Wikipedia:Rollback/throttle removal

This is an archive of discussion which took place on Village Pump (proposals), #Non-admin rollbackers

The following discussion was moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Non-admin rollbackers

I don't know if this has been/is being discussed somewhere else, or even if this is the correct place to post this, but I think that non-admin rollbackers should be allowed to make more than 5 rollbacks in a minute before being throttled. I think that they (OK, we) should be able to make at least 10 rollbacks (15 would be better) before being throttled.

Considering that rollback rights are not automatically assigned (as autoconfirmed rights are), I do not see any reason that we should be restricted so much. I use Huggle rather vigorously, and I would be able to be much more effective in my vandal-fighting (especially during high-volume times) if I was not slowed down by having to force Huggle to mimic the rollback feature for 5/6 of the time after I use up my 5 rollbacks in 10 seconds. (which I do fairly frequently when vandalism is at its peak)

Also, I sometimes encounter someone who adds external links (pointing to pages in the same website) to many articles (think 15-25) before I realize what he/she is doing. I review their contribs in Huggle to ensure that they are all spam, and if they have not been warned previously, I usually give them either a level 2 or a level 3 warning, open their contribs, and click on the rollback links. It is incredibly annoying to only be able to do 5 rollbacks, and then having to click "undo" for the rest. J.d ela noy gabs adds 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. I had the same problem when reverting someone who had spammed about 120 articles today. Even though I took a second or two to double check every single diff using popups, I still bumped on the limit several times. Rather frustrating and time consuming. &mdash;Ashanda (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't personally hit the limit but I agree that since there's approval to receive rollback it could probably be increased a bit. xenocidic (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The throttle is set in the site configuration, but it is easy to change. You just need to point the developers the presence of the mythical beast of consensus. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 03:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I am hoping to get here... J.d ela noy gabs adds  13:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it should be much of a risk to increase the limit to, say, 25 or even 50 rollbacks per minute. Actually, I'm not sure it even really needs a limit at all; after all, the worst you could do with unlimited rollback would be to run a bot to rollback every page and every new edit as soon as it's made — and that would just get you blocked quickly and the rollbacks reverted. Yes, that would be a nuisance, but hardly a serious one. Probably about equal in overall annoyance level to a 5-minute database lock or thereabouts. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds like double or tripling the limit would help editors, while posing minimal risk. Unless a case is made for a higher limit, I don't think we should go there; there is a clear downside, and - absent a demonstrated need - why go there? (So count this as a vote for doubling or tripling the current limit.)  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, would 15 rollbacks per minute enjoy consensus? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say so; the benefit is real, and the opposition is not. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why on Earth do we even need a limit? We can just revoke it from someone who abuses it. 1  !=  2  20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need a limit on the number of reverts a minute: I don't see why it was necessary to include a limit in the first place. Rollback is very easy to remove if it's abused, and changing non-admin rollback from five reverts a minute to unlimited will be a major positive, in my opinion. Acalamari 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the limit was placed when non-admin rollback was first introduced, as part of a compromise to those that were opposed to it. I'd be fine with the restriction's removal, now that we've established that granting rollback isn't the encyclopedia-destroying concept some may have been concerned it would be. As has been pointed out, abuse can easily be dealt with by any admin. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

←OK, it looks like several people think it's a good idea, so, how do we move forward from here? Should I create a poll somewhere to try to get more community input? If so where should I create it? As a subpage of WP:ROLLBACK? J.d ela noy gabs adds 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The feature request is bug 12760. I support this measure and would prefer no restriction, the current limit makes rollback useless at nuking spam. MER-C 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I put a limit on it because I thought we were going to be sensible and give rollback to all users, and I had the limit set accordingly. I'm not attached to it, and it was pretty much plucked from thin air, so there's no big deal in upping it two or three-fold. FWIW, I've hit this limit too, and it's a bit of a pain. &mdash; Werdna talk 09:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As the person who filed bug 12760 back when rollback was first made available, this obviously has my full support. I can confirm that the limit is easily reached during busy periods when only a handful of people are patrolling recent changes. While I have addressed this to some extent in Huggle by falling back to normal reversion rather than just displaying an "Action throttled" error message, the difference in speed can be significant Gurchzilla (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, it looks like we have quite a bit of support for this. I'm going to move it to WP:VPP and open a straw poll. J.d ela noy gabs adds 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

''Previous discussion from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Non-admin rollbackers. Please add any new discussion in the section below.''

Discussion
It seems that most of the people above supported removing the limit entirely. When I originally made the post, I did not want to sound too radical. (for lack of a better term) Many of the users who supported removing the limit entirely on VP:technical are administrators, which is why I worded the straw poll the way I did. J.d ela noy gabs adds 15:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I count over 30 users in support of either raising the limit or removing it altogether, with no opposition. Enough for now? I'm not too optimistic about the change actually being implemented since I requested it four months ago, but it might be helpful to be able to say "there is consensus for this" -- Gurchzilla (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to wait a week, but I was unprepared for the amount of support this got. Where do I go from here? Do I contact a developer directly? J.d ela noy gabs adds  17:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'd say take it to Bugzilla, but no one seems to care about those. If I were you I'd leave this discussion here and wait until someone with significant influence sees it and decides it's time to make the change happen. <font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I guess I'll spam message a couple of devs and ask what the proper procedure for this is. J.d ela noy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or a dev....  J.d ela noy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll c
At present, non-admin rollbackers are able to make 5 rollbacks per minute.

Considering that mass rollback vandalism would be fairly easy to revert, and that any admin can remove rollback rights from any non-admin rollbacker, I beg the question:

Should non-admin rollbackers be able to make unlimited rollbacks without being throttled?

(After your signature on your !vote, please include the user group which shows up under Special:ListUsers/ when you type your name in. I do not mean for this to be demeaning to uninvolved parties, it is merely to aid in determining the natural bias of votes, as present rollbackers (e.g. me) would obviously be very likely to support this measure. Thanks.)

Support for rollback throttle removal

 * 1) Reasons already stated above. J.d ela noy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  15:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)
 * 2) Support, either the removal of the limit, but at very least it should be increased to say, 20 per minute (that's 3 seconds per rollback which is a enough time to verify the edit qualifies for rollback). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)
 * 3) Support removing the limit. Imposing something like Xenocidic suggested might not be a bad idea, and wouldn't hinder people's use of RB too much, while still stopping revert-sprees or edit-warring [hopefully!]. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;"><font color="#630">RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 16:35, May 15, 2008 (UTC) (Account creator, rollback)
 * 4) I followed the original discussion on VPT, and J.delanoy makes an excellent case. Removal of rollback from abusers is easy. --barneca (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (Administrator)
 * 5) Support total removal of the throttle, per my rationale below. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) '''(rollbacker)
 * 6) per "dictator" Equazcion ) and J.delanoy's rational.  Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)
 * 7) Given the overall responsible way admins have been handling rollback permissions, among other things mentioned above, removing (or raising substantially) the limit should be fine. Grace notes T <span title="Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)">§ 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)
 * 8) I can't see any need for a throttle. Editors who abuse the tool can be blocked or have the permission removed. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 17:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (Administrator)
 * 9) There's no need for the throttle: anyone who abuses unlimited rollback can have the right removed from them. Removing the throttle will increase our vandal-fighting capabilities greatly. Acalamari 19:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (Administrator)
 * 10) We can always take away rollback permission for anyone who abuses it. There's no reason to make life hard for the many who use it properly. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 19:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (Adminstrator)
 * 11) I haven't seen any problems that would make it necessary that there is a limit to rollbacks per minute. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)
 * 12) As mentioned by others, the benefits are great, and if someone abuses it, they will lose permission. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (no group memberships)
 * 13) Originally I was all about proceeding with caution with rollback, but things are going very smoothly with the process, and I personally feel it would be safe to remove the throttle. I actually wasn't even aware there was one, but even so, it doesn't seem necessary to me. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (normal user)
 * 14) For the record. MER-C 12:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)
 * 15) It would be a benefit to the project in increasing vandal fighter effectiveness. Easy enough to remove from any abuser. -- Gwguffey (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)
 * 16) Abusers can easily be removed. BigDunc  Talk 15:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)
 * 17) A measure like this should only have been introduced if it had turned out that the rollback permission gave rase to substantial abuse. Oliphaunt (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)
 * 18) I do not see any major objections (technical or otherwise), so therefore I believe it can be removed. A throttle can always be replaced if abuse gets out of hand. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 15:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (regular old boring editor)
 * 19) Its easy enough to remove.  MBisanz  talk 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (admin)
 * 20) Per all the reasons stated above. Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  15:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (Rollbacker)
 * 21) Support as perfectly reasonable suggestion. <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">TreasuryTag —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">t —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">c 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker, innit)
 * 22)   CWii ( Talk  22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker, account creator)
 * 23) Unnecessary support in an unnecessary poll[ why ] for an unnecessary throttle. It would be better  applied to page moves. :) <font color="#233D7A">Nihiltres { <font color="#000">t .l } 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (Administrator)
 * 24) Support - Rollback can be taken away even easier than Twinkle can (in the event of abuse of rollback priviledges), now that Twinkle is a gadget. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (Rollbacker)
 * 25) Support - The rate of rollback is not much of a concern to me; page moves are a more serious matter. I'd suggest also that rollbackers have unlimited page moves but non-rollback editors be limited to a certain number of moves per hour (Administrator). EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Any increase at which the vandals would be able to use this if they every got a hold of it is offset by the increased speed at which their work could be undone. - Icewedge (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (Rollbacker)
 * 27) Support. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (Rollbacker)
 * 28) Support. Would help us faster for vandal reversing... -- Crea <font color="#000080">m <font color= "#808000">y! Talk 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)
 * 29) Support Would be helpful to vandal fighters. Fun  Pika  20:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker, account creator) 
 * 30) Support, with no reservations. The reasons behind the throttle are no longer valid. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (administrator)
 * 31) Support, Per above users. Also EdJohnston like the page move idea. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, sans-serif; color:#775ca8;">Rgoodermote  19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC) (Rollbacker)
 * 32) Support per above. I also agree with EdJohnston regarding page moves, though I suspect that's a separate kettle of fish. Matt Deres (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC) (rollbacker)

Straw polls are stupid, and I already made my position clear in non-poll form above

 * 1) Gurchzilla (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding straw poll options to facetiously declare how stupid straw polls are has been overdone

 * 1) <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion  •✗/C • 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  J.d ela noy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Waltham, The Duke of 01:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) "Are has been overdone"? MER-C 10:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All ur base r belong 2 us :P J.d ela noy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Love the sense of irony. (I couldn't care less about rollback.) -- Taku (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of us who voted here already voted above. I don't think this was actually intended to be a real option in the straw poll. J.d ela noy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree 107.232005281% with this. <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">TreasuryTag —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">t —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">c 17:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the throttle
I was rather active in the original proposal to implement a non-administrative rollback feature, and I don't recall any mention of a "throttle" or similar limit. Can someone post a link to the discussion that led to the setting of such a limit? <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked over Non-administrator rollback, but I didn't see any discussions about throttling. I have no idea where throttling came from. Sorry. J.d ela noy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being judged a unilateral dictator, I think the throttle should be removed now with no further discussion required. There was a massive discussion regarding the adding of an administrative rollback feature in which very wide consensus was established to implement it, and no discussion whatsoever, as far as we can find, regarding the setting of any throttle. It should never have been implemented in the first place and as such it should be removed. That's my two cents. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 17:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless a Dev provides a technical reason for it (server load, or some such), then I would concur. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Read Werdna's post above from yesterday. GRBerry 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically the developer who implemented it did so on the assumption that it would be given to all registered user accounts, and that it would be necessary to do this to guard against abuse. Widespread objection to this led to it being limited to individual users at the discretion of administrators; since this provides much more stringent protection against abuse, the original reason for the limit no longer applies -- Gurchzilla (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it was a reasonable suggestion. It should've been discussed rather than decided on by one person. I suppose that's moot though, since it seems that it'll be removed now. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't we just raise the throttle to a higher number, say 20rpm? — xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  16:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We could, and indeed that was the original suggestion. Arguing over whether to raise the limit or remove it seems a little pointless, though, and many people seem to prefer removing it. Since the only purpose the limit serves is to reduce the potential for abuse -- something that can be handled far more conclusively by removing the user from the rollback group and/or blocking them -- and was only added in the first place because the developers anticipated rollback being given to all autoconfirmed users, I believe the argument is that there is really no point to a limit at all, as the current one sometimes hinders genuine use of rollback while doing nothing to prevent abuse (since possession of rollback is regulated by administrators) and a higher limit would be similarly pointless -- Gurchzilla (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Update
The rollback rate limit has been raised to 100 / minute on all WMF wikis. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 10/minute, actually -- Gurchzilla (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)