Wikipedia talk:Rollback feature

Remove Unsimple Template

Could someone look over this page and see if the page is simple enough to remove the unsimple template? I did some work on it to make it more simple, but I want some else to check it to see if I missed anything. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

change how tool is granted

Resolved. This issue has been dealt with by mediation and is now closed. fr33kman 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently "You should have made a lot of changes, preferably showing vandal fighting. If you have rollback elsewhere, or admin rights elsewhere, this requirement is not counted. So if you are already a rollbacker or admin elsewhere on WMF you can just ask for it here and it can be granted." that is the case. I have seen many cases where an admin has granted the tool and the user has left, never to come back. Instead of blindly giving it out to any admin or rollbacker that comes in the door, I'd like to change the policy to require users to be autoconfirmed before getting the tool. Thoughts? Griffinofwales (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a edit requirement for autoconfirmed? If so, great idea. Users who really need rollback on this wiki but may never come back should be directed to meta:Steward requests/Global permissions instead. Chenzw  Talk  02:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

4 days, 10 edits. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag collecting is not to be encouraged, but who does it harm? Rollbackers having to at least be autoconfirmed sounds good, but I would oppose them being much higher. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 03:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sonia more or less stated my opinion on the matter, but assigning rollback to an account that cannot use Twinkle (do we even have that requirement here?) or edit semi-protected pages seems a tad silly. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the autoconfirmed requirement is built into the Twinkle code. EhJJ^TALK 21:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Griffinofwales's proposal. Being autoconfirmed (only 10 edits, after all) isn't really a hard requirement, and it certainly is a reasonable one. —Clementina talk 05:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lauryn, yes, that requirement is in place. If, by June 26, this proposal is still supported by the majority of users commenting, I will put it in place. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good proposal. Worst case scenario, if somebody really is just flag collecting, they have to make a few useful edits here to do it. Kansan (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

<-- reset Agreed - support proposal. Also, seeing as the concern seems to be users having rollback but not use it, why not introduce a removal policy in a similar way to de-admin-ing due to inactivity? Don't see a problem with it staying myself (WP:NOBIGDEAL), but others might be more concerned. Goblin 09:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!+

I'm ok with giving the tool to anyone with established trust. For example, a unified account with a good contribution history to another wiki, I don't object. I don't see a reason to remove it for inactivity either. Jon@talk:~$ 10:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would rollback need to be removed? Seems a little troublesome for admins, and somewhat pointless. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 10:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the part of being autoconfirmed in order to have rollback but Griffinofwales has in the past month or so removed inactive rollbackers who haven't edited for a year here. There has been no consensus to do that yet. Nifky^{^} 11:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Inactive rollbackers hurt noone. Anyone that has rollback elsewhere and is granted it here, should not have to wait for autoconfirmed. We are trying to encourage people to edit here, not discourage them. This is needless red tape. Remove inactive admins sure because they are a security risk. Rollback is not really a security risk. Don't support the proposal. BTW twinkle is not the only way to use rollback. I never use twinkle to rollback, I use the built in rollback button. Oh and I definitely don't support removing it for inactivity, misuse sure but not inactivity. -DJSasso (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree fr33kman 22:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the purposeful to wait until autoconfirmed, I don't agree with removing inactive rollback. Yes, we are trying to welcome people to this wikipedia, but just giving flags away is not how we should do that. The people who come here, request the flag and then never edit again are just hat hunting. If people can make some edits, prove they have a genuine interest in the project and then request it once they are autoconfirmed, then I would have no problems giving rollback. As Djsasso said, rollback really isn't a security risk, so removing it because of inactivity would just be a waste of our time.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing...

It is difficult to get a rough consensus out of this discussion. Taking in all the above, are there any objections we agree to wait until autoconfirmed, and we don't remove rollbacker from inactive users? I'll wait a couple of days. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 21:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think there is consensus to anything. Rollback should be at the admins discretion. Please lets stop with red tape. -DJSasso (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm recusing to close this. Jon@talk:~$ 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• And the conclusion is: There is a consensus to restrict the rollback tool to autoconfirmed users only. That means any new granting of the need should only happen to autoconfirmed accounts, means 10 edits and 4 days registered. Of course, there can be cases where this rule does not apply and the admin discretion can still happen. (e.g. second accounts of trusted people/admins etc.). Per this new rule, we encourage people to edit the wiki instead of encouraging hat-collecting across the wmf wikis. At all, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to remove the rollback tool due to inactivity. People who have this right will keep it. -Barras ^talk 18:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC) edited by Barras ^talk at 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why we try to make it so hard for people to want to be here....and then we complain we don't get editors. Who cares if someone comes here only for the rollback flag...what does that harm. And honestly, who does that? I sometimes think people here just like to feel important creating more and more rules. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If they were here "just for the rollback", why don't they just get global rollback on Meta, or make ten edits? We're not Spanish Wikipedia, we have relatively low rollback thresholds. I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion, but I support the autoconfirmed requirement as well. Purplebackpack89 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying they are here for just rollback....other people said that. I said, what is the problem if they are. The whole reason we imputed the you can have rollback automatically if you have it elsewhere standard was so that we could make rollback easier to get and so that people who were legitimate good editors would not have to wait. Thus encouraging them to join our community. Making them wait 4 days for no good reason, doesn't help anything, it solves no problem. But it potentially harms the wiki in giving new editors a bad first impression that we have needless red tape. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion, in fact, may scare new editors away. πr² (talk • changes) 17:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

made some clarifications

I've made (among other changes) some clarifications on when rollback can be granted per this request. Feel free to revert them if you think they are inappropriate. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have reverted a chunk of it back to simple english. The sentence actually already said that, it indicated that it may be granted. Not that it would be granted. I have put the word in bold to maybe make it more obvious. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency in rollbacker policy (copied from previous discussion at Simple talk)

The way we word our policy on granting rollback is inconsistent between WP:RFP and WP:RBK:

• WP:RFP: "Once autoconfirmed, admins/rollbackers from other projects can be granted rollback without these requirements."
• WP:RBK: "You should have made a lot of changes, preferably showing vandal fighting. If you have rollback elsewhere, or admin rights elsewhere, this requirement is usually not needed. So if you are already a rollbacker or admin elsewhere on the Wikimedia Foundation, you can just ask for it here and it may be granted."

I think it is a bad idea to mention the same kind of point on two different pages, worse still if both allow for the possibility of contradiction, as has been pointed out in a recent request. Considering the precedent that has been established in Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Archives/2015/June/Notdone, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Archives/2015/November/Notdone, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Archives/2015/December/Notdone, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Archives/2016/January/Notdone and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Archives/2016/February/Notdone, I would like to propose the following changes:

• WP:RFP: remove the entire statement mentioned above, and point requesters to WP:RBK instead for the rollbacker requirements.
• WP:RBK: clarify the statement (changes in bold): "You should have made a lot of changes, with experience in anti-vandalism work. If you have rollback elsewhere, or admin rights elsewhere, the threshold for meeting this requirement is lower. So if you are already a rollbacker or admin on another Wikimedia Foundation project, please mention it in your request and it will be taken into consideration."

--Chenzw  Talk  02:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the inconsistency: neither says the right will be granted, only that it might ("can" doesn't mean "will"). However, I agree with the suggested changes. We should never say that any rights will automatically be granted. There's a learning curve here, no matter now much experience a user has elsewhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with wording change. Also, while we are mucking about with this particular guideline, I think we should funnel all requests for the permission through Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. As currently written, WP:RBK also allows interested parties to directly request this right from an admin, or to post a request at the administrator's noticeboard. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of Etamni's suggestions suggestions here.

1. Funneling all requests through Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback makes sense. This does not necessarily prevent an administrator from offering the right to someone, but it gives user-initiated requests at least some community vetting.
2. I don't know that the wording is exactly inconsistent, but I think the proposed wording makes things clearer.

I would add, though, that Auntof6 makes a very good point: even for people with advanced rights elsewhere, this wiki has its own way of doing things—for good reasons—and there is a learning curve here. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't understand why this one feature has had to have the wording discussed so many times lol. No one seems to understand what may and can mean. It isn't inconsistent at all. I have no problem with the change, other than its possibly not as simple. I don't really agree with needing to funnel all the requests, the whole idea with rollbacker is that admins can give it based on their discretion, since there isn't intended to be community discretion on rollbacker requests. The only reason for the rollbacker page really is to make a request when no admin are around to do it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The idea behind funneling all of the user-initiated requests through Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback is to make it easier for future prospective Rollbackers to review earlier requests, and get a better understanding of what will or will not suffice for experience and activity levels. If these requests are made on any admin's talk page, or at WP:AN, they will be more difficult for the prospective rollbacker to seek out. This suggestion is not intended to limit an admin's discretion in granting the permission, including those circumstances where an admin initiates the process. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think the policy should be that you have to earn them here as well. Computer Fizz (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• (1) I would be in favor of some wording revisions to clarify that nobody gets the flag automatically. (2) I'm ok either way on whether all requests should be funneled through a single page. I mildly favor having such a page, provided that administrators can still offer the flag at their own initiative. (3) To some extent, I think this wiki has some unique characteristics, and therefore people do have to earn the flag here. That having been said, the rights and responsibilities users have exercised on other Wikipedia projects are bound to have at least some influence here. After all, if a user here is an administrator on a different project, it stands to reason that s/he knows how to use the tools responsibly, so s/he does not really need to prove that again here. Once admins here are convinced that such a user knows the unique characteristics of our community, that will be enough to allow them to offer the rollback flag. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comments: Firstly, I am going to agree entirely with DJSasso's comment above (dated 9 May 2016, referring to since we are now in July). Secondly, this is much ado about nothing or a tempest in a teapot. I actually think Twinkle does a fine job and I happily work with it. Why all the fuss over rollbacker? Thirdly, I am astounded that this project page states: and there are 287 users with the rollbacker permission locally. Really? I would be the one to refer to such a list and say to myself "awesome, anyone can be granted this userright...why not me?!?" Trim anyone? All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 15:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• I am not going to mince my words here; when this discussion was opened on both occasions (first discussion on ST, second time here), it so happened that there happened to be a request for rollbacker rights for Music1201 during that time period. Considering the circumstances between both requests for rollback and the subject of this discussion, I will say it is more of a coincidence that this discussion and Music1201's rights requests are related. When the editor's first request came out (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Archives/2016/May/Done), it was denied by Auntof6. Said editor did not come back to edit his request again until almost a month later, when there happened to be another denial in another editor's request. Now with the benefit of hindsight and a closer look at EN, I should not have conceded to what I now consider to be wikilawyering, and should not have granted rollback in the first place. That was my mistake. (also some of my comments regarding rollback removal here) Chenzw  Talk  17:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That situation relates to this one mainly in highlighting that we should reword enough to reduce the opportunity for wikilawyering.

To clarify my position there, I wouldn't have disagreed if that user had not been granted rollback in the first place, and in fact agree that it shouldn't (yet) have been given. But:

• Given that he was given rollback, and had used it responsibly, and potentially could be a good contributor here, I would not have discouraged his participation by pulling the flag back, especially since
• Wikilawyering or not, he made no application under false pretenses.

In any event, I've said my piece, and will move on. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Apologies, just realised that I have been going on and on into specific cases without addressing the overarching issue... to start off, it was the intention for rollback to be granted based on the discretion of administrators, and at that time (proposal here), it really was for the (already small) editor community to have a tool for reverting vandalism easily (one-click). I think I should note that, while rollback itself was enabled on this wiki in October 2008, the specific page for requesting rollback was only created in December 2008 (initially Wikipedia:Requests for rollback, before moving to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback; see page histories). Previously, requests were answered on WP:AN. At the risk of being accused of having an elitist agenda, rollback on this wiki was from the start intended to be something which administrators give out to established editors, so as to make it easier for them to revert vandalism, and especially vandalism consisting of multiple diffs by a single user. Given that our editor numbers have not changed much (and might have actually declined as compared to 5+ years back), I don't think there should be a change to the idea behind "who gets rollback". Ideally, established editors who have a consistent history of anti-vandalism work will be noticed in Recent Changes, and given the flag "automatically". If somehow you weren't noticed, but you have been doing good anti-vandalism work, then WP:RFP exists for that purpose. Fylbecatulous is one very good example. It might be interesting to note that the patroller right was also given out without the editor needing to make an explicit request. Looking at the contributions, I myself would have granted rollback (without needing an explicit request), but now is probably not the best time, given the existence of this discussion. Chenzw  Talk  17:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Good summary of our history and practice. --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: <user right>-ship is "not a big deal"

• Also a note about how adminship/bureaucratship/rollback/<insert permission here>-ship is "not a big deal": I fear that this phrase has been taken out of context many times. When Jimbo initially made this remark in an email in 2003, he was using this phrase with reference to the fact that the possession of sysop in itself does not "bestow" upon the editor any additional "authority", and if I may add myself, especially not any additional authority on other editors. The sysop tools are akin to a janitor's mop in the sense that they are used to enforce, in a technical manner, policies and/or guidelines which the community has set. Examples of such enforcement are blocks/deletions/protections. The mop is not a weapon, nor a tool for subjugation. Without going into specifics, I note that there are some wikis (non-WMF projects) out there which actually have an explicit chain of command, and where "ordinary" editors are expected to follow the directives given out by administrators/other advanced permission holders. While we still have to make some kind of distinction between sysops and non-sysops over here, that kind of chain of command which I mentioned is not intended to be used on Wikipedia.
• There are some user rights on this wiki which have less damaging potential, but "not a big deal" should not be used to justify a request for rights (why not grant something like rollback to everyone, then?).
  • More information regarding the events leading up to the "not a big deal" email can be found in these links: [1] [2] [3] Chenzw  Talk  17:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello

How are you? CleanerWiki and finalizer (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@CleanerWiki and finalizer This is not the place for this. This is for requesting rights. Please stop spamming pages and talk pages. Thanks - Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 15:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry I thought this is was your talk page I'm really very sorry, could you plls delete my comment? CleanerWiki and finalizer (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)