Wikipedia talk:Rollback for non-administrators

RfC?
Could we turn this into something similar to an RfC? It might make consensus easier to see.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wherever it takes place, someone should be sure to move the conversation from the Village Pump. John Reaves 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Convenience link: Village pump (technical)/Archive 134.  Pagra shtak  02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Given that I started this page/Request for Comments, I don't feel it entirely appropriate to comment on any of the proposals, but for the record, I'm not happy that a wider discussion didn't take place before the implementation was announced, and it appears there's going to be widely differing views on the implementation, whether it be over the technical details of it all, or fears about the rollback tool being abused. Personally, I don't think it should be available to all users, there are no real sanctions when the tool is misused apart from a block, which might not be appropriate, and I do think it might promote edit warring and will result in the loss of useful edit summaries. Nick (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Old bug
Just thought I'd mention that there's an old bug regarding this issue: 3317. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Granting rollback privileges
Some of the proposals suggest granting privileges on an individual basis. However, some of the suggestions seem to be somewhat outside of what the software can actually do. There is currently an extension to allow rollback rights to be given and revoked on an individual basis. the default setting is for it to be assigned by bureaucrats, but this can be changed to allow admins to do it. There is currently no way for one usergroup to be able to grant, but not revoke (or vice versa) rollback privileges. The extension is currently used on Wikia. The other options, from a technical standpoint are through the use of the group permissions variables. This can allow it to automatically be assigned based on usergroup - user, autoconfirm, emailconfirmed, sysop, bot, etc. The threshold that determines "autoconfirm" can also be changed to require an account be sufficiently old and have a certain minimum number of edits. The current setting is 4 days, 0 edits. The 2 systems cannot be combined - we can't grant it automatically and still be able to remove it with the GiveRollback extension. Mr.  Z- man  07:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So if nothing is changed as it stands right now, Bureaucrats can give and take? - jc37 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently bureaucrats cannot give this out as the GiveRollback extension is not installed. As it stands, only sysops can have rollback. Mr.  Z- man  18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another special page for bcrats? Can't we just use $wgAddGroups and $wgRemoveGroups to combine all the bcrat right changing powers into one special page? Then the devs just have to do all of the config changes needed to make this possible and add the following lines to localsettings.php.


 * $wgGroupPermissions['rollback']['rollback']   = true; (the actual rollback button)
 * $wgGroupPermissions['rollback']['markbotedits'] = true; (bot rollback for hiding mass vandalism from the recent changes used by adding &bot=1 to the end of a vandal's contribs url)


 * Fun Pika  11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we aren't using Userrights, I think there are still some bugs to work out - AmiDaniel might know why. That would work as well as the GiveRollback extension and could also be configured to allow sysops to give/revoke rollback permissions:  and  .  Mr.  Z- man  18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Developer dictatorship
Excerpt from #mediawiki:


 * [15:48]  TimStarling: so, can I switch the permission required for rollback to edit // grant the rollback permission to all users?
 * [15:50]  Werdna, you've got a long life ahead of you, no need to make yourself a martyr just yet
 * [15:50]  I suggest you promote the idea on the english wikipedia first



I think the configuration change is a good idea, which is why I gave Werdna the go-ahead to implement and promote it. But if there's strong opposition to it, it's not going to happen. The general guideline I use for developer decision-making is:


 * 1) Decisions made solely for technical reasons can ignore community opinion. For example, disabling features to maintain site performance, or refusing to enable an extension which is poorly written.
 * 2) Developers may take a leadership role in cases of community disinterest, or a failure of the community to reach consensus.
 * 3) Except for technical decisions, community consensus for or against a given decision should always be respected.

It looks like we're heading for consensus against in this case. Which is a pity, because as I say, I think it's a good idea.

-- Tim Starling (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The concern is about having NO control over the tool. It would create too much of a potential for abuse/misuse if everyone gets it without restriction.  Does the technical capability exist to have a separate interface where any admin can grant the use of the tool to any good-faith user who requests it, or remove it from anyone who abuses it?  If so, I think that would answer the concerns all around. --B (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm against the idea of adding sub-admin access levels. It would add an unnecessary sense of hierarchy to the site. -- Tim Starling (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As Tim, but to answer you more directly, we already have an interface through which disruptive editing practises can be terminated: Special:Blockip. Splash - tk 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's like curing the disease by killing the patient. Do you really want to block everyone who uses rollback in a content dispute? I'd much rather be able to just take it away. --B (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Except for technical decisions, community consensus for or against a given decision should always be respected." If the community wants another user group, let them have it, it would be a pretty nifty one to have at any rate.  I understand where you are coming from with "everyone should have it", but you and the other developers wouldn't be the ones that have to constantly explain to people when and when not to use rollback and deal with the disputes and AN/I posts, et cetera relating to this feature being available to everyone. John Reaves 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For or against a given developer decision. There's still a right of veto, i.e. "I don't want to be a part of this, find some other developer to do it for you." Anyway, there's no consensus in favour of RFR. -- Tim Starling (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "I'm against the idea of adding sub-admin access levels."
 * "we already have an interface through which disruptive editing practises can be terminated: Special:Blockip."
 * "But that's like curing the disease by killing the patient."

Ok, than let's compromise: Allow blocking of individual user-rights. We already do this after-a-fashion with "Block". I presume by blocking someone, what's really happening is that they're user-rights are suspended in some way. Let's just make this more specific. Consider being able to block someone's ability to move a page, rather than having to just block the user. Or perhaps someone is abusing the ability to mark edits as "minor". And now let's look at rollback (what this page is discussing). Being able to just "block" the rollback ability on anyone who abuses it. Whether this page's proposal goes through or not, this just sounds like a nice idea : ) - jc37 10:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then a rogue/compromised admin can just go ahead and block the (un)block button for those they give inappropriate blocks to. Fun  Pika  12:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. If only Bureaucrats can give admin user-rights, then only Bureaucrats should be able to block admin powers piecemeal. - jc37 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But admins can block admin tools currently. If an admin is blocked, the only things they can technically do is unblock themself and edit their talk page. Mr.  Z- man  05:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Developers are actually starting to be NICE to the community!? Coolness. Yay! :-) \o/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Page name
"Regular users"? How about "non-admins"? Admins are regular users, too - there is no ruling class on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that better. Let's make sure no one objects before we move. John Reaves 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had the exact same thought yesterday.  Pagra shtak  20:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If we want it to be perfectly correct, it should be "for non-admin users" - anons won't get it under any proposal. Mr.  Z- man  21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, it should just be something quite generic like "Extending rollback privileges".  Pagra shtak  21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What about "Rollback for all registered users"? John Reaves 22:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision 28248: Rollback for regular users removed from defaultsettings.php.
In Revision 28248, rollback for normal users has been disabled. It will only be enabled via localsettings.php if consensus for the change exists on a local wiki. Fun Pika  22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Random thought
After reading Angela's comment, I had a thought that perhaps enabling rollback could simply be a preference for non-admins. For those worried about abuse, there is an edit count field (visible in "User profile" tab) that could probably be easily checked if a certain number was desired. However, this eliminates the fears of rampant usage (really, who goes through their preferences?), yet it still allows dedicated users the ability to gain access to a helpful tool. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually a really good idea and that's no more "dangerous" than what we have right now. Right now, anyone can put Twinkle into their monobook, giving them rollback and having it as a user preference where you have to take some kind of deliberate action to get it is no more dangerous than that. --B (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Users who want to do vandalism patrol, etc., can enable it in their preferences and spare a bit of bandwidth over using twinkle, etc., but the rollback button won't be there staring all new users in the face. Implementation would be quite feasible, too. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the tools are already available for usage by non-admins through scripts, so using the more-efficient rollback shouldn't be a problem. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a great idea - it assuages my concern that newer users inexperienced in wiki etiquette may to overly tempted to use rollback if the links are right there staring at them. Making it an optional preference generally ensures that people enabling it know what they're doing. :) -- krimpet ⟲  06:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. It just takes one vandal to check their preferences, and we're screwed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interject here, but frankly, that sounds simply alarmist. There are far easier ways to cause damage than going into your preferences and enabling rollback. Rolling back edits is easy to fix: you simply rollback the rollbacks. And with this proposal, the edit rates would still remain in tact. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is right, I am alarmed. What you have described above sounds like edit warring to me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the first time that vandals reverted reversions, or that vandals use vandalbots, and that doesn't mean that RC patrollers are edit warriors by definition. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It needs to be demonstrated for each user that they have the maturity to use the rollback button. I see newer users abusing undo all the time with no edit summary - it will only get worse with them being granted rollback. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good idaa, reverting vandalism has never counted as edit warring. The "move" tab is a lot easier to find and a lot harder to clean up. If people abuse "undo" or rollback, they can be warned. If they continue to do it, they can be blocked. We include Tools/Navigation popups in the Gadgets that you can enable in your preferences and people who use Twinkle advertise it in edit summaries, so it isn't hard to find, both of those have one click rollback as well, without the rate limiting. Mr.  Z- man  16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it as a compromise, but all in all I think enabling rollback for non-admins is a bad idea. If it comes down to that, however, I like this idea of implementation the best.  The Hybrid   T / C   06:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too : )
 * Though I still think that the ability should be "activated" before showing up in preferences. (And there should be the ability to "de-activate" it, should the need arise). But besides that, the above looks like a good idea. : ) - jc37 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any non-admin can already right now, today, have rollback with twinkle. All you have to do is install it in your monobook.js. --B (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but any admin can take that twinkle rollback away by blanking the user's monobook. We can't blank a check mark in a user's preferences. - auburn pilot   talk  17:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're most certainly correct that admins cannot change other users' preferences; however, if a user abuses rollback, they should be blocked; This proposal would put the onus on the user, as they would have to deliberately activate the rollback link, they couldn't just see it suddenly appear and then not be blamed for misusing it. The concern with having rollback suddenly enabled for everyone is that some people could accidentally click the link without understanding its use or ramifications. If a user abuses one of their editing tools, there should be no hesitation to blocking that user.


 * I'd also like to point out that Twinkle and other JS cannot be cleared if it is client-side.


 * This is a good a time as any to say to make it clear that rollback is simply a faster way to revert something. The exact same effect that rollback has can be achieved through manual reversion. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a faster way for users to revert vandalism. I think it should be a script and not in preferences. Someone already said no problem for a script as it can be blanked or deleted by an admin but that can't be done in preferences. If it is approved it should not be available immediately just as the move function isn't.-- Sandahl 03:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions
(Moved from project page)

This section is intended to help solve some potential problems arising from concerns that users have expressed.

Ryan Postlethwaite identified three important concerns. My comments are below his numbered statements.

1. It could easily be used by a vandal to go on sprees of mass reverting random contributions - due to the fact that they are simply roll backs, they may well go unnoticed for quite a length of time. An edit limit of 5 per minute would still mean that the average user would be able to opperate at much higher speeds than normal, and therefore cause damage much quicker. I mean, imagine a mass rollback of User:ClueBot?? 2. Rollback is marked as minor, therefore doesn't show up in all RC feeds, so therefore edits made by new autoconfirmed users would not be checked as rigourously - this ties in with the theme above that vandalism would be less easy to detect. 3. It is also highly likely that this tool would be used in edit wars which has a couple of implications; 1) Users could edit war at a much faster pace at one click of a button - it would most likely lead to edit wars escalating exctremely quickly into blind reverts. 2) An automated edit in an edit war (which would not be accessible to everyone) would just make the situation worse, and antagonise the opposite side.
 * In the Recent Changes page, and in the User Contributions page, identify rollbacks by non-administrators with a mark such as R[3/13]. The letter "R" marks it as a rollback; the number to the left of the slash is the number of rollbacks (including this one) by the user in the five minutes just ended; the number to the right is the number of rollbacks by the user in the last hour or some other appropriate time period. Recent Changes is helpful in spotting heavy use, and User Contributions is helpful once a user has been identified as using it heavily. One can then determine whether the heavy use is valid or abuse. Other people, including B, have suggested ensuring that somebody has a way to turn off a user's rollback capability; this information supports that function.
 * Don't mark rollbacks by non-administrators as minor; consider them to be ordinary edits just like a reversion. Perhaps add rollback capability to new users only after a certain number of days (like editing semiprotected articles). (This can help address Angela's concern.)
 * 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.

Next, Angela expressed the concern that new users would abuse the capability. One way to deal with that is to restrict rollback for a number of days or edits (as I wrote above). Another that could be used instead of, or together with, this delay in acquiring the capability is to make rollback a User Preference. It is not automatic, but only activated when the user changes a preference. At that time, the user can be shown a page with a clear statement of the principles, and be required to click the usual "I agree" box to activate rollback capability.

This is not intended to be a statement that users endorse; instead, my intent is to provide ways to make rollback workable.

Fg2 (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that vandalism reversions, the main legitimate use for this, are supposed to be minor. Reversions in content disputes, which should not be marked as minor, should always be done manually or by using undo. Mr.  Z- man  18:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Rollback for non-administrators proposal
Please see the above link for a new proposal on how we could give users the rollback function.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)