to disallow reverting mis-informed edits. For instance, please look at the following edits I made: diff 1a, diff 1b (rv) diff 1c (rv) and diff 2 (rv). I believe my reverts were totally appropriate (and certainly successful in dealing with mis-informed users), but the edits I reverted were fundamentally well-intentioned, and definitely not vandalism.

   By the proposed policy, I'm supposed to use the undo function instead of the rollback function just because of the type of edit I'm reverting. That's unnecessary (and not very helpful) — the existing measures, like 3RR (and my common-sense), do a fine job of preventing edit-wars, and rollback is different from undo only on a technical level. Also, since I frequently revert mis-informed edits like the ones above, I'd end up still using userscripts since the policy doesn't allow me to use rollback in all cases. What's the point of this?

2. Another thing I'm worried about is that some day a troll I rollbacked causes hassle for admins and me by complaining that I rollbacked some edit that's not clearly vandalism. As I said, the existing measures for preventing un-justified reverts and edit-wars are just fine; no need to add policy-cruft.

So I suggest to remove the "Usage" section (1.3). Section 1.4, "Removal of the permission" still applies for cases where editors abuse the feature for edit-warring. -- Ddxc (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. In November, an editor made some hundreds of good-faith edits that ran counter to a manual of style point. When I called it to the editor's attention, he undid them, generally using AWB, over a period of a couple of hours during which I was too busy to do any more than a few manually (I didn't have time to learn to use AWB). This seems like a good application of rollback. With rollback I could have helped, but it's neither vandalism nor my own edits that would be rolled back. So there can be constructive uses of rollback for uses the proposal prohibits. Fg2 (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In essence it should only be used when an edit summary is not needed. There are times where many good faith edits need to be reversed fast and rollback can be used as long as proper communication exists between the parties. These are the same limitation admins are expected to follow. 1 != 2 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So do you agree that Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator rollback#Usage should be modified to allow this? It presently says "Usage is limited to rolling back vandalism and reverting one's own edits. Editors using the rollback tool for other purposes will be subject to having the rollback tool removed." This explicitly prohibits the use of rollback on someone else's edits even when "proper communication exists between the parties." Fg2 (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That'd be a deal breaker for me. There really needs to be a really bright line around proper usage. With significantly more editors with the tool comes a greater chance for conflict...what does "proper communication" mean? To avoid that conflict, take an extra couple of seconds and undo with an edit summary. It wouldn't come up that often to justify opening it up for more possible mis-use. You may be sure your reverts will always be totally appropriate and that they will only be used with mis-informed users but we can't count on everyone being so sure or so commited to that limit. RxS (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced that the usage policy of a technical tool is the right place to enforce this. It happens just as easily that people undo without comment. WP:RV#Rollback says, "If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted." after some explanations about good communication. I think this kind of admonition is the right way to go. No need to have a stricter usage policy for non-admin users. -- Ddxc (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of another user's edits after communication with them comes up very, very rarely. I've been an admin for 7 months and done it twice. Neither time was an emergency. Admins are generally willing to listen to good reason. If for some reason someone complains about something like this, just ask the user whose edits were reverted. If they say they gave permission or there is a diff that clearly shows them giving permission then it should be no big deal. Mr.Z-man 06:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Because rolling back doesn't allow summary (like the undo feature), how can you know if an IP rolling back a 5 to a 8 in an article about the average size in inches of some extincted bird found in the Everest is hidden vandalism or not? Rolling back should only be for vandalism that is easily identifiable. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, IP editors cannot get rollback privileges. Fg2 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. Users will need to at least be autoconfirmed. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:11, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Query?

Got this in the mail so, late to the party – please forgive if I got it wrong, but is there a way to offer it to people with a record of lots of de-vandalising edits handled manually? I'm not sure how else to find vandalism than when I just come across something obviously silly (so not very techie there) and just take it out. It's probably happened once or twice. So though it sounds like a wonderful opportunity for doing lots of reverts, it hasn't been my project to date. Guess I'm saying not for everyone, but with a selection process if that's not too clunky for admins to do. Thanks for getting the notice out there. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Contacting Misplaced Pages:Rollback for non-administrators participants

I didn't get a message about it, and it's usually considered good form to do so. -Halo (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any bot which could do this? Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say User:Ral315 with his User:Ralbot (delivers the sighpost), is probably your best bet. Good idea though. MBisanz 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AWB could do it, I think. Create list of links on the old proposal page. (Optional:To prevent messages being sent to those users who have already voiced their opinion in this one, you create a list of links from this proposal, compare lists and use the ones only in the first proposal) Filter out non user pages. Filter out duplicates. Convert to user talk. Add at the end of the user talk page the message. I do not have AWB downloaded, but someone who does could do it. I doubt it would take too long. Tiddly-Tom 09:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was sitting in a meeting this morning and had that very thought. Could someone compose a brief notification message pointing users here who had commented previously? I'll do the AWB legwork, as I just learned how to do it for another proposal I sent out earlier today. MBisanz 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Standards

Should this proposal be adopted and enacted what ought be the standards for NAR? I would suggest, three months online and a familiarity with policies as well as a devotion to anti-vandal work at the CVU. Marlith 20:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look deep into the history of the proposal, standards were rejected in favor of admins' discretion. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ah. Marlith 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Other wikis?

Is it likely that other wikis will get this (rollback for non-admins)? Since there seems to be great concern that it will crash and burn, in the event that this proposal fails perhaps if other less conservative wikis get it and it turns out fine, consensus will change? Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, it merely requires on-wiki consensus and a bug request. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Restore this version

Is the useful Twinkle tool 'restore this version' part of admin rollback? If not it should be bundled with it and with this proposal. Obviously many vandals make more than one consecutive edit, or there are consecutive vandals. Perhaps rollbacks could also become colour coded (e.g light green) so the unreadable mess that is a page history could become slightly easier to navigate. Richard001 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, and neither of those are currently possible with the software AFAIK. Rollback reverts all the consecutive edits made by the last editor to a page. If a vandal makes 2 edits in a row, and no one else has edited it since then, rollback will revert both. In other cases one would still need Twinkle or manual reversion. Mr.Z-man 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Drawing board?

Maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board here. I don't think a consensus is going to be developed here, the discussion is getting pretty fragmented and various alternate versions are being presented. Time might be better spent tuning the proposal in light of the discussion to this point instead of just adding supports/opposes. Editors that participated early on in the debate may find that the current version has drifted out from under them. Bottom line, I don't think a consensus is going to arise from the current discussion. I think we're looking at a pretty small target here consensus-wise so some fine tuning is probably in order. RxS (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the original proposal should be tweaked, but I think we need a centralized discussion on the possible variants first. If the proposal were changed now I'm not sure what it would be changed to, as everyone has a different idea of what it should be. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:33, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the discussion/tuning going would be a good thing. My point is that perhaps the polling part of it be suspended for now until a variant emerges that has a chance at consensus. I don't know what that would be, that's the small target I was talking about...but I think discussing and tuning the proposal is a better use of time then keeping the voting open. Especially if the scope starts to drift, we'll find that people will have to keep checking back to make sure they still hold the same opinion as they did when they first expressed it...why not settle on something and reset the polling? RxS (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Better to let the vote roll on and establish in principle whether or not we want this feature. If you wait until it is perfect nothing would ever get off the ground. Tweaks can always be proposed and implemented later. Let's deal with the big issue first - should it exist at all. Besides which, only actually running it for a while will show what the problems really are going to be; I suspect that much of this discussion will prove to have been a waste of time looking at problems that are not really there in practice. SpinningSpark 10:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the vote should be allowed to "complete", whatever that means. There should be some kind of time limit placed though, as we have 6 million registered users and voting could conceivably drag on much longer. But if we just clear it out and restart it, people won't like that (especially the supporters, who undoubtedly are excited about their clear "victory"), and it would be good to determine if the general idea is accepted before we fine-tune it. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:42, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion, do not be in a hurry, if you want this to work! And I see you begining to think ergonomically, which is a good sign. Igor Berger (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We can let it roll on then, but there's no way this is going to reach consensus in it's present form. But just so it's clear, I'm not suggesting that it gets cleared out and restarted, I'm suggesting that since it's not going to achieve consensus the poll is ended until something that is more likely to find more common ground is found. But I feel like I'm repeating myself so let it go on... RxS (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concern, and like I said, there should be a time limit set... wonder if we could get away with posting some arbitrary limit now, like 3 more days? Equazcion •✗/C • 15:12, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

We had a time 'limit' but it was removed because people felt there wasn't enough time (particularly since it was so near Christmas/New Year) for discussion and were opposing solely for that reason. Mind you, I guess people won't object if we put back a similar message and explain that it will be closed down in 3 days (or whatever) because consensus is obviously not going to be reached and we need to tweak the proposal (although personally I don't hold much hope for sucess) Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

←Then it looks like this is just gonna go on until it gets so ridiculous that people stop bothering and forget about it. Like I said: 6 million registered users, all seeing this ad in their watchlist, and so far its taken a week for only 300 of them to vote. The math doesn't support a timely resolution. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:42, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is just some easy fix you could make that would sway a bunch of opposers without losing many supporters. Most of the sensible opposition centers around bureaucracy; its either too much bureaucratic instruction creep or it needs more rules to prevent abuse. You can't have both. Mr.Z-man 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You know very well that there are only a few thousand active users at any one time. Splash - tk 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many are active at any one time. If only a thousand users are active per month (which I sincerely doubt), that still means next month another set of users can vote. This can conceivably go on forever, no matter how you slice it. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:17, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Take a look: Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator rollback/Creating a new proposal Equazcion •✗/C • 15:32, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Bot rollback

Does the rollback feature being given to non-administrators include the bot rollback functionality? Is it possible to disable that capability for non-administrators? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean how admins can modify the rollback url to make it a bot edit and thus hide it from recent changes? I think that is an admin privileged not sure though. I agree if should not be granted to non-admins with the rollback, but I don't think the way the tools are laid out will result in this, I think they are separate permissions. 1 != 2 17:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This capability was bound to the 'rollback' permission, but I dug out this change by Werdna (from Nov '07), which shifted it to the 'markbotedit' permission. Миша13 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. 1 != 2 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

We keep hearing about Twinkle.

As someone who doesn't have such access, would someone like to list the benefits of Twinkle, so that we might be able to compare Twinkle/rollback/undo?

Also, are there any other similar programs in use atm (For example, can AWB duplicate this as well?)

And if someone really wanted to, perhaps create a comparison chart : ) - jc37 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll get a list started, anyone should feel free to edit it. I have no idea about AWB though, never used it. PS - Comprehensive info on Twinkle's functions is available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle/doc (which appears to be in the middle of an update, probably due to all this attention). Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that those three options were not given up for discussion. It's essentially what I would agree to. "Rollback" with an edit summary - for non-admins; and "rollback/vandal" which is rollback without the edit summary - for admins. I "think" the AGF one seems to just be a variation which is useful for someone using such a "tool", and so might also be useful for bots? Anyway, thanks for the information and insight : ) - jc37 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. You're probably right about the AGF rollback. I don't think anyone disagrees that custom edit summaries are a good idea -- the problem is that they would require extra programming. Everyone would rather just use the existing admin rollback function and simply "switch it on" for select non-admin users, rather than having to write a new tool. Of course I see where they're coming from, but I also feel it would be worth the extra effort to write in the ability for custom summaries. I think if we insist that people leave edit summaries for regular edits, we should require them all the more for the much more sensitive act of a rollback. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:12, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

So it's "I want it now, so let's do something that we probably shouldn't for expediency's sake"? Ouch.

If enough people supported at least this much, I think (or at least I'd like to think) they'd program it. Though I just had a thought... Is TWINKLE open source? and if so, couldn't that just help expedite the process? - jc37 11:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle is open-source, but it's a javascript tool. It makes rollbacks by running on the user's computer, and performing multiple transactions between the local browser and Misplaced Pages -- it finds and downloads an old version of the article, then re-uploads it and saves it as the current version. The admin rollback tool performs a single transaction: the user says "rollback this article" and the rest happens on the server. The admin method is faster and more efficient for both the client and the server, with less of a processing/bandwidth burden on both ends (especially for people with slow connections), which is seen as one of its major benefits over Twinkle. To customize it, the server-side code would need to be rewritten -- that is PHP code, not Javascript code, so Twinkle code couldn't be "copied" in order to make the customization easier. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:46, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. And even though transcribing from language to another might not be a big deal, it sounds like different things are happening in TWINKLE than what would be happening as a result of the internal Misplaced Pages coding.

I wonder if there is/are any developers who'd be willing to potentially "waste their time" programming this. - jc37 12:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle rollback functions

The following 3 rollback functions are available on the diff screen of an article, for the current revision only. Following a rollback, a separate browser window is spawned with the rolled-back user's talk page open for editing, so that a notice or warning can be issued:

• - Rollback with the assumption of good faith, adds an edit summary of good faith with optional custom edit summary.
• - Generic rollback with optional custom edit summary.
• - Rollback vandalism, no custom edit summary.

Note that and are also available from user contribs pages, as links listed next to articles for which this user was the last contributor.

This is the revert function, available in diff screen for all revisions:

• - Allows restoring a page to any previous revision, regardless of how long ago it occurred. Optional custom edit summary but no user talk page is opened for warning.

Request to rewrite part of the proposal

There is a part of the proposal that doesn't quite make sense:

1. Administrators should check the history of the contributor to see if they can be trusted with the tool.

I assume that it means to check for history of abuse, but it's not very clear. Should it be rewritten to make more sense? .:Alex:. 16:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "history of the contributor" just means the user's contribs list (special:contributions/johndoe). It seems obvious to me that they'd be checking for evidence of abuse. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:38, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

It does not mean just abuse, there can be good intentioned bad edits, a failure to understand policy, a tendency to misinterpret policy. I think the sentence is just as general as it needs to be. 1 != 2 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not very specific in either case, I still feel it should be rewritten to cover all these things. .:Alex:. 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Closure

I've been paying attention to this page for some time and it seems to me that consensus has been reached that some type of non-admin rollback should be implemented, but that it shouldn't be implemented exactly as worded in the proposal.

I propose that:

• We close this poll, as we've gotten all we're going to get out of it.
• We archive the entire page.
• We begin a new discussion on how the proposal should be changed so that it can become something people can generally agree on.

Equazcion •✗/C • 17:50, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I won't really consider 200 to 100 consensus. Marlith 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, of curse not, not consensus support at least. Consensus support would mean we implement the proposal as currently worded. But even most of the opposers seem to be for the general idea, just not with the specific details as proposed. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:55, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Modifying the proposal to take account of the requested recommendations will bring the consensus closer to fruition. You will need the approval of the bureaucrats. Once ready file it as a request for a Bot account. If you do not have the consensus, the bureaucrats will not grant you the account, because it will undermine their authority which is granted to them by the WP:stewards. Please make sure it is done correctly, and if you need any further assistance give me a hallo. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Modifying the proposal has nothing to do with bureaucrats, bots, or stewards. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:56, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

If you put up a site notice asking if the sun should rise tomorrow a third will object. If you take into account the arguments then you will see that there is clear support for this feature. Many of the opposes are based on false assumptions and misunderstanding, and they are not uniform in their reasoning. 1 != 2 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think many have good reasoning but most of them still don't seem opposed to the fundamental idea of a non-admin rollback. they just seem to object to the current proposed method of implementing it. That's why I think we need to start a discussion on how to change it. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:49, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think once we have the technical ability activated that the community can propose and ratify any policy related to it they want, just like any other tools. 1 != 2 19:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is more than a tool, it is about assigning admin rights to a non admin editor. If you try to pass it just as a tool, you will get a big no! And I would say you better make a hard copy of this before it is marked for speedy deletion.. Igor Berger (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but I don't think the poll was meant that way. The poll is to vote on this specific proposal, and that's why many people are opposed (myself included). It'll be hard to convince everyone that the poll shows enough consensus for the fundamental idea that we can enable it, and discuss changes later. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:55, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with ! != 2. There have been a lot of oppose comments that are entirely without merit, some of which seem to escape the bounds of reality. On the whole, non-admin rollback is supported. This proposal is a culmination of weeks of discussion and two other project pages in which community input was sought. Are there issues? Of course, but none that would require an entirely new discussion. That would simply be disastrous. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think this poll can be considered consensus for this particular proposal. I think most of the opposers will probably say something along the lines off "I wasn't aware of any discussion". I'm pretty much saying that too. But, good luck convincing everyone...Equazcion •✗/C • 20:06, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Any time anyone tries dismiss 100 wikipedians as being entirely without merit, they immediately lose the argument. Finding 'consensus' from a poll is not a process of electrocuting those that you find to be meritless. It is about finding a position that will not cause rift and division and being able to recongise whether and when a given position does or does not enjoy that status. If that means starting over to be genuine about it, then that is undeniably the best way to go. Consensus forms naturally; it is not cut with an axe. Take some advice from the supporters, opposers and the various discussions and see if you can't work out what would be a better, cleaner proposal. But please don't go around labelling such large numbers of people as 'entirely without merit' when they almost certainly are not. Splash - tk 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)When wikipedians vote on things there will always be some comments that are "entirely without merit, some of which seem to escape the bounds of reality" - that's the problem with polls. However, I could equally say the same of some of the support votes, many of which are equally based on knee-jerks and have not read through the issues. Whatever way you skin it, there is no consensus for anything demonstrated here. I suppose I may be biased by my opposition, but then I suspect that we all are biased by our own views when reading consensus - that's why we look for uninvolved people to sum up debates and judge consensus. However, I doubt any neutral observed would fail to conclude that the results of this are looking like being similar to the poll of two years ago - and it was without consensus. But, I see no harm in letting this run for a week or two more. I suspect nothing much will change, but I could be wrong.--Doc 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as far as many of the support votes being equally without merit. I wasn't here for the proposal two years ago but there seems to be enough interest in this that something will happen... but again I'm not sure if it'll be implemented the way this proposal states. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:11, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I could be missing something, but I think the entire Support and Oppose sections have been archived. Isn't it a little difficult for newcomers to the discussion to express a view if there isn't anywhere to do it? MBisanz 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Found it, my fault MBisanz 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't about people agreeing to an outcome. It's about everyone agreeing to abide by the outcome (WP:PRACTICE). Many users who opposed this said they only did not support it because of a few things in the proposal or because of the way this would be put in practice. We've determined that many people want this, now we should attempt to find a reasonable method of putting it into practice and see what users think of it. .:Alex:. 22:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:13, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear whether you are suggesting that this should be implemented now regardless of the content of the project page or not. If you don't currently have a 'reasonable method of putting it into practice', then surely further thought is needed until you do? Splash - tk 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I mean that there is consensus to have rollback, provided that the method of putting it into practice is revised. We need to now discuss which way of implementation is the most effective and reach consensus on it. Basically we need to revise the proposal, so we now start discussions on new ways of implementing this feature that everyone can agree with rather than continuing the "Do we want it, yes or no?". .:Alex:. 11:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent, reply to doc) The problem here is that many of the opposers have completely contrary ideas of what should be done. For example, some people are completely opposed to the idea and feel only admins should be given roll back. There has been extensive discussion and multiple reasons given why people feel non admin roll back is a good idea but they remain unconvinced. While they are welcome to their opinions, it's unclear to me what will change their minds. Others feel the process is too bureaucratic. Again, while they are welcome to their opinions, the problem here is alternative proposals like granting roll back to everyone or automatically after a certain time clearly do not have support of even a majority (at least the current proposal has the support of a large majority). Other people have proposed various technical solutions. Some of them might be possible and I don't think there's anything wrong with investigating them further. But some of them limit roll back to such an extent that they IMHO risk defeating the purpose. Others solutions are so complicated that it seems unlikely devs would be willing to implement them. Finally, many others are afraid of the potential consequences since they feel it will be too easy for people who accidentally or malicious misuse the tool to get it. Relating to earlier posts, there may be some technical solutions to allay their concerns but ultimately there is no way we are going to be able allay many since it's impossible to prove something won't happen. There is no way we can do a 'dry run' as some people have suggested. This is something that can be resonably easy killed off and I have seen no opposition to changing or removing the thing if it does spectaculory fail. But there is obviously no way we can guarantee this won't fail and the only real way it seems we can alleviate the concerns of quite a number is if we restrict roll back to admins and we get back to point 1. Remember it's not as if there has been no discussion before this proposal was reached. There has been extensive discussion and extensive tweaking. Also, I would argue it's not simply up to the supporters to come up with ways to improve this proposal. In cases such as this, when there is a very clear majority of people supporting the proposal, opponents need to describe what they feel is wrong and how they feel it can be fixed. You can't just tell someone well 'I don't like it, you need to fix it' especially when there has been extensive discusssion and multiple attempts to fix it already. Note I emphasise the solution part as well since if your proposed alternatives won't work for some reason or have even less support then the current proposal then clearly we're going in the reverse of where we need to go. You're right that it is wrong to simply discard all those opposed to the idea. But it is just as wrong to simply ignore those who support the idea (which in this case is at least 2/3 majority from what I can tell and it is a large number of people). In other words, it is inherently unfair if the only solution is to completely kill this proposal, without any alternatives. What I'm saying is that while I don't know if the current proposal is what we should ultimately start with (I emphasise start because while we should aim to have the best possible proposal implemented, it can be tweaked after implementation) from the way things are now I think we need to inherently accept that non-admin roll back will happen (unless the community has a sudden change of heart). Therefore while people are still welcome to be inherently opposed to the idea, their opposition is outweighted by the support. For those who do accept the idea but want to change it, we definitely shouldn't ignore them, but they need to have ways that work towards making the proposal better. Finally I emphasise one more time I'm not saying that we should ignore anyone's opinion, simply that when people consider the same thing and come up with different conclusions, consensus doesn't mean no one objects but is perhaps closest to what gets least opposition. (Also another problem is that when you keep things going for too long people eventually tire of participating on both sides and eventually you end up reaching a tiny 'consensus' which is far from what has the most support and usually ends up being very controversial) Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Automatic granting

Some have suggested that the rollback right be automatically granted. With the current software it is possible to set it so that rollback is automatically granted after a user account has reached a certain age, has a certain number of edits, and/or has a confirmed email address. With a minor software change it would be possible to check if a user is or isn't in a specific usergroup. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be possible to manually remove autopromoted user groups. However, if the software change that checks if a user is not in a certain usergroup is done, it would be possible to "remove" rollback from a user by adding them to a usergroup for users who have had rollback removed (so its a bit of a hack). What would people think about this? Mr.Z-man 21:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the concept, but I don't like the idea of having to cheat the software in order to remove it. --Charitwo 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about this because even autoconfirmed users can fall into immature battles with others. How long you've been here, the number of edits you've made, and the fact that you've confirmed your email address really say nothing about your ability to handle bad situations. I understand that it could be revoked, but until it is, users could do some very annoying damage with it. I've said this before: If the rollback links could be removed from the contribs list, and made so that people must look at least at the last edit before reverting, I would be all for this. But as it is, someone could keep refreshing a user's contribs list, instantly reverting every edit their "opponent" makes. I see this happening, and the annoyance that occurs prior to revocation is not worth it, in my opinion. But again, remove it from contribs lists, and I'd be all for it. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:55, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Well, the threshold could be set much higher than autoconfirm and could require a certain edit count as well. I should also note that the "hackiness" of this method would mean that the developers would much less likely to implement this... Mr.Z-man 22:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars: prevention

At Misplaced Pages talk:Rollback for non-administrators#Some suggestions, I made a suggestion for a way to avoid edit wars. Several others had suggested limiting how often a non-administrator could use rollback; I suggested looking at it from the point of view of the article: "Limit rollbacks on an article. For example, two in a row, or two in an hour. Limiting rollbacks need not limit ordinary editing (including reverting). Also, make rollback subject to the three-revert rule just as a revert is." Would this be compatible with the present proposal? Fg2 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about leaving an automated message on an roleback receiving editor's talk page telling them that their edit has been rolledback by editor giving a rollback and if they disagree with the rollback please leave a message on non administration rollback notice board and send an alert to the rollback User notifying him or her that their implemented roolback is beeing disagreed. They do not have to answer it but statistics can be kept and used for evaluation to revoke the rollback tool from an editor if their roolback authority is problematic. So this will be anti exploit review mechanism. Igor Berger (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am already feeling a little uneasy about the proposal. One RC Patroler has been stalking me with mindless tagging (semi-speedy tags are the patroler's particular favorite), making abusive claims unwarrantedly dropping into discussions, and voting against whatever I vote for on AfDs... but, this clever editor "generally" manages to keep the stalking part under 10% of edits, thus hovering on the borderline and evading detection by outside parties. I have learned to live with this much, but "if" the person can lay a hand on the rollback stuff... I can only shudder at the thought. Aditya 14:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor could be a sockpuppet or involved in social engineering on behalf of a third party. You may want to bring it to a few admin's attention and see how things fan out. Igor Berger (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Aditya's correct, basing it from an article's perspective doesn't take care of the wikistalking potential. Stalking usually involves many articles, not just one. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:10, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Right: this section is not about stalking; it's about preventing edit wars. So, would implementing a limit of this sort help solve concerns about edit wars? Fg2 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not significantly. Edit wars rely on more than 1 person. For limiting by the hour: unless people are watching the article like a hawk, it is unlikely that someone will make more than 2 reverts in a content dispute in an hour, but it is much more likely that they will revert a vandal more than twice. For limiting it to 2 in a row: that would only prevent edit wars where all parties are using rollback. Mr.Z-man 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Grouping of 'votes'

I've just been looking through the discussion, and I've been attempting to work out why the 'votes' are grouped the way they are, does it make a difference which group you place a support or oppose comment in? Can anyone shed a little light please? -- Geoff Riley (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Place your vote at the end of the last group. Votes have been split up, 20 votes to a group, for ease of editing, just so that they're not all in one huge section. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:28, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you so much.... hmm... okay, it's obvious when I think about it, but it had me confused. Cheers. -- Geoff Riley (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:34, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Archiving votes

What's the point of archiving "the first 100/60 votes"? Why not just put the whole poll on a separate page? —Ashley Y 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole poll is pretty long itself. The proposal page is 99% poll. Archiving some of it seemed to be the only way to shorten the page into a more manageable size. It was so long that there was getting to be a delay in loading it (it approached 300k). Equazcion •✗/C • 00:11, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Responding per request

Hi, I received a request to come over and comment here. Non-admin rollback has been discussed before, if I recall. As someone who's walked on both sides of that road, rollback is actually the administrative tool I miss the least. Maybe if I were a regular new changes patroller this would be different. I tend to step in when certain pages turn up on my watchlist and if there's a problem I address other recent edits by the same account or IP. It takes about two seconds longer to undo vandalism without rollback, and at the rate I address the problem that's really not a hardship.

From what I've heard, this proposal got raised again in poll form during the holidays. That strikes me as a not very good way to raise a basically viable idea. I'm glad to see the editors here have archived that poll and posted a notice to the community bulletin board. If you haven't already filed a content-based WP:RFC that would be good also. Thank you very much for asking my input; I'm flattered. Best wishes, Durova 00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand

1. Where I read in FAQ/How does rollback differ: it makes reverting all the edits made by a given account or IP address relatively simple - does this mean that a single button would revert ALL the top edits made by an editor, or the button has to be pushed article-by-article?

2. If I want to revert a series of edits to a page, can't I already just open the history and click the bullets to encompass a range of diff's, then Undo them as a group?

I'm not sure what functionality is being added and I'm not especially buying the "reduce server load" argument either. Can someone help me out? Franamax (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1 - It needs to be done article-by-article.

2 - No, the undo link will only revert a single edit.

The reduction of server load is in comparison to script-assisted rollback methods, such as Twinkle.

Equazcion •✗/C • 00:29, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Its also faster for people with slower internet connections than scripts. Mr.Z-man 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll buy the slow-connection arg, for sure. But I'm confused at the answer above to my #2 - I just made 2 edits in my sandbox and undid them both with one step. Am I missing something? Franamax (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the standard undo edit summary in your last edit. Did you remove it and replace it with the word "test"? Equazcion •✗/C • 00:38, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Okay now that's a surprise. You're right, if you load multiple diffs you can undo them all at once. However, rollbacks can accomplish this in a single click, while this undo method requires multiple steps. Rollbacks can also be done via a link in a users contribs list -- you don't even need to load the article, let alone its history or the diff screen. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:41, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

e/c'd and lost my answer. Yes, you get a blank summary on group undo.

I prefer the option in any case to add my own summary rather than an auto-summary a la TW or popups, I often ;) have something to say :)

And the capability to sit at a special-contribs screen and blam away with rollbacks, to me is especially scary. What about rotating IP's? Usually you can see a gap between the bad instances and the useful edits from the previous IP lease, but only if you're looking. I'm worried about seasoned but jaded vandal-fighters overdoing it, then we get into the argument over whether it's more important to protect the innocent or prosecute the guilty. The danger is subtle overuse of the tool, which might end up discouraging IP editors who might eventually join up, and this would be very hard to detect.Franamax (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, all-around. Just one note: TW allows custom edit summaries in its rollbacks. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:57, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Again with the concerns on the voting

As the risk of beating a dead horse, I wanted to re-raise some of my concerns with the straw poll. • The thing people are voting for/against has changed since the voting started. Look at the proposal at the first vote (diff). A ballot question shouldn't change during the voting. • While the poll is spilt into "Support" and "Oppose" votes, not everyone in "Support" seems to be supporting the proposal as written, and not everyone in "Oppose" seems to be against the general concept. This makes simply counting votes especially misleading. • My original response to the poll did not fit cleanly into the category of "Support" nor "Oppose", so I created a third section, "Rejection of dichotomy". That got moved into a "Discussion" section, and ended up archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-administrator rollback/Archive 1#Rejection of dichotomy. I noticed this, and so put down a concise "Oppose" vote. But the occurrence left a bad taste in my mouth. If this was a "real" vote, and I hadn't noticed and voted again, that would amount to (unintentional) vote tampering. Fortunately, it's a non-binding straw poll intended to encourage discussion. • I really do believe everyone has been working in good faith here, but I think not always towards the same immediate purpose. That can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. • Anyway, enough out of me. Happy wikiing! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to close this by merely counting votes. I think all of the points you raise will be taken into consideration. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:45, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

PS I archived your "Dichotomy" discussion. If you'd like to restore it please feel free. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:47, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Reject

It's quite clear from the poll there is no consensus for this. This doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming policy. The best that can be done is a new proposal that addresses the concerns the opposers have raised, if that's possible. —Ashley Y 08:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but less cynically. I'd say that while there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of this particular proposal becoming policy, there also isn't a snowball's chance in hell that non-admin rollbacks won't be implemented in some form or another. It's just a matter of forming the right proposal. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:41, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

(to Ashley Y) I think it's too early to say that, but there are concerns about if people who voted earlier would still have the same position, given some changes made to the proposal. So we might want clarify some of that, but either way, the discussion is still very much in progress. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created a new page to discuss the creation of a new proposal. All are invited to brainstorm: Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator rollback/Creating a new proposal. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:18, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

What's the big deal?

I still don't understand why this is such a big deal. Any user can Undo multiple edits today. On the History page, I click a "cur" button from several edits earlier or I select a beginning and ending edit and compare selected versions. Then after examining the cumulative differences - a good thing to do when reverting multiple edits - I click Undo and the multiple edits are all gone. And I have the opportunity to add an appropriate edit summary. All in all it is more flexible then rollback seems to be, lets me view the group of edits before deleting which rollback does not, and lets me add an edit summary which rollback does not.

I don't see that rollback gives me anything that I can't do today. Is it a few seconds faster? Does it save a few microseconds of server time? As a vandal fighter what takes my time is putting the warning message on the user's page, not reverting the edits. And all too often I see other editors reverting vandalism without posting a warning message. So rollback seems to be solving the wrong problem.

Just out of curiousity could someone post some screenshots of how rollback works? Sbowers3 (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Who likes polls?

'Cause I got another one for you. This is very informal, doesn't need to go on very long, and will not decide anything. However I just wanted to get an idea of how many people here think the current poll shows a consensus acceptance of the proposal, and how many feel no consensus is shown. Vote below. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:14, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Don't we need a vote on whether the vote below is showing consensus or not? </sarcasm> Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus I think Carch's question should be discussed further to be sure it is supported by the community :) Franamax (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, enough with the voting. Seriously. Poling does not help advance consensus. Polls, more-or-less by definition, require one to vote to have one's opinion counted. This actually impedes discussion, since now everyone must respond to have their opinion considered. This turns what could be a discussion into an edit storm of voting. Meanwhile, in an actual discussion, if something is said, you don't have to have 200 more people come in and say "Me too". Indeed, you might actually get some new ideas formed, and improve the state of understanding, rather than being lost in a sea of votes. • Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus - I don't feel the poll currently shows consensus acceptance of this proposal. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:14, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

No consensus - Even though I voted for Support, I realize that majority does not equal consensus. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus - I don't see consensus at this time because majority does not equal consensus Alexfusco 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus We ought to keep this poll running until we finally come to a conclusion or compromise or someone from the WMF decides. Marlith /C 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus Even if some of the !opposes are using faulty reasoning, a lot of people just don't feel good about this proposal. I'm disappointed at the lack of input at the new proposal page, perhaps the banner invitation has only attracted drive-by's rather than a fruitful discussion of ideas. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus There are considerable yea and nay positions on this issue, determining consensus amidst this is problematic at best. Edit Centric (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The worst part about this is that theres so many Supports and Opposes that I can't even remember if I'm one of them! Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 03:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to sum my comment up in few words of bold print. From the start, through 380+ responses, comments placed under the "Support" section have outnumbered comments placed under the "Oppose" section by a little over 2 to 1 (or roughly 70% in the "Support" section). Of course, given WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:CON, tallying that gets us precisely nowhere.  :) Reading the comments is more informative. People are coming from all over the place. A lot of comments are concerned with abuse. Perhaps that's because when the poll was started, the restriction that rollback was only to be used against obvious vandalism wasn't there. Of course, once that was added, others switched to oppose due to the change. Others complain of the lack of entrance requirements; I note that originally, there were some, but the proposal was changed during the poll. Polling on a moving target; what a mess. But I do see some fairly strong support, overall, for some kind of solution. The poll unfortunately preempted useful discussion of what the solution should be. I note many of the comments use the same rationale, regardless of "Support" or "Oppose": Script tools are available, so (why not give them to everyone|no need to give them to everyone). I'm not sure how to interpret that! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving opinions is evil

Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator rollback/First 200 support votes and Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator rollback/First 80 oppose votes begin with the archive template, which says the pages should not be modified. Does that mean someone who supported or opposed the proposal cannot change his opinion? I think we should have all the opinions back in the main page, as we have done with all the proposal since the beginning of time, regardless of size. That makes easier to switch opinions back and forth, and to bring discussions to previously posted ones. If you tell me nobody changes opinion once given, I would not be against it, but there are examples of people changing sides just because someone corrected a mistaken thought. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Got rid of the archive template. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:37, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the simple solution. But the fact that you can't give opinions on previously posted opinions stands. That is what "discussing" and "searching for consensus" means. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

this decision MUST NOT go threw. while most people dwouldnt not abuse there power some of the new people who recieve this power will use it accidentaly to cause edit wars that they dit not predict. i fear that the end of any possibility of neutrality on psychic and alternativative science -related articles could ensue of this power goes through without being carefulyl controlled by admins. Smith Jones (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The page would be very large and delay loading if all the votes were put back on the main page, especially for people with slower connections. And I think this poll is so massive that no one is going to pay much attention to the older votes, and will likely only comment on the more recent ones. Besides anyone is still free to read or comment on the votes that have been split off. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:47, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Since it was archived with a copy paste and not a move, only the people who edited those archive pages have them on watchlist. People will never know someone has commented on their opinion unless they are informed in their talk page, which is something that is not usually done when everything is in a single page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With all the activity on the main page, no one is going to know anyway. The watchlist is almost useless for a page with that much activity. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:01, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

A page that takes 4 minutes to load is evil, archiving is standard procedure on long discussions. This is a non-issue. 1 != 2 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. Can you point me another where the opinions have been archived while the discussion was still going on? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't offhand, but it shouldn't matter whether it's been done before, long as it works now. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:00, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend you to make reference, in a clear and unimbigous way, to the discussion at the top of the article.

Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator_rollback#Discussion Igor Berger (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving polls during mid-poll is standard procedure? I'm not aware of any examples; could you provide some? I am, however, aware of a counter-example: Misplaced Pages:Attribution/Poll. --Iamunknown 21:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving any discussion page, regardless of its content, when it gets to long to reasonably load is normal. Those pages are not being hidden, just put off to the side so we can talk here with reasonable page load times. I really don't see what the big deal is here. 1 != 2 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not for polls, because they may influence results, as it makes harder to update modifications and continue discussions, and segments the discussion itself in three different pages, one of which is not watched by anyone. As I said, show me a single poll out of the hundreds we have had where the results had been archived before the end. That is why we have subsections, to ease editing. There is no need to remove all opinions to make the page load faster. It has never been done. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(ed con) I suspect, because this was labeled a poll, it's being seen differently than a mere "discussion". Some people will inevitably have the very human reaction that the archiving diminishes their opinion. And archiving part of a poll, while the poll is still going on, is a rather unusual action. (I cannot say it is without precedent, since I haven't been witness to every poll on Misplaced Pages.) I do think the page size was becoming unmanageable, though. I'm not really sure what the right thing to do would be. I suspect this will be an increasingly bigger problem as Misplaced Pages continues to grow -- polling via editing wiki pages isn't going to scale well. But this talk page isn't really the right place to tackle that problem. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(to Rey) A poll is just a different format for discussion. As everyone keeps pointing out, it's not a vote. In fact this particular poll is even less formal than an RfA. No matter how you slice it, this is still a discussion, and one that got very long. If there's a better way to keep the page at a manageable length, please clue us in. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:37, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Trial run

Even though I currently oppose the proposal, I would support a trial run. How would others feel about a trial run? -- Ned Scott 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

any foothold by the anti-dissident wing could lead to disaster. if you owant to see a trial run in action, visit Kevin Trudeau, criticisms of sylvia Browne, Uri Geller, or any other paprasychology-related article when you have a whole bunch o f peopel pretending to be admins and reverting back any edits that threaten the "mainstream" powerstructure. Smith Jones (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that edit warring already happens now is not a very strong argument for the idea that it would cause edit warring. —Random832 01:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would still be willing to see how this plays out on a larger scale. I'm betting it would back up my own view, but hey, maybe not. -- Ned Scott 01:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I commented somewhere that if this turns out to be a miserable failure, it can always be reverted; nothing's permanent about this software change. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't see any harm in a trial run. Are there any volunteers at this stage? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Em, object to this. You can't seriously give a lot of people rollback, and they think you can take it back from them. A trial run is just a means to push this through without consensus.--Doc 01:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can. Whatever makes you think that you can’t?

No, a trial run is more than that. A trial run generates real information, as opposed to hypothetical/imagined stuff that people have been basing their opinions on.

This is just a small, reversible, incremental change, expanding functionality, efficiency and trust. It is too inflexible for such proposals need proof before testing. Systemic inflexibility will hurt the development of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I support non-admin rollback but I agree there seems little point in a trial. The benefits or otherwise should already be apparent to the large subset of regular Wikipedians (admins) who have access to the tool right now. A trial of non-admins would inevitably involve users of good standing, so the risks of misuse would be nil and the trial may not reflect actual practice if non-admin rollback was approved. The best possible outcome of such a trial would be to determine whether rollback was more or less useful than similar tools like Twinkle, which is a mattter of opinion for each individual user. Euryalus (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You will simply not get consensus for a trial, I suspect.--Doc 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Euryalus touches on an excellent point here. We already have a case study of the most trusted users. What is the admin experience with the rollback tool? Do they agree that they have all used it responsibly? Have they noted cases where other admins have misused or carelessly used the tool? How have they responded when witnessing misuse - or have they ever looked? Perhaps (another!) poll of admin opinions is in order here. Franamax (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Then people would complain that its only the admins giving opinions. Rollbacks are included in the edit history. It should be fairly obvious if there is significant misuse. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I am new to Misplaced Pages and it is fantastic but a rollback? I am wondering if an ability for Non-Admins. to make easy changes is a good idea?

I have read the arguements about editing wars and vandals but what about concerns of losing good editors. If it is really easy to "undo" someones work, and this happens on a large enough scale, will this cause editors or someone qualified that can edit, or that does edit, to stop for fear that a lot of work may be wasted?
This seems like a logical point to ponder. I understand that editing can be done anyway but not by just pushing a button.
It seems to me, on the face, that a rollback would be a fantastic idea when used correctly--BUT-- how many times will it be abused? Will a person editing a page have to keep copies of his(or her) work and a watch on every page he(or she) edits to make sure "rollbacks" have not been performed incorrectly or unjustly? 

I do not have enough knowledge of the subject but if Editors police pages and change the works of vandals can vandals then, at least until caught, be able to just log on and push a button also? Oh! I am sure that an IP address is recorded but if someone just fooling around has dial up then the IP address changes. If a user name surfaces more than once it can be stopped from being allowed to use the feature but how hard would it be to just create another name?

I am just asking what appears to me to be common sense questions so I hope I do not offend anyone by any lack of knowledge I may have on the subject.
There are a lot of individuals that have the time to edit pages for correct reasons, and spend a lot of time doing so, but I can imagine there are a lot of individuals with nothing to do with their time but create problems. Will this be an easy tool for them?Otr500 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What would a trial run prove? Wouldn't the trial involve the most carefully selected users acting on their best behaviour? Or would there be deliberate selection of careless users to balance it out? The concern here is the long-term possibility of misuse and especially careless use, a trial won't establish that potential. Franamax (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

it ALSO doesnt look into the small but signifiacnt amount of users who toe the rules but use any ambiguirty or vagueness in order to justify their ongoing totalitarian campaign at stifling alternative theories and promoting drug company and anti-spiritual doctrine. Smith Jones (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, your suggestion that anti-spiritual totalitarians would be in position to exploit this proposed tool seems rather a stretch. Wouldn't they be better off entrenching themselves as admins with privileged access to the existing tool? Arguments about specific malicious groups don't necessarily contribute to the wider discussion and may actually detract from the wider concerns being raised by the opposers. Franamax (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

the thing is that many of theise pople hae no interest in becing admins becauses then they they will be more visible and their insidious influence would be easierto catch beside sthey probably lack the qualifications since not everyone is made an admin without checks since they look for your editting record which as I mentioned before is often suspectious. Granting thim this power with no oversight would invariabl ylead to an onslaught against parapsychology and articles relating to faith and spirituality that is absolutely unconsciousnable. Smith Jones (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that granting rollback to non-admins would lead to an onslaught against said articles? If so, please present it. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, please stop assuming such bad faith on the part of so many users. The oversight is the same as the oversight for any other edit or public action. If you see something wrong, report it. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

my evidence can essentilly consist of a look at this page. all of my recent contributions have been subjected to a cosntant barath of attacks on my character and my fitness to edit wikipedia. i have been subjected to my fellow editosr trooping up and own all over my user page, threateneng me with adminitsrative action and trying to control every last detail of my contributions here, up and including my right to achive my discussions on my very own talkpage. i know exactly why i am being targetted for this harasment, because I REFUSED to backdown from my defence of alternative scientific leaders such as Kevin Trudeau whose muckraking book can and should be purchased here. i have great respect for wikipedia and all the people who contribute to its, but i am not so naive that i dont recognize a threat to sicnetific and factual integrity wherever i see it. Smith Jones (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)