Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback

This page was nominated for deletion on January 10 2008. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.

See Also

• See also: June 2005 and January 2008 on the wikien-l mailing list

This is still a disputed process.

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

Oh good grief, 2/3 of the community wanted it implemented as is. Of the objections, many of them were objections that would also apply to Twinkle. If someone proposes a better methodology, ok, but until then, this isn't going anywhere. --B (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Custom edit summaries for Rollback

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

I second that - upon use of this feature (for the first time), I realized in consternation that it simply reverted without an option to produce an edit summary. While it makes things expedient for non-admins, it's also very impersonal. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be able to edit the edit summary, then use undo. Undo can revert the most recent consecutive edits even if they are not made by a single editor. In fact, undo can revert any consecutive edits (even if they are in the middle of the history) as long as there is no conflict. Warut (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course I know - I was just mystified at this Rollback function didn't allow user's to specify the rationale. I use it with caution. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that undo will only undo one edit at a time, while rollback does several - as long as they're all from the same editor. However, rollback never works if someone else has edited the page since. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the big deal here?

Rollback allows a user to revert edits quickly - but I don't see how it can do any permanent damage (just like everything else on a wiki). I requested rollback just because I thought it'd be useful - I don't use it that much anyway, and would only use it for vandalism, test edits, etcetera, certainly not content disputes (I tend not to become involved in those anyway). Eventually I want to have the admin tools, because to me helping the encyclopedia by performing sysop processes according to the policies and guidelines which I know and understand would be an enjoyable thing for me to do (my last RfA closed at something like 69%, hope the next one is successful), but for now rollback just seems like not that big of a deal if given to non-admins, and can't see where the controversy is coming from. Having said that, I'm not really a recent changes patroller, and reverting good faith edits using rollback could be problematic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When your next RFA is succesful, you'll discover that those extra buttons are just as little a deal as rollback. Trust me. Pedro :  Chat  20:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So I've been told. That's Wisdom Sarcasm : ). On a serious note though, obviously the rollback feature (by virtue of its current form) was designed to combat vandalism or undo minor/silly errors with ease. I also fail to recognize the logic behind the controversy. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's with the process. I don't see anything wrong with either, but I think the problem is that people think it was introduced without consensus. No further comment (by comment, I mean ranting directed at those people). Justin^(c)_(u) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Being an administrator is no big deal either, it is pointless for an administrator to abuse the tools, as they would lose their sysop privileges. So I do not really see the logic behind the controversy for either one. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Being one isn't, but becoming one is. While abuse would be pointless, it could be very destructive (Twinkle recently included a "delete batch" feature giving administrators the ability to delete all pages on their watchlist, categories, and possibly all pages linked to on a page. The feature has since been removed, but still). Rollback is much less (but still to a degree...) destructive. So they're kind of a different situation. Justin^(c)_(u) 21:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"American time designations"?

Can someone explain what Pedro means[1]? I do not see the logic in this edit. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

It doesn't make any sense. Is there a guideline which can relate to this case? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DATE#Full date formatting calls the style Pedro prefers "International format", tho ISO time is not really considered "American time designation". / edg ☺ ☭ 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. MOS only really realtes to articles, but still relates in this context - my point is that for simplicity let's keep it as it was. No need to make it complex. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn't matter much on Talk pages, but MOS:DATE#Dates describes ISO dates (2008-01-10) as uncommon in English prose, and ... generally not used in Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm fine with the "International format", but for what it's worth, "2008-01-10" never means October 1. The leading year means an ISO date. Incidentally, this is how dates are normally written in Chinese. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edg - do you live in the UK? I guarantee you're wrong, as 2008-01-10 certainly means 1st October to me and plenty of others (WP:OR not withstanding !!!). So, any how, can I just change this back to a clear format (my original intention) now? Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I do live in the UK, and I've never seen "2008-01-10" meaning "1st October". -Halo (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

uh, what the hell?

I've just noted a slew of denied requests from february on grounds that the user doesn't have any experience vandal fighting. I checked the Request for Rollback page and did not see anywhere a requirement that users have any experience vandal fighting. In fact, I saw it said that Rollback may be granted to any user in good standing, who is known not to edit war. Why are you people denying requests on a semi-official page, on grounds that don't exist on the project page? That's disrespectful, and just plain bitey. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I, too, think this tool should be granted rather freely. So long as there is no obvious evidence of edit-warring and the user is in good standing, we should really be defaulting to granting access. SQL^{Query me!} 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I have always had a requirement of at least some evidence of vandal-fighting and, if applicable, the correct use of the undo button and of scripts. —Kurykh 06:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have that requirement, then apply it to personal requests to you for rollback. It seems inappropriate to me for someone to apply a personal standard to a semi-official request page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So I'm forbidden from using judgment in my decisions now? Then why not just have a bot grant everyone rollback if they have a clean block log? RFA had no explicit standards, so should we just indiscriminately grant the tools? —Kurykh 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA states that you will be supported or opposed based on the individual voter's opinions, as cracked out as they may be. What is happening here is more akin to saying "The standard says that you can get it if you do this good, but I'm not going to give it to you until you meet this unstated even higher standard, which you don't know what it is because it's not noted on the page". ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On RfA, no standards are engraved anywhere except during and on the nominations themselves. Supposedly competent candidates get shot down because they did not meet the unstated higher standard that continuously creeps upward nowadays. So the comparison you stated is not valid. Also, from WP:RBK, "any administrator can grant rollback to a user using his or her own judgement," so this process is also based on individual judgement, except in this case it is of admins, not b'crats. —Kurykh 00:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFR needs to reflect then that line you quoted from WP:RBK, otherwise people who haven't read WP:RBK won't know why they are being denied.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If they use it for vandal-fighting, the 'pedia wins, no? If they don't use it at all, no loss, no? If they use it to edit war, well, it's easily removed. Why not err on the side of trusting the requesting user? SQL^{Query me!} 07:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The only standard should be "user in good standing, who is known not to edit war." Let's not start to let standards "drift"...once people start to apply their own (higher) standards when acting requests they'll just keep drifting up and up...let's keep it easy come easy go...simple. Admins should keep to the same simple standards. RxS (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

If the amount of experience they need is that minimal, why not just give them the tool anyway? Are you seriously arguing "I'm not going to give you this tool that will make vandal patrol easier, until you do it the hard way first"? That's very very bitey. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The revert tool can be more trouble than its worth, so it shouldn't be given out freely. If a past/sock edit warrer got this tool it would mean more work for us. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Past sock/edit warriors are not users in good standing not known to edit war, and are ineligible for the tool. We're not talking about them. We're talking about users in good standing, that don't regularly revert vandalism. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So it's bitey because people who do not have even an inkling of knowledge about the task which involves this tool are temporarily inconvenienced? What is with this notion of instant gratification? —Kurykh 00:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's bitey because they shouldn't be forced to do it a "hard way" in order to gain access to a more effective way, especially since the end result is a benefit to the encyclopedia. The easier they can revert vandalism, the more beneficial to us it is. If they screw up, we take it away. How hard is that? Seems like a colossal failure to assume good faith. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW Kurykh, I want you to understand that I'm speaking in general terms here, not accusing you personally of being bitey or not AGFing.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I understand, but I disagree. We're not forcing them to do it the "hard way" first; we just want to know if they know what they're doing and what they'll be doing. —Kurykh 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A simple "I know how to revert vandalism, and will use this tool to do so" should be sufficient then, in that case. Why should they have to show evidence of past vandalism reversions? We should just be able to take them at their word that they know what they're doing. If they don't, remove it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I just requested the rollback feature, and it was denied because "the undo tool should be enough for me" since I haven't done enough vandalism reverts (I've done only about 20 or 30 out of 600 edits). It just doesn't feel like a good enough reason, since I feel I have done some and it'd make things easier for me. It feels like we must not only show that we won't misuse it, but show evidence that we will be very actively using it, as if there were a limited amount of them to give around. Solid Reign (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

That's exactly my point. Why are we denying people on a semi-official page, for shitty reasons like that? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm baffled by that decline too, to be honest. After a look at the user's contributions, they have clearly done vandalism-reversion, and have done it correctly. I think that giving Solid Reign rollback was a good decision. Acalamari 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

There are three templates available: Template:Rollbackgiven, User:NoSeptember/Rollback, and Template:Rollbackgiven2. I hope you'll find them useful. Acalamari 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The template

As previously stated, I am going to keep readding it, particularly as I compromised on the wording. How does it misrepresent the situation at all? Why don't you want people to be informed about the discussion which is going to reevaluate the future of this page? -Halo (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

So just to be clear, we're still going through on the discussion, but we're getting rid of the template, right? Out of curiosity, why? Is it just too early, and we'll re-add it later? Just wondering what's going on. Justin^(c)_(u) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Halo, as a general rule, any time you find yourself saying "I'm going to keep doing X" you should foresee being blocked as a very strong possibility, no matter what the action. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, what are the requirements?

It seems that there are different people have a problem with each standard someone uses to not give rollback. I agree that personal requests should be dealt with the admin's personal discretion, meaning they set their own standards for those requests, but should we assert that on this page, the one and only requirement is that they have no recent editwarring? Not taking into account editcount, time spent here, or number (or quality) of reverts? Just the one standard? Sorry if this seems angry, but I just want to make sure that we have a firm standard to be set. We seem to have the reverse of instruction creep: when it started, we had all these unwritten standards, and now people keep stripping it down :) Maybe this could be one of the things addressed on 10 April. Justin^(c)_(u) 22:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be that rollback goes to anyone who doesn't revert non-vandalism edits without a personal summary and that should be the only requirement. Time here, edit count, vandalism reverting history, edit warring, etc. should all be irrelevant to the addition of this trivial tool. John Reaves 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have very simple requirements: demonstration of correct vandalism-reversions (i.e. I expect to see "undo" used for vandalism-reversion, not for content disputes), no recent blocks for edit warring, and no sign of recent edit warring. If a person uses rollback rarely, I don't mind as long as they use it correctly. Acalamari 22:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Plus TW does about the same thing (and it does more or less the same thing [if not more] as rollback), so it is, as John Reaves described, a trivial tool. <3 bunny 02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

That's unreasonably punitive and discriminatory. Edit warriors can have TW and still be edit warriors. Why can't they have rollback? It's just as easy to remove were they to edit war with it. John Reaves 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Dnvrfantj: I note that rollback permission was granted less than 3 days after this account was created. Now, I will admit that I am somewhat of a conservative when it comes to granting folks this right; I would be hoping to see that, at minimum, a user has been here long enough to be auto-confirmed before they receive this permission. I'd also hope that a certain level of suspicion would be raised when a brand-new user focused on new page patrol, RC patrol, and the CVU in their first three days, while building a hoax/attack page in their userspace - and then magically marking the hoax/attack page as patrolled when it was copied to article space. This editor is now indefinitely blocked. I respectfully ask that administrators granting rollback actually look at some of the edits of the user before automatically flicking the switch. I know it's just a tool, and it's not a big deal. But if this editor's activity to date had actually been looked at, it would have quickly become apparent that he was problematic, with or without rollback. Perhaps someone might wish to remove his rollback permission now. Thanks, Risker (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Did they abuse rollback? No. I'd give Willy on Wheels rollback as long as he didn't abuse it. John Reaves 04:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You have no intention of removing rollback permission from someone who pwned Wikipedia? You'd happily give it out to a vandal? This falls within the range of "exercis(ing) good judgement" part of adminship? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Risker (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing it from an indef blocked user would be rather futile don't you think? My WoW example was only to point out that rollback isn't a bargaining tool or a reward or something that is refused for punitive reasons. John Reaves 05:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see part of the issue

We're not used to having a tool that ANY administrator can take away at any time. I think subconsciously all of us are scared of misuse of the tool, into thinking that it will be really hard to stop, that we'd need to go to arbcom or stewards or some other group to remedy a bad user. This is not desysopping, or banning, or anything so great. All we have to do in the case of a user misusing rollback, is take it out of their permissions. It's that simple. One step, anyone reported on AN/I can have it done in seconds. With it being THAT easy to fix, why are we fighting so hard to not give it to people? We should give it out freely (with the obvious "good standing/no history of edit warring" restriction) and take it away just as freely. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SWATJester, we don't need to go to arbcom or a steward if a user misbehaves. Any admin can remove it at any time if the user abuses it. I say if a user abuses Rollback, take it away from them until they prove they can properly use scripts or undo. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Have you seen the Request for Rollback page lately? Every single request up there has been denied, on basis of "not enough vandalism reversion".⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I was talking circa February 16, at the point where I first started posting up here. There were a half dozen cases up here, all denied for lack of vandalism reversion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That I do find poor rationale: "They won't use it" is listed on WP:AAAD. If you disagreed with them, why didn't you ask the concerned admins? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To comment on the recent trend highlighted by SwatJester, I do not a high volume of experience in counter-vandalism patrolling as an essential criterion for any RfR. Whilst it is indeed useful, and I certainly take it into account when reviewing any application, I view community trust as the primary requirement. Perhaps, in order to bring in a little stability to this process, we might look at drawing up a more formal, peer-reviewed criteria for RfRs, as oppose to the more vague standards we have at the moment? AGK (contact) 12:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)