Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for rollback

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sesshomaru (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 14 February 2008 (→"American time designations"?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:02, 14 February 2008 by Sesshomaru (talk | contribs) (→"American time designations"?: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requests for rollback redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This page was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-10. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.

Shortcut

]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requests for rollback redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

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_{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 § 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 § 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_{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_(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_(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 Misplaced Pages 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 § 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 Misplaced Pages'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 ~ 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 ~ 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_(u) 19:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only?

While several people believe that rollback may only be used to counter vandalism, or claim that this should be the case, that restriction has no basis in policy, and has never been policy. See for instance Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann and Misplaced Pages:Admin accountability poll for information on the subject. Hence, it is incorrect for this page to forbid that.

It's similar to the idea that "people may not remove warnings from their talk page" - some people think it's policy and some people want it to be policy, but in fact it isn't, and that restriction has never been supported by consensus either. >Radiant< 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand.... This page is NOT policy, so text in the page does not refer to policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not nearly that black and white. It was discussed, voted and implemented with that restriction. We can put whatever (consensual) restrictions we want on this usage of rollback, and one editor can't veto it...for good, bad or indifferent the vandalism restriction is part of rollback in this implementation. I'm going to restore the language. RxS (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was mostly restored before this, I made a minor change...expected to > should only. RxS (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I advise you to get a wider consensus that rollback can be used against disruptive edits beore you call this invalid. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

lol... we actually need a wide consensus on this whole idea... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have consensus on needing consensus? *innocent look*--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As an admin I have always been told that while vandalism is the primary use of rollback, other uses are acceptable if there is proper communication and the use of the tool makes sense. Admins are expected to be able to act intelligently while being given due discretion. I also think regular users can use this discretion at their own risk of being wrong.

If a regular user is capable of showing this level of intelligent discretion then I will not be taking away their rollback because a use of the tool did not fit into a specific set of rules. However I would consider any such action a use of WP:IAR and as such I would want to be very convinced that it was in the best interest of Misplaced Pages.

One example would be a new user who in good faith went about converting every metric unit to imperial, then once being told about our manual of style agrees that the edits need to be reversed but there are too many. Another user could help this new user reverse the edits with the rollback tool. This would be a perfectly acceptable use of rollback because there was proper communication and it makes sense to do so. 1 != 2 17:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not this again... next thing you know we will be having polls about having polls again. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One obvious non-vandalism use of rollback is for reverting one's own edits. I wouldn't be happy to see people habitually using rollback for purposes other than that and removing vandalism, but I take Radiant's point that the page misrepresented policy and I think it constituted instruction creep. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should word it as strong advice, not a rule. We can be clear about the spirit of the rules, and less strict in the wording. The main points in using this tool for me are "Proper communitcation or lack of need for communication(such as vandalism reverts)", "Not for content disputes", and "For the benefit of Misplaced Pages". 1 != 2 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To encourage this notion that rollback is a big deal, or that it's a "slap in the face" (as I believe some page once described it), is to encourage ownership and drama. We don't want to encourage ownership and drama. Rollback should be construed to mean exactly one thing: that edits are being undone. If it's non-obvious WHY, some explanation is required, and well, we have talk pages for that. Friday (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered many editors using popups, god-mode scripts, and similar tools in a manner that is unacceptable, e.g. edit warring, undoing other editor's work without edit summaries, etc. In these instances I have always taken the position to explain and warn these users that these behaviors are unacceptable and that if they continue misusing them, it may be considered disruptive enough to warrant a block. No difference with this bit either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current description of inappropriate use of the rollback function? "If a user is using the rollback tool in an inappropriate manner (e.g. to revert good faith edits, or to pursue an edit war), and will not respond to a polite request to desist, any administrator can be asked to remove rollback permission." That sounds about right to me, and "rollback is for vandalism only" isn't mentioned anywere. --Conti|✉ 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, using rollback to revert a lot of edits at once should still be done with an edit summary, just remembering to use the same edit summary used for all the rollbacks. eg. "rolling back all edits from this point to this point, as agreed here". Otherwise people arriving later to look at the edit will not understand why it was made. This process could be used to rollback a bot's edits, for example. To get the edit summary, you have to use a script to insert the edit summary for you. It is sometimes easier to use a bot (or ask someone to use a bot). I recently wanted to rollback ImageRemovalBot (after restoring several images and adding rationales), but because I wanted to use an edit summary and don't have a script to do "rollback + edit summary", I used undo instead. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want an option to change the rollback summary, add

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js');

to your user Javascript page. It adds a tab to the top of any page with rollback links (history, diffs, contribs) that, if clicked, prompts for an alternate edit summary for all the rollback links on the page. Using a blank summary or clicking "Cancel" will use the default summary. Mr.Z-man 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also User:Gracenotes/rollback.js which has a (*gasp*) special user-replace feature! O: O: O: Gracenotes § 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rights issue with NAR

I just discovered that with NAR I appear to be able to rollback the addition of a protection template to a page. I didn't try it (I know that's not what rollback is for anyway), but this could be a potential oversight in the rollback permissions, as I definitely don't normally have rights to unprotect a page. Maybe we should ask the devs to make NAR unable to rollback edits that changed a page's protection status. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC) _{P.S. Please don't take away my rollback rights :)}

If you actually click on the button you get an error message. (I tested it in my sandbox.) Hut 8.5 10:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Only administrators can protect or unprotect a page. However protection templates (like any other template) can be added and removed by any editor capable of editing the page, without affecting the protection status. You can rollback the edits, but you can't rollback the protection. -- zzuuzz 10:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this. The page is protected, and you can see the rollback button on the edit that protected the page. If you click it, it tells you that you've undone my most recent edit (the protection). But then if you go to the history, it's not actually done anything. Don't worry, you can't undo protection. --Deskana (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you made an edit after that, would rollback work on that edit? Alexfusco 16:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

yes– Gurch 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This causes a potential problem for protected pages as protected pages can be rollback using rollback by non-admins Alexfusco 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No - you can only rollback the edit if you have the necessary permission to edit the page. If the page is fully protected so only admins can edit it you won't be able to rollback unless you're an admin. Hut 8.5 18:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just tried it on my sandbox and I got an error message when I tried to revert it, as the page is protected. There is no security issue. --Deskana (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I didn't realize that the protection templates don't actually grant protection status. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 12:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. There wasn't any security issue here, since as people pointed out, the button didn't actually work. The interface was wrong, though. I fixed it in r30187 so that it won't display the button if you don't have permission to use it on that particular page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixing Symptoms, not problems

I'm replying to B's comment above. 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)
It's a probem, and I'm new so do not fully understand it, so a brief overview. The root problem is a large amoount of spamming (vandalism). Secondary ones are matters of differences in informed opinion. From the little i've seen and experienced, this leads to a large turnover of admins and other positions, who get burnt and left with a bad taste in their mouths. Newbies, not as thick skinned as me, just run way. Inclusion? NOT.

Roll back is one approach but it seems we're fixing the symptoms, not the disease.

Am I being stupid if I suggest that the idea of Role Accounts should be one that needs to be strengthened, where the role - its authority and responsibilities (& rewards?) - is well defined? The idea of peers sharing an account, and the load attached to it, seems like an obvious way that peers can be contacted, knowing full well that one can speak on their behalf. Members of ability, knowledge and opinion could inform each other, and sockpuppets may easily be ignored as irrelevant to trusting groups. Just an idea. But it represents a bit of utility, in this wiki wacky world of gross independence and incomplete resolution, to me.--Simonfj (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand the comment. Are you saying we need more role accounts, or that we need less (there are obviously some, we just haven't found them all)? And how does this pertain to RfR? Justin_(u) 23:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he's saying we need more, but I can't see the relation to rollback either... --Tango (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a GFDL compliance issue with having accounts with more than one user? Justin_(u) 23:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No. GFDL attribution may be applied to an entity (i.e., group). Gracenotes § 16:39, 5 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)

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 _{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_(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_(u) 21:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"American time designations"?

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

Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for rollback - Misplaced Pages

See Also