Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll

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.

---

• 304 Support, 151 Opposed

Straw Poll

Support

0 (zero) supporters

1. Nick (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - Some excellent vandal-fighters who could use the rollback function very well fail RfAs for non-rollback related reasons (i.e. misjudged CSD tags, etc.). Giving these users rollback will only give Wikipedia a net benefit. Keilana^talk_(recall) 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I want rollback for myself, and I think a system like this would enable me to get it. I think there are a few users who can't practically become administrators, but who should be allowed to use rollback. I think this system will accomplish its purpose. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - obviously :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, though I think the text in "Removal of the permission" needs some tweaking. Is it really necessary to mention that this too can be wheel warring, I would have thought that obvious? henrik•talk 23:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I think we can unbold the wheelwar bit... any admin action carries the same sanction when abused. — Edokter • Talk • 00:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
7. I think there are better ways to do this, but I don't think that they could gain consensus. Mr.Z-man 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - effectively a regularisation of VandalProof. Some minimum standards for approval would be useful, principally to ease any hurt feelings from enthusiastic new editors with only 50 contributions and a desire to fight vandalism without having read the policies. However I strongly oppose any automatic approval based on edit counts (as proposed in the discussion below). Admin approval is not that big a hurdle. If a committed and reliable editor with thousands of contributions cannot convince any single admin to give them access, there is likely a good reason why not. Euryalus (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Support, reasons well stated above. Can easily be revoked if a user causes problems. Guy (Help!) 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Not a big deal, especially with the alternatives now available. Offers a new means to encourage productive users by giving them a tangible show of trust. Cool Hand Luke 03:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. However, I think that a more concrete minimum criteria should be set. I also think that requests to remove nonadmin rollback should be in the same page as that to request rollback. bibliomaniac15 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Per above. And a question: does this come with the markbot permission? MER-C 03:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. Per common sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Support with concerns. —BoL 04:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
15. I see potential uses for it. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong Support — This would be a great asset to me, as I make over 1,800 reverts per normal day (it has been sagging during the holidays, but that is irrelevant). My owner has been lobbying for this for quite a while. Thanks. -- ClueBot (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Support — Rollback is the best way to prevent something like this. I have seen a few rare cases when tools like Twinkle and Popups don't catch all the vandalism by an editor to a certain page - giving rollback to trusted non-admins reduces the likelyhood of this. Graham87 05:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Support but I don't think the added step of an ANI report should be necessary in obvious cases any more than it is for an admin to issue a block. If someone is unquestionably abusing the privilege, you remove it. If the user apologizes and promises not to do it again, you restore the privilege. --B (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

    I think thihs is most probably going to be the way it happens, if a user is obviously misusing it, the tool gets removed and the admin can easily post to AN/I to let other admins know what he has done (as many block reviews are done now). In not so clear cut cases, a consensus on a noticeboard should be sought first. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

19. Support proposal as written. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Worth a try as written; in theory Wikipedia would never work at all, so the only way to find out if it works is to try it. :) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

20 supporters

1. Support. Sounds reasonable; the details can be tweaked later. Sandstein (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
2. The undo function is abused and some admins misuse rollback, but as you have to specifically ask for this function and as it can be removed easily I think it is worth trialling. violet/riga (t) 10:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support very good idea. Non-admins already have access to many tools (TWINKLE, popups, the undo function etc) which are only a step down from administrator rollback, and these are accepted by the community and not often misused. Hut 8.5 11:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. My first question is always "Is it useful?" and I immediately bring to mind an afternoon spent rolling back over a hundred spam links on request. Yes, it's useful. :) I see opposes below basically indicating that this is nothing that can't be done through Twinkle. (I also note below that Twinkle has a conflict with ZoneAlarm which has made it unusable for some editors.) If this is the case, then there is no harm in granting it to reliable editors, who (if they don't have the ZoneAlarm conflict) could be essentially doing it by other means already. I do support caution in granting this function, and at the least I would encourage any admin who grants it to remind editors to read the policy and note that rolling back changes that are not vandalism is heartily discouraged as insulting to other editors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
5. I think the 'redundant with TW' argument has been adequately addressed; rollback is better, for both the user and the project. I can't see a reason why it would create more problems with edit warring and other bad behavior than scripts like TW. And we can deal with those problems by blocking or removing the tool anyway. I find the 'creating a separate class of editors' argument a little more compelling, but I think we should understand that that's a social problem, not a technical one. I definitely hear what people are saying about giving admins too much power and creating more bureaucracy, but I think we should weigh those potential problems against the benefit of giving out the tool. delldot talk 14:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Support -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 15:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Support: Good alternative for good editors (good = constructive) who don't like to use tools such as TW and POPUPS. Supporting since it will be closely controlled by the sysops, and I don't think it will be abused. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Support but should be considered a privilege, and thus easier to justify removal than it is to justify blocking. NoSeptember 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
10. I don't support requiring a consensus at ANI to remove the tool but I do agree that we need a simple mechanism to allow the application of the tool. Like all policies and guidelines this will develop with time but I'd not be opposed to widening the amount of access to the tool beyond the regular vandalfighters. All established and well behaved editors should have access to the tool even if they do not have regular cause to use it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Support this is a great idea, and I fully agree that caution in permitting users to use the tool is indeed the best way to go with this. It would save an enormous amount of effort in reverting vandalism and other such bad-faith edits. .:Alex:. 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
12. I strongly support this proposal. I think the benefits outweigh the negatives: if someone abuses the rollback, they get it removed; if a blatant revert-warrior requests rollback, they'll be denied. Regarding using revert scripts, some people may not realize that scripts like TWINKLE don't work on all browsers, and giving rollback to vandal-fighters who use Internet Explorer will be excellent. With the "go through RfA argument", as Gurch says, people who are vandal-fighters often get opposed simply for being vandal-fighters. I think we'll benefit from feature this overall. Acalamari 20:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Why the hell not give it to trusted users and reduce server load? Maybe a 30 day trial can be done and if the problems turn out to be huge, it can always go back to the way it was. Spellcast (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. After witnessing a large amount of vandalism firsthand after having an article at WP:TFA, it'd sure be nice in the future to have some more tools handy for those who wish to be trusted vandal-fighters. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
15. Support. Great idea, this will definitely help take the fight to the vandals! Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Strong Support - I just needed to support something :S ...--Cometstyles 03:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Yeah, only if passing it wouldn't mean removing the feature from tools like twinkle. In which case, I wouldn't need it, but IE users would. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Although I do wish there was some sort of "2 admins required to give rollback" clause. I presume there will be a log of rollback rights given by admin as there is for blocks? MBisanz 03:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    That'd be the user rights log, same as for +sysop and +bureaucrat, I presume. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

19. Strong support I brought this issue up a while ago but was quickly shot down. You can see my essay on this topic that has been in the draft stage for months here, you wont get much out of it because I gave up half way through but still someone might be interested. -Icewedge (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Pomte 07:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

40 supporters

1. Strong support What's the worse that could happen? ;) Tiddly-Tom 15:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support It's basically just an extenstion to the current "undo" feature that is available to all. I wish that it was available to IP's but that's the way it goes. The only real problem I see is at start up with the amount of people that will be applying.
3. No big deal (other less efficient tools exist), no vandalism that can't be done already without it, it can be easily taken away if abused, and it is conducive to other admin tools being modularized. The process will be lightweight, like getting AWB (which is more powerful). Nihiltres^{t.l} 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. It is important that the process put in place is simple and quick, with as little bureaucratic waffling as possible. Neıl ☎ 10:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. —Random832 16:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Something like this has been needed for a while. Normally I wouldn't just make a me-too comment like this, but for a change to the software settings a vote is normally required in practice as generally someone will demand one if there isn't one. --ais523 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Yes, thanks, finally! I've been wishing for this for years. It would be simpler yet to just grant this automatically to all autoconfirmed users, but this is a good first step. Honestly, now that the technical limitations that prevented this before have been fixed, any remaining "dispute" is really just bikeshed-painting. It's a minor feature in the MediaWiki user interface, essentially an optimization of something that has long been available via user scripts. We don't know what, if any, social effects enabling it will eventually have, since we haven't tried it yet, but it's not going to cause any irreversible damage — this is a Wiki, after all, anything can be fixed. This should have just been turned on by developer fiat, just to see how it'll work out; but since they apparently want a poll to show consensus, well, let's give them one. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Support. With rollback disabled unless requested, there will be virtually no abuse of it; besides, what few cases of rollback abuse do occur probably would have happened through scripts or the undo feature anyway. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. There are virtually no arguments of merit against this proposal, but many for it. Ever tried fighting vandalism on an old computer with a slow Internet connection? I have, and, believe me, you want rollback. I don't fight vandalism at the moment, since I'm currently not on Wikipedia full-time, but I insist that those who do fight vandalism get access to this tool. — Thomas H. Larsen 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support I think this is a really good idea! SQL^{Query me!} 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Weak support, it can be risky in the wrong hands, but so long as it's dished out minimally i don't have a problem with it. Wizardman 04:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. If the risk of abuse were so great then we would already be seeing it with TWINKLE. We're not, therefore it isn't. --JayHenry (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support I already do this with TW. It would be beneficial for me to use in order to further my counter-vandalism efforts. Bstone (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. I don't really have anything to add to what has already been posted. I don't think abuse will be any more of an issue than it already is, and it would be simple enough to stop the abuse. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support I use Twinkle, but I think it would be helpful for other users who don't. --Dan Leveille^TALK 04:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support: I agree that trusted non-admin users should have this editing tool. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 05:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support I use Twinkle like many of us, but if a less-server intensive solution (which this is) is made available (which this would do), I would switch my vandalism reverts to the rollback tool. Besides, those with a proven vandal-fighting record shouldn't have a problem getting an admin to approve them for the tool. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Anything that can help against vandalism can only be a positive thing, though, of course, care should be taken as to whom this responsibility should be given. Ekantik ^talk 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
20. Support. Just like using drugs, kids, if vandal-fighters have already established a work-around that hurts the server, just give them the legitimate tool. Take the dealer off the streets, ya know? GrimmC (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

60 supporters

1. Support. As above. Anything that can be used by responsible editors to fight vandalism is a good thing. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - This would be very useful in reverting vandalism – which has been coming in too much lately. It would be quite effective as a wiki tool. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 05:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support I opposed the last version of this proposal. Granting it to all autoconfirmed users would be a mistake, in my view, since, although few of us are vandals, some are revert warriors. This, on the other hand, seems a sensible way to keep the tool in the right hands. Also, I think this might have social benefits by giving users who are marginal for adminship a limited amount of additional power, that can be easily revoked, and a chance to demonstrate responsible use of it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support The potential for abuse is minimized here as long as either admins granting rights are equally ready to revoke them in the event of abuse or admins not granting rights are also ready to revoke them when they spot abuse. Anynobody 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong Support - Though even more so if it were given to all established users automatically. People who are set upon wreaking havoc will continue to do so, only a bit quicker. This is a small price to pay, however, for the increased liberty of all the do-gooders. Do I even need to quote Ben Franklin? SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 05:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support per JayHenry and others. If there were a high risk of abuse, TW would have shown it. Lara❤Love 05:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support This should be no big deal. It's easy to take it away if editors use it for something else than vandalfighting. As a side-effect, I could imagine this improving admin standards (vandalfighters aren't necessarily good at other admin stuff). squell\^talk 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I am a vandal fighter who uses TW. If these tools relieve stress on the server and browsers then all the better. Xdenizen (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Popups and TW are good, but they can be clumsy and slow, and if this function reduces stress on the servers, I'm all for it. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Sometimes, tools like TW or popus can be slow, admin rollback is faster. C'est moi ^Parlez 06:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support I've been an editor since 2002. I regularly revert a lot of vandalism on a lot of articles, and rollback would be very convenient. But after I looked into what it would take to get it, I balked, because I don't want to be involved in the tedious and often abusive RFA process. I can't be the only one. -- Dominus (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support In due consideration of vandal-fighters. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support I've been working on some high-profile political figures where vandalism can be constant. This would help out a lot. Happyme22 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Makes total sense to me. Well written proposal that can be very useful. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support May be useful for me, though I think it should only be given to registered users who've been around a little while. I haven't been here a whole month, and I don't know if I would give it to myself (though I would only use it for vandalism, as it should be)...Smarkflea (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. I've seen only very minimal abuse of the TW rollback, so I'm willing to give this a shot. I'll try to help out with the inevitable backlog of requests from time to time. Kafziel ^Talk 06:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. I have not applied for admin status, but would apply for this. I suggest that some sort of absolute minimum standard be added to the proposal, if for no other reason than to stem the huge flood of requests that will come in if this is approved.--Srleffler (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong support; any editor can already do this with TW— this would make it (a) lighter on the servers (good) (b) removable in case of abuse (even better). — Coren ^(talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Getting Rollback is pretty much the only reason why I requested to be an Admin. I have no interest in Wikipolitics or being a bureaucrat, I just wanted more editing tools. Every week a bunch of great Wikipedians with thousands of edits and no history of abuse submit an RfA because Rollback would help them edit, and everyone praises them for being a nice guy/gal who wouldn't abuse the tools, and their request is opposed because they haven't spent enough time editing outside of the Mainspace. In other words, "You can't have the tools that would help you edit because you've spent too much time editing. Come back when you're willing to spend less time editing and more time debating policy." The people who need Rollback can't have it because of the very fact that they need it; they have to stop editing so much and prove that they don't need Rollback before they can have it. The Beginner's Guide to Wikipedia Give non-Admins Rollback and you'll drastically reduce the number of doomed RfAs. Since a lot of people don't seem to have gotten the memo that being an Admin is not a big deal, simply being a longtime editor and proving yourself trustworthy with the tools isn't enough to be an Admin — and fair enough, since Admins can be called upon to settle disputes. Many RfA candidates have no interest in doing that! They just want to edit, and they deserve the tools to do it. Give non-Admins Rollback and everyone wins: editors can edit, and they don't have to clog up the RfA system with unnecessary and hopeless applications. People who are here just to vandalize are usually caught before they have enough edits to edit protected or semi-protected pages, so I think it should be based on whether or not you've established enough trust to be able to edit a page that is being protected from vandalism. Everyone who is able to edit such an article should have Rollback, but it looks like some people are in favor of more bureaucracy. If the bureaucrats are prepared to handle thousands of Rollback permission requests, then I'm willing to settle for this solution. DOSGuy (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Would probably save more than just a few seconds per revert over twinkle for people with slower internet connections. I don't think this would foster additional edit warring. I question whether the implementation of the approval-granting system is feasable, though, would there be tremendous overload as users flood the system with requests for the tool? Consider using a system similar to {{help}}. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

80 supporters

1. Support Conditionally. Going easy on the servers is a good thing. However, I think there should be some basic requirements. Phyesalis (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support I would prefer it if admins weren't granting it (it may raise adminship standards) and if a few basic requirements were laid out, but I don't see it as a problem. The tool can be revoked and if it was abuse (rather than misuse) they can quite easily be blocked. A request though, could emphasis be made that the tool is only for reverting vandalism and your own edits, this is critical. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support --ClanCC _(Talk) 07:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - Once you've undoed something, you have a high chance of ending up in an edit conflict.Weirdy Talk 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - This would make things a lot easier, because it is a very common occurrence that non-administrators have to revert several acts of vandalism. Enigmaman (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - Proposal makes sense to me. This is overdue. --Richard (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. I don't know much of the software/server-load issues involved, but if this is gonna reduce load on Wikipedia servers, then bring it on! aJCfreak yAk 08:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support given that anybody can award themself rollback by installing TW, it seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. Mayalld (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support yes, of course. It will make life easier for anti-vandal patrollers, and can be easily administered. Go for it. docboat (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   Support (TW user) I think most moderately-experienced users can be trusted with this, and even if misused it doesn't have the potential to cause much more damage than the current user toolset. Rollbacks can be reverted just as easily as any other edit. To prevent a so-called "opening rush", the feature should be implemented only for auto-confirmed users, and not by default, but by a user preferences option, so that not all users would suddenly see this rollback link and perhaps click it out of curiosity. Users should need to explicitly know about the feature beforehand and enable it themselves. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:49, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

10. I'm happy with WP:TW, but if the tool causes pain in the server's side, I support the idea. In fact, it's said that the new privilege is not more powerful than TW, and TW tool can be used directly by newbies, so what's the danger? Dekisugi (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. support - I use and like WP:TW so if this is kinder on the server, I would apply. I am unlikely to apply to be an admin - not enough hours in the day. Finavon (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support If it would make it just a little bit easier for me to fight vandalism, then I'm all for it. I can get most stuff done with Twinkle + Popups at this point, so I may not even use it, but I'd like to give it a whirl. Gromlakh (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
13. SUPPORT. Vandalism-fighting can be disheartening sometimes when the vandals are persistent. A tool that is easy to use like rollback can encourage greater vandalism fighting. Besides, it quicker than going to the admin and waiting for the admin to do the rollback for you. It shows one sign: Wikipedian community responds to vandalism in no time! __earth ^(Talk) 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Note that you don't actually need an admin to revert an edit. It is easy with tools like popups or twinkle, or it can be done manually. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah, but when the vandals work on a number of pages, it is easier to call an admin if the status quo persists. __earth ^(Talk) 10:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

14. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. It would give those vandal fighters an easier job that they might actually enjoy. — E ^talk 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - The encyclopedia is growing rapidly, so does the number of vandals and unconstructive edits, so it's getting harder and harder to revert all edits fast enough. I don't really see why anyone can undo, but only administrators can rollback. Sure someone might say, why would I need the rollback function if there's an undo function? I can undo if a vandal made only one unconstructive edit. I can clean up a couple of vandalism edits, but what if there are more than just a couple? Especially on a long article. I would need to search through the source for the bad edits. The rollback function is exactly what I will need in this case! Artyom (talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - I am a passionate anti-vandal activist in the pages in my watchlist. I started using Twinkle when I changed from PC to Mac and finally got it to work, but would be much happier using an officially sanctioned set of tools that were not dependent on variations in browser support. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support It was only a very short time after starting to edit Wikipedia that I realised how useful such a tool would be. Using 'undo' to fight vandalism is all very well but there are often several succesive vandalisms and consequently several successive 'undos'. It is as clear as mud to other editors what is happening unless you write a short novel in the edit summary. Vandals don't deserve that much attention. Spinningspark (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
19. support - fighting vandalism is a pain when you have to sit around waiting for twinkle to finish. Having Rollback would make it faster to fight vandalism, so it would stop us vandal-fighters sitting around wasting time, when we could have rolled back possibly 2 more bits of vandalism in the same time. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (WP:100!)
20. support - efficiency is a good thing, and this tool does not provide any powers that users can't already claim for themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

100 supporters

1. support - it high time we had a level below admin to spread the more routine work.--agr (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   -not disagreeing, but you might also be interested in WP:VPR#Two tiers of adminship. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:18, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

2. Support - Plenty of editors are using tools like Twinkle already, why not reduce the technical overhead. The only real cost is a bit more work for the admins. Nburden ^(T) 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. None of the reasons for opposition below seem to me to outweigh the apparent consensus in support, except perhaps for AnteaterZot's point: "What if somebody disagrees with, for example, all my edits? (I'm referring to my tagging of articles for merger, sources, etc.—some people don't like what I am doing.)" That is, since edits can be reverted but reverting can't be reverted, there's an intelligent argument in opposition, but there are more and stronger reasons to support, I think. — Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - weighing the potential for abuse against the increase in efficiency in countering vandalism in my little brain, methinks this proposal will produce the greater good. bobanny (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. I firmly believe that being an admin really isn't that big of a deal, and being assigned Rollback privledges would be even less of a big deal. The concern of added bureaucracy is, in my mind, countered by the increased efficiency afforded to the editors who would actually use rollback. I do believe, though, that the approval process should use a sign-countersign system, where Two admins must give consent or approval before assigning the ability to rollback. This would not only dilute the power of individual admins, but it would also lower the chances of a poorly researched request being approved. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - we should encourage improvement of the basic Wikipedia interface. Addhoc (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Sounds fine by me. --Conti|✉ 14:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - there are pleanty of RC patrollers who don't want to be sysops who would find this tool invaluable. As long as there is a process whereby those that abuse it get it taken away (which this proposal includes), I see no problem. _TheIslander 14:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. I think it sounds reasonable, and doesn't give users much more power than we already have. Coemgenus 14:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong support -there are many users who do not wish to be admins and thus this tool will help them Heaps...though I think only a couple of admins + all Crats should make the decision on who to give rights too and not all admins in general or only Crats..--Cometstyles 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Lots of good reasons in the sections above. I've glad someone allowed the notice to be posted where I could see and respond. BusterD (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support, all my concerns were addressed before and I am satisfied with the current proposal. --Tone 14:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support As a person who does not spend much time fighting vandals, it is practically the first time I have ever heard of rollback, and I have been in Wikipedia for years (even though I have only been regularly editing for the past year). I am inclined to guess that the bulk of passer-by vandals are likewise blissfully oblivious to this tool (or at least were until now. :-)), so little harm will come from these quarters. Waltham, The Duke of 15:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. Power to the people! Stick it to the man! Ronnotel (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support, on the basis of Requirements for users to have rollback: "…a user should not have a history of edit warring and should have shown an understanding of the project and a need for the rollback permission (i.e. lots of vandalism reversion)." Once it's not handed out indiscriminately it can only be good. Scolaire (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support, as above "weighing the potential for abuse against the increase in efficiency in countering vandalism" it can only be a good thing. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support as it seems to be just a technically improved TW (which is already extremly useful to fight vandalism) Optimale ^Gu 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong Support This is far overdue and would save vandal patrollers more time and make their time spent more efficiently used. --Charitwo ^talk 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Great idea! AHRtbA== ^Talk 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Why the hell would you oppose? Vandalism is a pain in the ass, why not make it easier to deal with?Fr0 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

120 supporters

1. Support I'm reverting my original vote from oppose to support. Vote takers, please deduct my "oppose" vote from the first 100 list. Since it's been archived I have no intention of changing it there. MegX (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Vanilla support vote. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Some of the vandalism fighting tools based on JavaScript offer a similar interface to the rollback functionality, but more load is placed on the server when using these tools versus wiki rollback. Already existing feature + better implementation = support. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support, I think this would be a great tool in the hands of trustworthy editors. I could use this tool myself. Junebug52 15:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support A stepping stone to admin., like it. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. It's good to merge tools upstream, will stop penalizing editors who aren't good with JS, make adminship less of a big deal, and would help vandals minimally. --Gwern (contribs) 16:02 4 January 2008 (GMT)
7. Support. This should be given to trusted users thsat need it. No reason to oppose for now. Dreamafter ^⇔ 16:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. So long as access to this tool is not unreasonably withheld. Bulbous (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - It is a good idea to give this to trusted users who need it, I have no reason to oppose. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support as somebody who uses more than one browser where Twinkle doesn't always work. BJ^Talk 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. It's about time. Used to be all users had admin tools, but with increasing scale, that became impractical. However, some admin tools can be entrusted to a wider user base. Allowing admins to delegate this tool is a major step in the right direction; administrators should be responsible for those they give access to the tool, and giving it to the wrong person, like any admin decision, can be reviewed, and rollback damage can actually be fixed by any user. Admins deserve our watchful trust.--Abd (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. An improvement in fighting vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support I'd prefer it if there were a check against reverting the edits by an IP to a version last edited by a similar (say in the first two numbers) IP, to guard against 'locking-in' vandalism by a vandal using a dynamic IP, but that's a fine point. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
14. I think I support - Though I likely would not request to have/use the tool myself. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - I us Twinkle at home, however at work my computer runs IE, which does not support TW. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. While admittedly there is some zen to going through the whole rigmarole of clicking on every vandal diff and undoing it that I enjoy, I'd certainly prefer to have that process made a little easier on both me and the servers. Would be a net benefit to the project, and the controls look tight enough to keep the riffraff out -- looks like a great proposal to me. Ashdog137 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Helpful in fighting vandalism, can be more convenient than Twinkle in some cases. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. Anthøny 17:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. Just as it can be given, it can be retracted. I see no problem with this whatsoever. Many of the opposes are non-specific and seem to be opposing something else, whereas most (if not all) of the supports actually relate to the proposal. --Deskana (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. SG 4 TACOZ! 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

140 supporters

1. Support - I foresee no major problems. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong Support - Seems like a no brainer to me. Elhector (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support The tools gives no ability that cannot be achieved with regular editing, so it is not a dangerous tool. Since it can be removed from those who misuse it can granted to those who use it well there will be a net gain from the use of this tool. 1 != 2 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Some minimum requirements would be good but the rest of the proposal is sound. GDonato (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong Support - Non admins can already do this using other tools, so why not just add it. Maddie ^talk 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. I don't even really see the problems with this. Dookama (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Doesn't seem like it could be a big problem. Not everyone will ask for it, and it's easy to give and take it away. Anyone abuses it won't be long for Wikipedia anyway, I'm sure. And if the entire non-admin rollback project fails a year in, or a month in, we can just ask the devs to take it away again if it's obviously not working. Whats the harm in trying? Lawrence Cohen 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong support - I'm not a heavy RC patroller but I do occasionally do some RC patrolling. I don't and have never applied for access to to Twinkle or similar tools simply because I really can't be bothered having to install extra tools to edit wikipedia (plus I switch between FireFox and IE). I don't see any reason we shouldn't use a function designed by the developers precisely for the purpose. It seems to me the proposal is sufficient as is to prevent abuse. If it really collapses completely then I'm all for re-evaluating this but it seems to me some people are just saying it will without really providing sufficient explaination. Furthermore, some people say twinkle and other tools can do this just as well (or nearly as well) but then say this will be dangerous. If twinkle can do the same thing how can this be more dangerous? Furthermore some people are going to be uncomfortable adding some random js to their monobook not to mention it is inherently dangerous for so many people to be trusting one user account (which could be hacked etc) and requiring these people to use external tools just seems unfair. If people don't want to use this fine, I don't see any suggestion we should kill twinkle because of this. Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Good idea. VMS Mosaic (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong support - This would be beneficial tool for many of us. The current implementation proposal fully addresses the concerns I posted at Wikipedia:Rollback_for_non-administrators. --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. Simple, low risk idea. I am slightly concerned that it will make RfA's even more difficult. But those that mainly want the rollback wouldn't need to go there anymore. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support — Duh. All it does is streamline something everyone can do anyway. Frankly, I would even suggest giving it to everyone, without requiring vetting, for that very reason. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - As long as it is administered as stated in the proposal. I’m fine with using Twinkle now, but I can see how this might work better. My only concern is that it might lead to a decrease in the use of vandalism warnings. —Travis^talk 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support I believe that this is necessary for antivandalisim work. However, standards must be created. Marlith 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - In my view instead of making administrators more exalted it will lessen the gap that has been made between them and the normal user. This leads different sections like vandalism revert, protect and delete not all have to be given at once which is a good idea. Also, looking at Nil Einne's comment above - there are those people who edit Wikipedia from more than one computer, some of which are shared; this means that some tools cannot be downloaded in all cases.-- Casmith_789 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - I have no problem with this, as long, as stated, it is done by administrators/similar reviewing the users edits and such. —Reedy Boy 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. Given to trust-worthy users by admins and easily taken away - I don't see a problem. To those who suggest that IE or Firefox plugins are an adequate substitute to having the rollback feature, editing Wikipedia should never be dependent on using a particular browser. Rollback emulated by plug-in is also more resource-consuming. --Oldak Quill 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support, per all of the above. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Sakurambo 桜ん坊 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Weak Support-- Could be dangerous in the wrong hands and could instigate more edit wars, but is a good idea and the Pros seem to outweigh the Cons. I don't see why it shouldn't be granted to non-admins but certain precautions should be made to prevent its use maliciously. I think if this ability should be granted it should definitely not be granted to non-logged in users as this will just elevate the already high vandalism levels. 水女珊瑚15 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

160 supporters

1. Support per Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators#View by Ryan Postlethwaite. Alice^✉ 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - Would be very useful for people that use their accounts mostly for reverting vandalism. - Haseo9999 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - the potential for constructive use outweighs the potential for danger. - Philippe | Talk 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - Good idea for fighting vandalism. (I had supported Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - spread the load. Non-admins are effectively undertaking this work in any case. Why not make it easier? Naturenet | Talk 20:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - I think this should be done. Twinkle is nice, but not always the best. I kind of see this like a user being allowed to use AutoWikiBrowser. If the user is trustworthy enough, lack of edit warring, etc., then by all means. --Son (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - This is a good idea. It will allow users who would like administrator rights a certain amount of power to control vandalism. Brandon (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Cannot see any realistic reasons why this should be a problem. Plenty of people not suited to - or not desiring - admin tools would be very beneficial to the project and I feel that this can only be a positive move. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support — but I would suggest that people should usually take the time to check an article's history, and possibly do a compare to confirm what the result will be, before actually doing a rollback. Richwales (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - non-admins can already revert using the other methods, so why not this too. ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - Good idea, it's useful functionality. --dragfyre 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Mild Support - Have to see criteria before my support can be stronger. Criteria should be more objectively based as opposed to subjectively based. --SMP0328 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Conditional Support like the idea, but a like SMP0328 I want to see some criteria before I form this up any. In particular, how this will be awarded or retracted could be more detailed. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support I see plenty of places with non-admin rollback and that is exactly what makes the place less spammed up. -- ~ Ryan A. Taylor || screaming at me || DUMPING GROUND! 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Same again. This is a very mild proposal; would probably support allowing anyone to use it, or at least anyone with an account. Richard001 (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. However, I don't support allowing everybody to use the function. I like the proposal of having an admin review your edits first and taking rollback away if needed. Besides, Twinkle doesn't work on IE and there's times where I'm without Firefox; a separate rollback function would be useful here. NF24^{(radio me!)} 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. This function exists anyway and is just a more efficient way of accomplishing what many of us do every day. Tirronan (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support It's not that much more powerful than the javascript tools, which can be obtained by anyone. If people do start causing problems with it, it can be removed easily which is another bonus. Tra (Talk) 01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Strong Support mostly as written. For user who have done recent changes patrol, and revert vandalism (as I have in the past) such a feature would be very helpful. I currently use a rollback script in my monobook.js, but it can be slow at times. No time limit should be imposed, as previous proposals have said, as it defeats the purpose of a quick revert. Obviously, the feature's usage should be monitored to prevent abuse, (similar to all privileges) but not to the extent that it negates the productivity of the feature. The feature should only be given to editors who are very experienced with vandalism removal, recent changes patrol, and are decently well-read in Wikipedia policies. Obviously, this will necessitate a new page regarding the whole process, but I think that once it is set up, it will be smooth and efficient.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

180 supporters

1. Support. This seems like a good idea; very useful for the petty vandalism that ruins Wikipedia's reputation so thoroughly. RSkyhawk (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. User:Yamakiri 03:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. I doubt I could say anything here that hasn't been said many times above.-gadfium 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Seems like a very common sense solution that can make vandal-fighting more effective. --Masonpatriot (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support I like the idea. Burner0718 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support It's already available through WP:POPUPS, so why not integrate it right in? --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Anything to make the life of good editors easier. I spend 10 to 20 percent of my Wikitime fixing vandalism, POV, and other junk. Bubba73 (talk), 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support At first I thought, "Just what we need - more revert wars." But there is already a way that non-editors can quickly and simply revert material, by simply clicking on an earlier version and saving it. I can't see that this will make much difference - and edit warring is a fact of life on WP, anyway. The wonder is that there isn't more of it. fishhead64 (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support A great idea which saves a lot of time for non admins fighting vandals --^Writer _Listener 05:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Agathoclea (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support I see no way, if admins themselves are responsibly designating those users with permission to access this utility, how opening it to the public could lead to abuse. It sounds like a great time saver for those of us who must fight vandals without the Twinkle utility. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support as long as rollback function is not given to editors who showed signs of abusing tools. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support however, it should be a feature usable by editors with either say 500 edits or an account that's 6 months old or greater. Edit: the posts count thing is a bad idea as any idiot can rack up x amount of edits in quick time. Peter1968 (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support It will make reverting a lot quicker around here. cf38^talk 10:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support --*Kat* (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Rjwilmsi (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support It's a good idea, and I think it'll work with the proposed oversight. Al Lemos (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support D.M.N. (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Having done a lot of vandal fighting in the past, anything to make it quicker and more effective is welcome guiltyspark (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

200 supporters

1. Support This is the kind of proposal I supported in the previous discussion. Captain panda 13:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - great idea to fight vandalism, Twinkle can be too slow sometimes. Would this tool be allowed to be used to revert 'test edits' as well as blatant vandalism though? EJF (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - Such a tool is needed. Amit@Talk 14:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - Tools already exist, may as well provide efficient version. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - This tool is useful; edit records will be created to prevent overuse; go ahead. Ryanjo (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support - many users already have scripts which do what rollback does, only less efficiently. Might as well 'legalize' it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
7. STRONGLY SUPPORT. If there is one reason I'd ever give up on Wikipedia, it is the constant, nonsensical rubbish that is added to articles by (mostly) annonymous "editors" who MUST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING in adding obscenities and other generally offensive language. We are talking DELIBERATE VANDALIM here: this is not accidental stuff. A tool of this sort will be very useful. Another addition, which has been mentioned elsewhere, would be a way that a revert would automatically post a SHORT STANDARD WARNING TO THE VANDAL's TALK PAGE that he/she/it may be banned from editing if he/she/it persists. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - it will free up time for experienced members to make more real contributions. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - Gopher292 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - The benefits vastly outweigh the risks. -/- Warren 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - We need tools like these. Think of the vandal fighters who have better things to do than go through the stress, and, in my case, likely failure of an RfA. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment And think of the vandals who are going to just love this new "tool". -- ALLSTARecho 17:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Good thing then they will very rarely get it and when they do and misuse it will quickly lose their hard earned account Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not going to be handed out to vandals; I doubt many vandals would even have the patience to stick around long enough to obtain rollback. Acalamari 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    since There are no prerequisites per se for getting the tools Gnangarra 06:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    Not accurate: any user's record is an open book to anyone on WP, as are their IP addresses to any interested administrator. In other words, a user's conduct is on record already! Shir-El too 14:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    RE above Irrelevant; the sheer number of people that will apply for these privileges will be enormous, and as another person pointed out, the page for requesting the removal of certain privs is already literally overflowing. If this proposal doesn't go through, the supporters will all be pissed. There'll be wailing, gnashing of teeth, and insanely bitter recriminations. On the flip-side, if this does go through, the admins will be swamped, carnage could well ensue, and this'll all have been a great big waste of time. That said, I have no problem with this measure being tried out, but it's all going to end in tears :) Alloranleon (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    Disagree: 1. WP is predicated on "power to the people". 2. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." 3. If your information and prognosis are correct, then an administrative overhaul is necessary - and will come all the sooner if this attempt backfires. Shir-El too 14:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    RE above I pretty much agree with what you're saying, although I'm wary at the potential backfiring. Still, I'm nonetheless happy enough to see how it goes, should the proposal be accepted. Let's hope that if it is accepted, that I'm proven wrong in my concerns. Alloranleon (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    "the page for requesting the removal of certain privs is already literally overflowing" - what page is that? The only privilege removed on a regular basis is editing, mainly through WP:AIV, where a request sitting for more than a couple minutes is considered a backlog. Mr.Z-man 08:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    • RE above Perhaps I should have rephrased that; The WP:ANI page is literally overflowing. I have a feeling this measure wouldn't exactly help. Surely we should be making Wikipedia a less bloated bureaucracy and more a streamlined place? Given the potentially thousands of immediate applications for rollback privileges, I wonder how the admins are going to cope with yet more backlogged pages. Alloranleon (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

12. Support The benefits outweigh the risks. It's a lot more difficult for a bad-to-the-bone vandal to get approved than it is to use the tool to revert his vandalism. And, should a vandal aspire to get the tool, he would have to make MONTHS of useful contributions to the project. An excellent idea. —  MusicMaker5376 19:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - Vandals have been known to go on sprees of 50+ articles at times. A quick and efficient rollback tool would be greatly appreciated. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - Vandals or edit warriors can get shut down fairly easily and could have been using scripts anyway. Vandal fighters get a good tool without needing the know-how to install it. —dgies^t_c 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - Since there will be more trusted users who use this well than a few rogue ones whom we fear, than more good can come about than harm. Besides, we already have a "hierarchy" with admins, users and IP's. Why not add a "fourth class" in between user and admin.Tourskin (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - Had direct experience of trying to do this manually a week or so ago...not the easiest of tasks and would be quicker. Potential for abuse just as with anything else; as long as it's reversible should be fine. Also, could it be a privileged thing? Too many nonsense uses and you are unable to use it? Probably too complicated in practice but I'd support even if not. Kit Berg (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - I would love to not have to separately revert each of a string of vandalisms. I can't use Twinkle on most of the computers I edit from, so the proposed rollback feature would be an enormous help. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support - This would free up admins to deal with issues that require more serious results (blocking, page protection, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - I currently use Twinkle and have recently been admitted to use VandalProof, but access to rollback would certainly make processing vandalism many times quicker. -- Geoff Riley (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

220 supporters

1. Support - I support this as well. It will improve on the warring or political modifications to satisfy personal agendas. I am now facing an editing issue on one article that was changed because of a government election and by a person trying to control content based on their personal preferences and views. For this systematic process to work properly, there needs to be more than one person taking responsibility for the content. The capability of rolling back the content will encourage more concensus. After rolling back, no one should be able to roll back to the previous content rollback, i.e., a flip flop process is not desirable. That would likely cause more warring. I will be willing to engage in this discussion further to promote a more reliable change content process. The frequency of rollback might be an issue to consider as well, to discourage warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renewedman (talk • contribs) 13:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - Any abuse can be readily tracked, and plenty of non-admins can more efficiently deal with vandalism.Ngchen (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support If I've had such a tool when I used to contribute under my old account, things would've been a lot easier. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
4. I use a script to rollback as a non-admin akready but to heck with it--Phoenix-wiki 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Scripts are already available to do this, and it's fairly easy to go to a previous version as it is. Those who want to vandalize won't get anything they didn't have before.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. As per the fact it will be more efficient and quicker than scripts. --Nn123645 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Why not? It can only help in dealing with vandalism. --Comandante42 (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - but all non-admin rollbacks should be easily granted and removed by any admin. I mean, there shouldn't be some sort of "automatic boundary" that automatically gives a user rollback at a certain point. That could be risky. Also, rollback should be easily removed at any time by any admin.   jj137 ^♠ 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Conditional support: support provided that users with rollback do not turn out to be a bureaucratic layer AND users with rollback feature do not have another fancy name. Kushal^t 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Update: As of now, I have no intention of requesting this privilege.
10. Support - I think this is a very good idea. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 01:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - Keep the privilege standard high, though. Pats1 ^T/C 01:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support-As long as there is a limited access to the rollback feature, it cannot be misused. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 03:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - Because you can already do this with scripts like TWINKLE and rollback will be faster than those scripts. --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - Although Should be limited to logged in users only Slysplace | ^talk 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - Seems more efficient. Users can already rollback with scripts.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - I never liked special privileges for Admins ... this treats editors more equitably. Noleander (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - I currently have this feature, and think that it would be greatly beneficial for all users to have it as an option. Rau J16 05:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support – This is a featured that I have always wanted as a long-time non-administrative editor. All users should be able to use this feature to help cut back on vandalism, and save time for those already using scripts to complete the same task. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Yes, I like this idea. It should be quicker to do rollback functions. King Lopez ^Contribs 06:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support and question - Since it sounds like we would be implementing a vetting process to try to ensure that only more responsible editors would use this feature (albeit with as-yet un-refined criteria), I can see many of the concerns of those opposed being allayed. The feature can always be removed if an editor starts to use it irresponsibly. My question: Would there be a formal trial period, to see how well the project works, before permanent institution? Doonhamer (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    the vetting process is as stated on this page There are no prerequisites per se for getting the tools Gnangarra 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    Aye, was thinking more of the comment above about what to check for specifically in an editor's history, but I now see the section below that discusses that. Doonhamer (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    To actually answer your question, not really, but installation would not be permanent, if something goes wrong, it can be removed. Mr.Z-man 08:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

240 supporters

1. Strong Support Helps make vandalism decrease quicker and more efficiently. --Prevalis (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - If it will cut back on vandalism, i am all for it! We already have programs like Twinkle and VandalProof, this will just be a added tool. Tiptoety ^talk 07:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - --coldacid (Talk|Contrib) 08:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - Exactly the way it is purposed. --gala.martin (what?) 08:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - It's good to be able to undo the damage easier after somebody messed up the article. --Qsaw ^(talk) 09:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support with the proviso that the system is reviewed regularly to make sure it is all still working. Batmanand | Talk 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Support - will make rolling back alot easier and more efficient. Thenthornthing (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support: responsible users unwilling to become administrators will still be able to help out. Shir-El too 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support: I often revert vandalism and a rollback function would be a big help. --Spankr (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support: Giving editors more tools to keep vandals in check would be helpful. Right now if a vandal makes multiple entries it takes too long to fix. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support if for no better reason than popups et al already exist and, using this, you can push those users to use rollback features instead, cutting their page views to some extent. MrZaius^talk 16:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support as the editor would still need to have demonstrated responsible behavior to get this tool, and as noted above, would probably already be using scripts by the time they have gained the trust to use rollback. This is also a great way to grant a little more responsibility to any editor not quite proven ready for the full mop to establish a record which gets them through a future RfA (if so desired). Hiberniantears (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support I connnect via Wi-Fi, and while it has decent bandwidth, there's always a lot of lag on opening new HTTP connections, a.k.a. page loads. So being able to revert vandalism with fewer clicks will be a big plus. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. Will help non-admin vandal fighters. the wub "?!" 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support It will allow a response to vandalism to be a lot faster. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - before I became an admin, I struggled endlessly trying to patrol the recent changes old-school style, and I know it must still infuriate those who have to do it that way. It is really quite maddening. Using Internet Explorer instead of Firebox and such-like, I couldn't install other vandal tools like TWINKLE, so yes, I am in support of qualified and trustworthy editors using the tool. It just makes so many things easier. Lradrama 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support indefinitely. The link has always been there but nobody knew what for (well, most did to be honest, but you get my point). Maybe a semi-protected thing, that only registered users can use? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}☆ 19:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support People always beat me to fixing the vandalism. But with a tool like this, they could beat me even faster! TwilightPhoenix (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support On the condition that this feature is closely supervised and given only to those who can be relied upon. If anyone can get it, there's no point to it. Deltagreen23 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support It would make reverting vandalism easier. Chris! _ct 20:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

260 supporters

1. Support God-send for those of us working on vandalism prone articles. Regards, --Tefalstar (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support because it would make fighting vandalism easier for non-admins.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Anyone who wants to rollback can pretty much already do so with Undo/Twinkle or other scripts; this extends the simple click functionality to trusted users. --MCB (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Increasing the efficiency of reversion of obvious vandalism seems sensible. Give it a go with some non-admin volunteers and review how is works. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Strong Support. Users should not need to depend on browser-specific scripts to fight vandalism, nor should they be forced to painstakingly revert edits the current way. Bushytails (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Sounds cool! DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Of course, I have another version of it that involves only requiring opt-in. But this one is also good. ZtObOr 01:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support faster for slow-speed Internet users as operation is done on server side. Is a reversible action and so essentially harmless and no increased risk of misuse than current. Shyamal (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. I am a regular user without the time nor the desire to become an administrator, but I do spend a significant amount of time combating vandalism and reverting unconstructive edits. Anything that could make that job easier is most valuable. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Non-admin needs rollback for fighting vandalism. Otherwise, persistently vandalism would destroy this system.--NAHID 07:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support This can already be done with various scripts; why not bring it all official and inhouse? Too many of us spend too much editing time as it is doing reversions. Isn't that time better spent improving articles rather than guarding them?  RGTraynor  08:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support I think this is a good idea. --SJK (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, I have faith in users, the tool will defiantly not by misused -- penubag  06:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Those opposing seem to be missing the point of WP:AGF - it would certainly be a useful tool, and it's not as if we can't save old versions of pages anyway. This would just make it easier. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support I have over 1000 pages on my watchlist and I revert vandalism pretty much every day. Having the rollback facility will make life easier and save time. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support I'm not so concerned about the possibility that it makes vandalism easier. My only concern is the increased workload for admins, so I'd prefer to give rollback to everybody who can edit semi-protected pages. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support, it would greatly improve my effectiveness in reverting vandalism. I previously used a Javascript tool but it no longer functions properly with my browser. When the JS tool worked, I was able to revert much more vanalism than I can now. Without this capability it is a time-consuming process. Why not provide this to help established editors improve their effectiveness for the good of the project? Accurizer (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support as it may give non-sysop users a tool they can use, and which is not likely to be abused. The risk of mis-use is far outweighed by its usefulness and the bother of manually spinning back to previous versions. Bearian (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Twinkle is already freely available but it is often too slow and can't be used on Internet Explorer, which must be one of the most popular internet browsers, as well as others. As for stopping it from being used for vandalism, I agree with the suggestion that it only be made available to people who can edit semi-protected pages. asyndeton talk 13:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. There are a good number of non-admins that can be trusted with rollback that haven't passed RfA for whatever reason. No reason to withhold useful tools from a good contributor. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

280 supporters

1. Support. Already said by others, but this primarily seems a faster, more efficient way for vandal fighters to help out. Properly entitled users will need to use the same level of care already required for automated tools like VandalProof. --Quintote (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Because I think I could use this new tool effectively (and others also) Randomblue (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support The more 'admin' tools are available to non-admins on a selective basis, the less the need to give people more power than they need by making them into full admins. SteveBaker (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
4. SupportAnything that makes fighting vandalism easier is a good idea. I echo the need to have an associated warning automatically posted to the vandal's talk page. The proposed simple control on who has the tool already works well in existing tools like VandalProof. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 15:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
5. SupportSeems like a good idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support I'm not really interested in being an admin but this would help me fight vandalism. I also like the idea of automatically adding a warning to the user's talk page, perhaps the most mild warning which could be supplemented with a stronger warning if that was felt necessary. TallMagic (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Support. Saves the hassle of having to install browser-specific scripts and speeds up the time it takes to fight vandalism. Long overdue in my opinion! Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support, I see no harm beyond what scripts already allow. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 19:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Sure-I've-supported-something-like-this-before support. I'm stuck with using MSIE most of the time, which works with bugger all (as anyone checking the history of User:CaptainVindaloo/monobook.js can tell). I surely can't be the only one with such problems, and this proposal would eliminate them. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support, a good way to save time of admins to do tasks more suited to them. Delegation is the key. Jamsta (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Helpful for removing vandalism quickly, and the admins I think can be able to detewrmine who should be allowed to have this ability. CardinalDan (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Potentially useful tool. Eusebeus (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - a non-administrator regularly engaged in vandalism reversion would like to ease up the burden on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism visited daily. --Poeticbent talk 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support As a non-administrator who regularly volunteers to the anti-vandal patrol, I would welcome any tool which makes that job easier. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - already using Twinkle. Plenty of non-admins can be trusted to use this tool. Sting_au Talk 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support, this would be very useful and efficient in countering vandalism. Rai-me 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support, I would welcome this tool. 99of9 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - Already using VP. I completely agree that there are many non-admins that could be trusted and could do a more effective job with a tool like this. -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support, Provide careful attention is given toward granting users the permission to use this tool, there should not be too much of an issue. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Many Wikipedians who are not administrators are competent. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

300 supporters

1. Support - sounds great, there are plenty of competent Wikipedians who don't want to devote their life to it. This would be really helpful. Cop 663 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. I have been following this discussion with some interest and I am pleased that the debate was not cut short. After much thought I see no reason to oppose this proposal. --Bduke (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support The scripts already allow this, so a more efficient and faster method for selected users would be helpful. --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

0 (zero) opposers

1. Oppose, would encourage stalking and other abuses. Editors already have access to the rollback function in the article history, this is sufficient. Martintg (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Encourage stalking? May I ask how? If there's misuse it can be removed straight away anyway. Users have no access to rollback currently as it's faster than any other tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Hi there, I don't think you need to worry about the tool being used to stalk users, firstly, the user needs to have their contributions checked by an administrator before they are given the tool, and if there was allegations of stalking, we would be able to remove the tool and take any further additional action against the user that may be necessary. We feel this proposal strikes the very best balance available of helping those who maintain Wikipedia whilst preventing those who seek to damage the project from accessing such tools. Nick (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Stalking? That's a new one. "Stalking", or at least the weird definition of it that you've linked to, involves editing the same articles as another user to annoy them... how on earth does the ability to revert vandalism more quickly have anything to do with that? – Gurch 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
     • And following people around reverting their work wouldn't constitute stalking? Martintg (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
       • It most certainly would; but reversion will always be possible. This proposal is about a specific way to revert; I have no idea how that has any relation to stalking, wiki or otherwise. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
2. I completely fail to understand why this "rollback for non-admins" proposal must return every so often. Don't we already have this Twinkle thing that basically does the same thing? Yeah, maybe slower, but on broadband you can barely see a difference. Oh, admins can give and take it? Cool, so I can see three issues here: 1) creating another "caste" of users (oh, but we love the healthy atmosphere this creates, so who cares?), 2) opens field for wheel warring (you admit that yourself, but we're used to that, so who cares?), 3) extra bureaucracy (but we love that, so who cares?). Overall, this gives very little added value (slightly faster revert) with a slightly stricter mechanism of granting it (you can't just add it to your monobook, yet a user can be de-rollbacked just as easily as de-twinkled) and possible field for abuse and inter-admin vitriol alike. No, thanks. Миша13 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

   Twinkle is slower and rollback is a specific built in function. I fail to see how it would introduce wheel wars? If Twinkle is so similar, why do we allow that? Majorly (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   You can count on your fingers the number of users who are actually going to get this feature, given the community's paranoia and love of ever-increasing standards. Apart from this group being too small to create another "caste", all of them will be experienced RC patrollers who already have enough "status" that it won't make any difference.

   If administrators wheel war over granting/revoking of rollback, then they're idiots, frankly, and probably shouldn't be administrators in the first place. They're supposed to be trusted individuals; every policy we have works on the principle that they're trusted individuals, and if they aren't then that's an issue outside the scope of this policy. Rejecting proposals for new administrator actions purely on the grounds that they "might be used for wheel warring" is stupid; how exactly would the project have ever been set up if everyone thought like that?

   I agree that it is hard work to sit here and rip out bureaucracy every time it gets inserted into the proposal. But there really isn't any more bureaucracy here than, say, AutoWikiBrowser approval, which can also be granted/revoked by any administrator, works in pretty much the same way and so far has worked without any problems as far as I am aware.

   Internet connection speed makes little difference; it's the latency at Wikimedia's end that slows things down; rollback avoids that, while at the same time cutting bandwidth requirements by 95%. This proposal is as much to help Wikimedia as it is to help editors; reversions account for 5% of all edits and while edits pale into insignificance compared to page views, most page views are served from cache, whereas all edits require (comparatively very slow) PHP scripts and DB writes to be done. There is little added value for you, certainly, because you are an administrator. Those who feel there is "little added value" won't ask for it; those who know that there is will. As for "inter-admin vitriol", well, again, that's an issue that's outside the scope of this proposal. If you want to deal with that, attack it head-on rather than blocking any admin-related proposal you come across – Gurch 10:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose. If you do this you might as well give it to everyone. Who possibly has time to notice or monitor abuse of the tools? The good vandal fighters need to become admins anyone to block effectively and it will not improve things. --BozMo talk 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

   Then stop turning down RC patrollers at RfA because they don't have enough article writing experience – Gurch 10:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose: I fail to see a logical reason for this and it just seems inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Guess I misunderstood; Supporting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15

   57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   How does giving some users who could do with a better tool, the said better tool cause bureaucracy?! Ryan Postlethwaite 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   I may be a bit confused with this....Would this eliminate the useability of say the Twinkle rollback script...or a "homemade" rollback script? You're saying it would give some people the ability to use, but unless I have the wrong idea here, it would also take it away from people too. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think so, I think this would be an additional option for editors. RxS (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   This would soley be in addition to the extra tools and would in no-way affect the current tools (although extensions could be added to also allow admin rollback to be used with them). Ryan Postlethwaite 11:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose the implementation as the construction of an arbitrary bureaucracy. It is not fair to apply a passing admin's personal preferences to the granting of editorial capabilities. It is unnecessary to insist upon a meaninglessly-nebulous "understanding of the project" to allow someone to revert simple vandalism - particularly since "understanding the project" is not a constant meaning for all editors and admins. It is naive to suppose that some bolded words will magically prevent wheel warring over this. It is foolhardy to imagine that this will not lead to angry users denied the tool on an administrative whim, angry users surrounding an opponent granted it on a whim and angry editors that the admin failed to correctly "evaluate [the] request". Revocation of the tool by "consensus" on AN(I) will be about as consistent and useful as a pair of knickers on a kipper. This proposal is a straight-line route to increased drama, increased power-wielding by admins, more arbcom cases and greater upset. It should be rejected until people come up with a simpler and more effective process by far. Splash - tk 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   "Passing admins' personal preferences" are applied every day to blocks, deletions, page protections, edits to protected pages... in short, to every administrative action we have. Granting/revoking of the ability to edit is far more significant than granting/revoking of the ability to revert things more efficiently, so why is that OK but not this? There's a simple solution to the problem of more ArbCom cases, which is to stop pretending that it's a good idea to let a committee of oddballs appointed to three-year terms deal with anything, and do things by consensus instead, so if ArbCom cases bother you, why not propose that instead of trying to block this? As for the other stuff, as I've mentioned above, all of our policies work on the assumption that administrators are trusted individuals; if they aren't, then all our policies are flawed; that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed separately, not by blocking every proposal that involves administrators because of paranoia – Gurch 10:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose Seems redundant with scripts like Twinkle. If a bot, such as ClueBot, really needs this function it should just be given admin status. Why even have admins if us regular editors start getting admin tools.. today it's "rollback", tomorrow it's "ban but subject to overturn by an admin". If an editor wants and needs the tools, he or she should go through RfA. -- ALLSTARecho 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Then stop turning down RC patrollers at RfA because they don't have enough article writing experience – Gurch 10:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Just to note that Twinkle doesn't work for everybody. I used it happily for some months before it developed a conflict with ZoneAlarm, and now I can't use it at all. I had to disable it to get my own administratorial "rollback" to function. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Just to say, further, that TWINKLE doesn't work with all browsers, I believe it only works with FireFox and related browsers, the other benefit is that the tool provides additional benefits for the servers, making much more efficient use of the available resources. Nick (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

6. I'm not comfortable supporting this proposal as written. The "there are no prerequisites" statement bothers me. Sure, it's followed by "should this" and "should that", but those should's can be quite easily ignored if "there are no prerequisites". --Kbdank71 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   Which prerequisites would you suggest? Time and editcount are fairly arbitrary and have nothing to do with a users ability to use a rollback tool. Since rollback isn't that powerful and is easily removed, I'm not sure what the danger is in not having prerequisites. Keep in mind, prerequisites have made the admin-seeking page fairly useless and the admin-seeking process arbitrary and banal. --Oldak Quill 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

7. Several issues:
   • Admins have a hard enough time using rollback conservatively; will non-admins be able to do better? I doubt it, unfortunately. Twinkle works in Firefox, Lupin's pop-ups work in IE and Firefox, and there are plenty more which are bound to function in all major browsers. If you'd like even faster reverts, please apply at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. In addition, no good system for supervision and removal has been proposed. And by that, I do indeed mean "just complain at ANI and the admins will fix your problem(s) for you" is a bad system. Considering how could be forwarded to the incidents noticeboard?
   • As Kbdank17 and Splash note, this proposal has no specific prerequisites to prevent admins just handing rollback out to whoever they think won't abuse it; from the description above, it seems an arbitrary decisions, with no firm guideline (Wikipedians are notoriously bad for functioning without these), in the hands of one person who wasn't elected to make the decision? Much as I dislike the functioning of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, it at least manages to turn down nearly all of the people who shouldn't get tools. But if all it takes is one admin, without any actual criteria, without a specific page to make a request, to toss this to whoever asks as long as they seem trustworthy, we have an issue. The decision to block, to which handing out rollback has been compared, is different than this because it has a clear policy for use, clear method for appeal, and clear consequences for misuse. Picaroon (t) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

   There is no system in place at all for monitoring the use of tools such as TWINKLE, popups and AWB other than a complaint at WP:ANI, and that seems to suffice the vast majority of cases. In the case of TWINKLE and popups there is no entry requirement at all, in direct contrast to the system being proposed here. In the case of AWB, the requirements for getting it (500 edits) are both pretty low and interpreted broadly and the system functions fine. Bear in mind that tools such as TWINKLE can cause almost as much damage as admin rollback if used inappropriately, and AWB can (I'm told) be converted into a vandalbot very easily.

   Yes, experienced RC patrollers can be told to apply at RFA, but that tends to be rather pointless. Compared to the tools of blocking, deletion and protection admin rollback really isn't that powerful, and the oppose rationales in those RFAs, as Gurch notes, will not be related to use of rollback (and will be related to the candidate's suitability for blocking, deletion, protection etc). Why should an established editor have to go through the huge process of RFA just to get a revert feature which is a little faster and easier on the servers? Hut 8.5 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

8. (1) Adds bureaucracy but does not appreciably benefit the encyclopedia; (2) The standard laid out for usage is not in line with how rollback is used by existing admins; (3) I expect that the presence of a new rights level below administrator will provoke further ballooning of the standards at RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose either give 90% of the experienced users the tool by default or make applying for admin easier or introduce "admins and superadmins", but this is just unneeded bureaucracy. I find this implementation to be the worst possible way in which this great idea could materialize. Idea is great, proposal sucks. Has everyone forgotten what the KISS principle was about? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose - I just don't feel that administrators should be granting (and especially not removing) administrator tools. (Imagine an admin removing an admin's rollback ability. Do we really want to set up for that wheel war possibility?) Bureaucrats "makesysop", and that should apply to the individual tools as well. Change it to bureaucrats (excercising discretion, similar to Wikipedia:Changing username), and I'd likely support. - jc37 12:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    I pretty agree with this opinion. However, someone pointed out that there aren't enough active bureaucrats for this task (and, ironically, we don't need more bureaucrats). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    Admins can allready revoke the right to edit. There are not many problems with that, why would there be with this? Tiddly-Tom 15:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    Admins can already prevent further vandalism, not "reward" good users just by themselves. This would be more like WP:AWB approval. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    The proposal does not extend to granting administrators the ability to remove the rollback tool from fellow administrators, the removal of the rollback function from administrators is solely at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee as part of a wider desysopping decision. Nick (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    Anything that an admin can do can be reverted and therefore can become a wheel war. Should admins not get any new tools because of that possibility? As Nick said, admins can not remove the rollback tool from admins and as was said above, admins who wheel war with this should probably not be admins. Mr.Z-man 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    should, would, could, maybe... An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The community has placed their trust in the bureaucrats to makesysop, and that was something under discussion during each of their RfBs. The giving of admin tools was never suggested to be entrusted to any individual admin during any RfA. I think we should stay closer to our existing systems than to create something out of whole cloth that is (as noted) likely to backfire, and possibly spectacularly. - jc37 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose per Splash. I'd rather have these rights granted automatically primarily rather than have to have admins waste time vetting it. If such cannot be done then fuck the whole thing, since it distracts admins to much from more important things; others could use good stuff like WP:TW then. And the performance boost of server rollback would be nice, but not exactly a huge slice off the server use pie. Voice-of-All 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per TheDJ, as unneeded bureaucracy. I think that the granularization of admin rights would add unneeded complexity to Wikipedia. Users who want rollback have viable options right now (Twinkle and RfAs); where is the value that this policy adds? I'm not convinced that the benefits (faster revert time?) outweigh the costs (another layer of policy, complexity, and rules). -FrankTobia (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose Just as per the last time. I don't see any need for this, and a lot of time wasted in form-filling.--Doc^g 02:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose. It would be open to abuse by multiple sockpuppets engaged in edit wars. MegX (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Megx changed from oppose to support. Kingturtle (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

14. I'm not persuaded either way, but as doc just pointed out on the mailing list, insufficient time has been given to decide this. I won't support a policy made by fait accompli. Johnleemk | Talk 03:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC) After reviewing the arguments for and against, I'm not convinced that the status quo is particularly harmful. I am particularly concerned that this would make revert wars a hell of a lot easier, and though the tool can easily be taken away, I do not see a compelling reason to grant it. Someone qualified enough to be trusted with rollback should be trusted enough to be an admin, and vice-versa. Johnleemk | Talk 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    • But not everyone wants to be an admin. This is for a variety of reasons including not everyone wants to have the power and some people just feel it's a waste of time. And besides, do you really think there is no gap between having roll backs and being able to delete things, restore things, edit protected pages (including the main page), block users etc etc? Also I'm far from convinced many RC patrollers would be given admins since often a lack of mainspace edits kills any chance. And I doubt you will get consensus to change the problem. If anything as many people have pointed out this should improve RfAs since if someone has been trusted with the tool and used it wisely it will be far harder to argue against them simply because of lack of main space edits Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

15. Still uncomfortable with it. Still oppose. DS (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Likewise, I am uncomfortable with it. At the least, RfA's are supposed to be a discussion on the trustworthiness and decision making of editors. Are we going to have a similar procedure for this? If so, just request full admin responsibilities while you are at it. -- Avi (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose. I see how we could possibly benefit from it, but the whole thing with administrators granting access and how it could easily be abused, it just doesn't sit right with me. I'm sorry. Spebi 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Expanding on my original comment. Administrators have been given such tools like the rollback tool because the community has come to an agreement (in the form of an RfA) that they are trusted to use them. One administrator deciding whether a certain user is unlikely to abuse the privelige is not an equivalent of the whole community deciding whether the certain user is unlikely to abuse the priveliges. Sorry, this proposal is not one that I wish to support. Spebi 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

18. Heck no. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Per Splash, Doc, and Spebi. Really don't like the admins giving it out bit. No thanks. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

20 opposers

1. Oppose creating an additional class of users. Many of the arguments about possible abuse of rollback at Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators remain relevant. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I think that the slight delay from reverting manually is a good thing, in that it forces users to stop and think about what they're really doing. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Strongly Oppose. This rollback tool is an exploit for power users. This will undermind admin authority relegating them to just arbitration. How does a non admin user will deal with a non admin power user in dispute without bringing each case to RfA, RfC, AnB, AiaV. I have a situation now, that the power users are hoarding an article and will not allow me to add new content. I ask for {{helpme}} but instead of an administrator I get a bureaucrat regurgitating the rules to me. Maybe that is why many anon IP users come to vandalize WikiPedia, because power users do not let new commers input nothing new and WP:Bite them. I propose instead of quick revert - rollback tool you should make {{adminhelpme}} This way we get the cases out of the court and contribute to knowledge not debate and dwarf knowledge. Igor Berger (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. There is already too much unexplained reverting of edits that are not obvious vandalism. I prefer that non-admins always write a thoughtful description of why they are reverting an edit.....if doing that is too much work then it is time for a wiki break. --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose What if somebody disagrees with, for example, all my edits? (I'm referring to my tagging of articles for merger, sources, etc.—some people don't like what I am doing.) They could just rollback all my work. Also, the proponents have not given an example of a large-scale vandal whose contribs needed a rollback that could not/weren't stopped by other methods. Finally, a persistent vandal could just use multiple accounts to escape rollback. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   I don't really understand your oppose. I don't have the bit, and I can rollback all your edits with my script. There is only about a second or two of perceivable difference in admin rollback, and the script rollback anyone can use. That is to say, there is no difference in the two rollbacks from a watching standpoint. We only use rollback on one thing. Best regards, Mercury 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps. What about an example of a case where a vandal needed a rollback and the regular methods failed? AnteaterZot (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose — I agree with this, except when it comes to admins deciding who gets, or does not get, the tools. Let everyone decide who is, or is not, qualified just like with RFAs, or don't do it at all. It doesn't have to be as formal, it just has to be open to discussion — perhaps like how tools are meted out on Meta for short period use. The fact that admins are the decision makers here is arbitrary, and has a serious risk of centralizing the social stratification that already exists on Wikipedia, rather than removing it. --Haemo (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - I also oppose this idea, simply due to the potential for abuse by those less disciplined editors who lose their cool during content disputes. While I would find it quite useful (I have been reverting a LOT of IP vandalism lately!), I will be content to wait until I can gain the confidence of the community, be granted admin priveleges, and thereby gain rollover. At 38, you LEARN to be patient... Edit Centric (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose - I envision backlogs of 'rollback requests' and userboxen with 'this user is armed with teh Rollback!' the_undertow ^talk 05:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose - (A) I don't like creating seperate classes of non-admin users, those who can and cannot use the feature; (B) I support "high power" editing tools being reserved to (1) admins and (2) those smart enough to script them for themselves; I don't trust non-admins with these tools; (C) I don't like that rollback edits are marked as "minor." They might not be "minor." In fact, they almost certainly aren't. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

   I can script it myself. I have done so in several different ways. As a matter of fact, I have made over 264,024 edits with my script. I could even code the rollback function that currently exists in MediaWiki. Does this mean that I can use the less-server-intensive, less-browser-intensive, quicker, better method? No. This proposal will allow me to use rollback. You may ask "why not go for RfA?" I have. And was opposed because all I do is vandal-fight, not write articles. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 06:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   Hear, hear. EJF (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose - Too much risk of abuse in disputes and edit wars with little benefit. Everyone's edits should be able to be easily seen and reviewed. I don't use rollback, even though I'm an admin, because I don't believe admins should be above review. Sometimes we get too caught up in the speed for deleting things and undoing vandalism instead of spending a few more seconds to objectively look at what we are doing. Royalbroil 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Rollback is easily seen and reviewed. It doesn't hide anything. It is just quicker and easier on the server than twinkle rollback or UNDO.

    I mean its marked as minor. Royalbroil 06:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose — and I ask that you don't poison the well with unsourced, opinionated rebuttals in front of the !voting, as it discourages oppose votes. I rarely involve myself with policy issues, and maybe I'm just paranoid, but I have several reasons:
    • It's easy to say that we can "just remove it from someone if it's abused," but I assure you WP:ANI is already overflowing (literally) with countless disputes over things that admins and users alike do— and it usually revolves around reverts and logged actions. It would seem to me that, similar to other logged actions on an account, it will be highly discouraged that an admin remove a rollback privilege from someone who already has it; otherwise, the person from whom it is being removed will put up a hissy fit about it being removed "unjustly" (probably assuming correctly that the removal, itself, is a scarlet letter to future RfA); and, subsequently demand arbcom to do it instead— if they even take the case.
    • Bots, including ClueBot, VoABot, and others, don't need it. Anyone who is programming something as advanced as an anti-vandalism bot— present or future— can take the time to figure out how api.php works and how to discern between revisions automatically. If the day comes that they ever truly need rollback, then we can simply add the ability to the bot group.
    • Twinkle (and others) is sufficient; also, don't worry about performance. It has built-in rate limiting due to the fact it requires the script to load a revision then save it. Plus, even Twinkle is abused, and one of the recent revisions was actually to add a simple check to lock it down to just anyone coming in and loading it up. Anecdotally, I've seen issues with people mass reverting things back and forth (sometimes over hundreds or thousands of pages). It helps to make that process more of a pain in the ass for non-admins, as bad as that sounds, in order to discourage edit warring over multiple pages.
    • Keep in mind: rollback essentially doesn't have an edit summary (well, it's an unhelpful one that requires that the reverter explain further by leaving a warning on a vandal's page). At least Twinkle has the option for a user to select a vandalism-related edit summary or fill in their own using the AGF link, and, it defaults to opening the reverted user's talk page as a way of nagging for a warning of some sort. Rollback has no such behavior. Also keep in mind that a lot of the edit wars, at least from my own WP:OR, come from people who would easily qualify for some admin to grant them rollback.

    Overall, I don't think it's something that needs to happen. A lot of people would want it because it's cool and admin-like. Perhaps if you had built in a sunset clause of a month for trying it out I would have been more willing to give it a shot, but this is a long-term change, which, after implementation, would draw the wrath of those given the rollback permission to staunchly oppose removal of their permission out of their own self-interest. --slakr^\ talk / 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose- for many of the reasons given above. Rather than creating a new class of empowered non-admins, thought should be given to more closely policing admin behavior, which is hardly exemplary. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose. The is instruction creep, adding a new, unneeded layer of bureaucracy and red tape; and another class of users. Plus, I have already seen numerous users abuse both the undo function and script assisted rollbacks like on Twinkle and Popups. Why should we make it easier for them? And, yes for all you non-admins out there, rollback is quicker and faster since all you do is click on a link and you are done; no intermediate "please wait for the next page to load" like on Popups or the "The edit can be undone" screen using the undo function. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    By the way, it is true that admins may sometimes abuse the rollback function, but it is relatively much more manageable to keep track of 846 admins than much, much more out of 48,429,838 users. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose. The potential for abuse is too great; it is quite likely that, given what we've all seen in various articles, that an abuser without a significantly problematic previous record, may gain access to this tool and do a great deal of damage to a large number of pages before he/she is caught and dealt with. In the aftermath of such abuse, it would be incredibly difficult to go through all of the changes and correct them to their rightful state.

    We already have enough problems as it is with people being able to edit and with rampant vandalism by a select number of individuals. Giving these people access to more efficient tools only makes them more efficient in their disgracing of academic subjects.Ecthelion83 (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose: The requirement that admins approve or disapprove is enough for me to oppose. This feature is already available in third-party tools, so requiring that editors request access for it makes little sense. Those intending to use it in bad faith will simply use Popups or WP:Twinkle, while those intending to use it in good faith have to go through an approval process. Had this suggested everyone have access to it (or even every non-anonymous account have access to it, my opinion would be considerably different. Justin ^chat 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    The good faith editors may use popups or twinkle aswell, it doesn't prevent them from using those, but it adds a better feature available to the good editors. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    In essence, we have admins granting access to tools, without prerequisites to gaining access to those tools, when the function(s) those tools provide are available via 2 other third-party addons. That approaches near-political levels of bureaucracy. I find the WP:AWB prerequisites absurdly arbitrary, but at least it has a qualifier, and there isn't any alternative I'm aware of. Either give it to all, or leave it to admins. But this "request approval" when approval doesn't have any set requirements is kind of silly. Justin ^chat 09:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Fair enough. That's not reason enough for me to oppose, but we are different people with differing opinions. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

16. I'm a little nervous about this, primarily due to current high levels of abuse of TWINKLE. With TWINKLE, at least, you can dictate your edit summary to a certain extent, even if half the time people don't bother. My worry is that handing out rollback on such a large scale could make revert-wars a lot uglier. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Revert wars will become flame wars and that is destructive to WikiPedia. It will undermine WikiPidia authority as reference to knowledge, and will give credence to projects like Knol where one editor builds his or her article. Igor Berger (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

17. OPPOSE It is another way of killing the rights of Wikipedians (right to edit, for example.) and it is another added layer of bureaucracy. It can cause easy anarchy, due to powertripping and egotripping by the persons who have such powers. Imagine wikipedians using non administrator rollback for vandalism purposes. I am ready to ban the persons who abuse such powers (If I were to be a sysop in the near future) and to fight against another way of curtailing the rights of ordianry persons who use and edit this free encyclopedia that can be mostly editable. The page protection policy is sufficient. we have bots to "kill vandalism". I don't give an F if someone vandalizes the article about the Bogdanov affair. We have admins and other likeminded persons to remind people to DO CONSTRUCTIVE EDITS. Or if they have thick heads to protect their ego (and their small brains), haul them to ArbCOm and ban them, or ban them outright! Non administrator rollback is similar to vigilantism, or what the vigilantes do. They abuse the powers that the people/police/someone or some group entrusted on them or to them. I would rather fight back and remove vandalism manually than to use that fiendish, bureaucratic tool, if given the chance. Time to go back to basics, If possible. And if Non administrator rollback is implemented, I will make sure that it will go the way Wikipedia:Esperanza did.iaNLOPEZ1115 (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose This empowers users to destroy, not to create. Wikipedia is already groaning under the weight of "editors" on power trips, who contribute nearly nothing but get a kick out of chastising others. The current reverting process is convenient enough--why streamline it even further? So that someone can go and do 300 rollbacks an hour? Why grant this destructive capacity to someone who hasn't been vetted through the RfA process? To someone who has nothing but the non-consensual support of one admin who happens to share his POV? The proposal would create yet another arena of contention, yet another activity in need of policing and arbitration: grant or refuse? remove or restore? What Wikipedia needs most is more conscientious, constructive editing--not adding more ranks, stripes and distinctions to the bureaucracy. Freederick (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose No thank you! God-mode lite and TW may use more server space, but I think these fulfill what non-admins need to do. If users want admin rollback that badly, they can do the work to become an admin. Also, many editors get their edits up, get involved with warning vandals and working on things such as good articles and the like to become an admin - this meaning they get blocking rights and admin rollback, it is simply not fair to people who have already gone through this process to get such privileges at the click of a finger - an admins finger at that! I think many non admins will be voting support, but they themselves haven't earned the rights to admin rollback, so why should they deserve it?--Ali K (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose - I personally think the rollback feature is used even too often by administrators. I feel that making it available to more editors will encourage hasty reversions of questionable additions just because it is easy instead of being used only for blatant "poop" vandalism. I understand that fighting vandalism is fast paced, but i feel that that the rollback button would be used way too often for innapropriate edits. The proposal says this could be taken away but i think that this is an oversimplified view of it. There would probably be a few cases of cut and dry completley innapropriate action that would clearly be take away but what about the grey area? I think this would add a whole new level of beuacracy, drama and would just make it more difficult to get things done while increasing the risk of abuse. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Strong Comment Recently I was labeled a Troll by an admin while Spam patrolling article Talk:Knol. It was New Year's holiday and very few editors were around. A few anon IPs and sleeper users started social engineering the article. I was commenting to the article to keep WP:NPOV. The admin reverted one of my edits, but immagine a non admin with a rollback tool not understandig how destructive social engineering is to WikiPedia, reverting all my edits that I have done for the past month on the article. Hey, he is a Troll. Long live Knol and death to WikiPedia! Igor Berger (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Igor, you've just voted twice in the same section in the space of an hour. While I sympathize with your concern and enthusiasm, perhaps you should consider striking out one of the votes, or else combining them. Freederick (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC) OK, fixed now Freederick (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    The sections have been split so no foul. Thanks for the heads up, will kep an eye on that. Igor Berger (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Hey, I am just learning how to do this, do not roll me back..:) Igor Berger (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    hope you don't mind, but just for clarity I changed "oppose" to "comment". Equazcion •✗/C • 14:10, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

    Also, you were reverted on that talk page with "undo" not admin rollback. Mr.Z-man 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

40 opposers

1. Oppose. I don't think the extra bureaucracy here is warranted. I would probably be okay with granting rollback to all users, all auto-confirmed users, or keeping it with just admins. I don't think the choice between those three is as significant as people say, since it can already be mimicked (inefficiently) by scripts. But the extra bureaucracy sets a bad precedent. Superm401 - Talk 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose. See my reasons under the "Simpler proposal" section for why I feel this way - entirely unnecessary bureaucracy whose existence is a slap in the face to those who help fight vandalism when we see it. This isn't the compromise it's portrayed as being. --Squiggleslash (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose -- I am a non-admin who does vandal fighting on occasion, but WP:TW is just fine! I think it is inappropriate for administrators to be handing out administrator privileges. And I think that it is inappropriate for us to be creating these "half-administrator" positions. If people can be trusted with these rollback tools, then they should be made into admins. If the RfA process isn't working, then go fix the RfA process--don't try to circumvent it by giving out the tools without the title. LeSnail (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Like the above, WP:TW serves my vandalism fighting adequately, and the increased load on the administrators by people applying for rollback rights would be enormous. Standard procedure should remain at having to apply and be vetted for administratorship. Also, given the issue mentioned by DragonHawk, namely potentially ill-willed edits to some of our elaborations on our opposition, it further adds to my oppose vote. Alloranleon (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose My meager experience would seem to support the idea that the means currently available to non-admins are sufficient to the purpose of fighting vandalism. Generally speaking, I find that adding layers of management, which would seem to be the basic effect of this action, brings about inefficiency. RadioC1ash (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose in this form, but not opposed to the general idea. If any editor can Undo, why can't any editor Rollback? This proposal would save time against vandalism so that editors can spend their valuable time on making articles better; however this proposal will waste time for admins to grant Rollback rights, review Rollback activity, and revoke Rollback rights? Either simply give Rollback rights to all editors, or leave it the way it is. I don't like the idea of Admins gaining more power over non-admins. I don't like the idea of another class created in Wikipedia. We should lower the bar that's been rising in RfA. Wanting to fight vandalism isn't enough these days to gain adminship, so this Rollback proposal would give non-admin editors a useful tool. However, we should be promoting editors to adminship even if they can't, won't or don't write beautiful prose for feature articles. Article writing ability or desire should not be a prerequisite for being an Admin. Furthermore, some editors are afraid of going through the RfA ringer, and some editors don't have time to fill out all the RfA paperwork. There should be an easier way to get Rollback rights to an editor. I only hope that the snobbery that goes on at RfA doesn't develop in the selection process for Rollback rights. Or maybe giving Rollback rights to non-admins will create even more snobbery at RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. 75% does not a consensus make.
7. Oppose as written. Application to use rollback seems like WP:CREEP to me. I suggest giving it to users at the same threshold that we give users the ability to edit semi-protected articles -- they must be registered for four days, then they get it for free. If someone abuses it just block; no need to introduce a "rollback block." If they can't be trusted with "rollback," they can't be trusted with "edit this page." --Chris (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose 1) don't like the idea of admins giving out tools; 2) adds bureaucracy and therefore reduces efficiency duplicating a tool that's already available to all editors through Twinkle.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose as per issues written above. It's quick and efficient enough now, and Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Do we really need Wikipedia:Requests for half-adminship (because giving one random admin a right to grant rollback tool is evil) and so on?   Jhony  |  Talk   17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Unnecessary extra bureaucracy. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Nay, nay and thrice nay. Either do it technologically, give it to all users or have them go through an rfa. What happens when admin 1 trusts user b and admin 2 doesn't. We'd end up with requests for rollback and be one step more down the bureaucracy road we're not supposed to be on. I've never actually understood what te problem is this perennial problem is supposed to fix. Is it that rfa is broken? Either give it to all users or just start nominating the users you'd give this too for adminship and cause a sea change at rfa. The many people supporting this proposal could promote any half decent user to admin if they had the will. Use the processes we already have to your benefit, don't keep hacking the system further. Hiding T 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose Changing vote. This would be a good idea if rollbacks were only accessible via a diff page. But having it available in a contribs list will invite major wikistalking. If the tool can be changed so that it's only available for a diff page or perhaps from an article's history list, then I would support it again. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:48, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

    While I understand the concerns about wikistalking, the issue is that it's resonably common to come across an IP who's basically done nothing more then vandalism. If there are really so many wikistalkers with a resonable degree of trust out there, I personally think it will be far better if we catch these people now and kick them out of the project right now. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    I don't think IPs could even get the rollback tool if this proposal goes through... at least to my knowledge. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:20, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry if I didn't explain very well. My point about the reason why being able to revert without the diff are probably better explain below. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

13. Oppose as unnecessary; even if quite possibly desirable, risk is not worthwhile. MikeHobday (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    What risk? Can you explain why you're so sure there is a definite risk this will collapse so badly it will cause permanenet harm to the project and therefore should not be attempted at all? Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose, for several reasons. While (knowledgable) users will know where to get the scripts anyway (and I am still not yet convinced that those are no longer sufficient), I like the sort of 'natural' hurdle that that creates: those users that know where to find it are either helped by experienced users or they are quick learners. This proposal would both take away (part of) that hurdle and create another place for backlogs to build up. Also, I have seen rollback been misused (for non-vandalism) by too many people (admins and script users), we don't need to enlarge that group. --JoanneB 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Strong oppose this or anything else that creates a new user class per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Anything that creates new artificial user groups, adds more bureaucracy and makes Wikipedia inherently less Wiki-like is bad for the encyclopaedia. The criteria is also completely up to interpretation (which could differ between one person and another), gives administrators added responsibilities with possibility of abuse, and the current procedure has no way of 'appealing' bad decisions. This is an extremely badly thought-out policy IMO. -Halo (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
16. I stand opposed to this. I am an admin now, but back in the day, I used popups for RC patrolling, and I still use popups because rollback has that little extra clause that it only reverts the edits of the last editor, whereas popups could revert multiple users. Twinkle is also good to use. If you want to get rollback, then you should apply for adminship. "But RFA is broken!" Then fix it. If you're trustworthy enough to get rollback, then you're probably trustworthy enough to be an admin. If you not trustworthy enough to be an admin, then I wouldn't trust you with rollback in the first place. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    I'm opposed also but I dont agree with that. I think there are loads of users who are ready to handle rollbacks but not ready to handle deletions, protections, blocks, mediawiki interface, etc. Rollback is a very benign tool compared with other admin tools. I don't see how you could possibly compare them. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:31, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

    I should also note that Twinkle doesn't work in some popular browsers and popups is almost useless on a slow internet connection. Mr.Z-man 20:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    I disagree. If you aren't ready to handle the admin tools (all of them), then you shouldn't have any of them. To the second part, by "some popular browsers", I guess that means IE. Frankly, it's impossible to be efficient on Wikipedia with IE. IE is the only browser I'm aware of that doesn't work with TW. You can speed up popups by turing on simplePopups=true. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 21:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose I have sysop rights (including rollback) on another site, and I think it should be a tool reserved for those who have undergone an RFA. It is not as simple in application as other forms of reversion (in terms of judgement, not mechanics), and it is something that I would not trust every user to use correctly and judiciously. I honestly think opening up this tool for everyone would cause more harm than good. VanTucky ^talk 18:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose Scripts make warning easier, and we don't need yet another user layer. I know TWINKLE isn't IE-friendly -- I keep getting reminded of that when I log in elsewhere -- but I find it hard to believe that a similar IE-compatible version couldn't be created. Maybe even one that shares the parts of TWINKLE that aren't browser-dependent? And, as pointed out above, don't worry about performance.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Comment. If you take a look at WT:TW, you'll see how many times AzaToth has been asked to make it IE-compatible. His response every time is that it wouldn't work; apparently, IE uses some sort of non-standard JavaScript that makes it "theoretically impossible" to create a version of Twinkle that works in IE. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

19. Strong oppose. Rollback should never be used for edit warring, and its use in that manner is seen as an abuse of admin tools. It's one of the suite of editing tools that we extend to trusted users. The reason we have RfA is to determine whether the community trusts the editor with a few extra tools. We currently have five classes of editors (in terms of permissions) - Stewards, Bureaucrats, admins, non-new editors and new editors/anons. If we want to create a new class between admins and non-new editors, let's create such a class. But membership of the class must be community controlled, not admin controlled - or, for that matter, separate blocking powers from normal admin powers, and lower the standard for adminship. Admins are not meant to "administer" the site - they are just allowed extra tools. We have far too many people misusing TW and tools like that. If you have ever edited as an anon, you know that there are "vandalism patrollers" who will revert you simply because a bot reverted you (and add a vandalism warning, for good measure). These people are "trusted" enough to have TW. Rollback makes it possible to revert an edit without even bothering to look at the diff. If you want to use it, convince the community that you are reliable. Otherwise we just get more clueless editors engaging in newbie-biting. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose - I believe this feature is already adequately available through scripts and the like, and the RfA process. Also, manual reverts are only a couple of clicks more than just one "button". We're not talking about the difference between a horse-and-buggy and a Ferrari here. --Merovingian (T, C) 19:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

60 opposers

1. Oppose - too much potential for abuse. - eo (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose This is essentially creating a class of "Trusted Users" to borrow a phrase from an already rejected proposal. The chances are too great that this feature would be abused by the well meaning but inexperienced, as to an extent is already seen with novice twinkle and popup users. At least with JavaScript aided reversion tools a user must be at least somewhat familiar with Wikipedia prior to installing them. The only way this could work is if a new layer of bureaucracy were created to monitor new users and approve them prior to their promotion. Additionally it means that this trusted user class would be granted exclusively to vandalism patrollers (because surely no one would ever use automated reversion tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute), further discouraging people from actually writing an encyclopedia.--69.118.143.107 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - I belive that this would create an unnecessary hierarchy of "power" on wikipedia which would be abused. I believe that one of the main strengths of wikipedia is that all users have equal status. - ARC Gritt^TALK 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I agree with the above comment that this would create an unfortunate hierarchical structure and would essentially give people the class of Trusted Users. I feel that this is simply a case of "more trouble than it's worth" - the negatives far outweigh the proposed positives. Would it make life easier for certain individuals? Maybe a little, but those certain individuals have more than enough other options at their disposal for reverting bad edits, the need to perform constant maintenance on the list of users who can or can't use rollback would be an unnecessary annoyance, and even well-meaning individuals would likely make enough rampant bad decisions with this to constitute abuse. --Bishop2 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose – WP:TW already does this and I have concerns that "rollback" status will be used a yardstick in RfA discussions. This would create a situation that require potential admins to gain the approval of existing admins before an RfA run. Burzmali (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Opening yet another avenue of possible abuse, something which Wikipedia is already struggling with. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose as written, support idea. Alternatives (i.e. Twinkle) demonstrate that non-admins can be trusted with and utilize these tools for the benefit of the community. It is unacceptable, however, to 1) add additional tasks that can only be performed by admins and 2) rely on the judgment of a single admin. Rollback should be automatically enabled for user accounts after a certain number of edits (e.g. 100) have been made. This puts no load on the time or judgment of an admin, solves browser compatibility issues with alternatives and ensures users have a reasonable history of good behavior (a vandalism account would, no doubt, be blocked before 100 edits). Concerns of edit warring and vandalism do not appear valid, as those so inclined would do so regardless of tools available to them; this tool would do more good than harm to the community. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose, needlessly complicated feature creep to achieve what is already achieved by the Undo feature and third-party tools. I'd be more in favour of just giving everyone a Rollback button than this edifice of permission granting and revoking. --Stormie (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I revert vandalism just about every day and can see the use for this tool. However, I have a deeper appreciation of the work involved in tracking back the roots of the vandalism (looking for multiple acts that are then "hidden" by a seemingly constructive edit or two) and of digging into the vandal's history to find other pages that have been marred. Could I use a rollback tool? Absolutely. Would it make me lazy and careless? Probably. Captain Infinity (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose (edit conflict). I had written a more balanced, intelligent response. Someone moved it to the "Discussion" section. Apparently some people feel this must be structured as a vote, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy and we're supposed to work by consensus. I feel that's an indication this whole process has broken down. As long as the "voting" is broken, I oppose any action based on the "vote". —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose. This appears to add to bureacracy and overhead for very minimal advantage to users. I've had the rollback button for several years but would never even consider using it without actually checking the edit first. Anything else would be irresponsible. To be quite honest, the rollback option is now largely redundant with undo. The only potential that I can see if this proposal is passed is to create yet more opportunities for mistakes and misunderstandings. Reverting an edit is serious. It deserves the time it actually takes to review the edit. Rossami (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Makes it too easy for edit war - prone users. --FocalPoint (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Why would we be giving it to edit war prone users? Mr.Z-man 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

13. Sorry, but you need the tools for rollback Secret ^account 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose -- Pop-ups is powerful enough for non-admins. This creates a third class of user and we really need to look at better policing admin behavior rather than creating a whole new group that will also require oversight. Who will check that it's being used correctly? The people who have time for that would better spend their time watching for abuse of power and privilege by admins. futurebird (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I fight vandalism every day I edit here and have little difficulty in clicking a few buttons to do so. I also feel there is a strong case for possible abuse when there seems agreement that even admins have abused the tools they have. If an editor so strongly feels they need this tool then I feel they should not be a junior admin but go through the admin process and not set up another layer of wikipedians. So - not needed and likely, IMHO, to be abused. Benjiboi 22:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose I do not think it is a good idea to create multiple levels of sub-admins. If the user wants the rollback tool they should become an admin. Also there are plenty of rollback tools like WP:TW an popups Alexfusco⁵ 23:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Two primary reasons: 1. Feature creep. We don't need to create another subclass of users. The undo feature is fast enough, and there's plenty of scripts to make it faster. 2. If there are issues preventing an editor from passing an RfA successfully (and thereby receiving the rollback privilege), then those same issues would likely make me doubtful of their competency with rollbacks. There's an implication of trust that goes with the rollback feature, and if someone is trusted enough to receive it but not enough to be promoted, something's wrong. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    While I agree with much of what you say, surely you can see that a different level of trust is needed for rollback and say blocking. Rollback is essentially harmless in that any regular editor can undo it. It does not allow any new abilities. While trust is needed for this tool, much less trust is needed than one would need for blocking or protection. 1 != 2 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    I understand that line of reasoning - and there's merit to it - but I don't see a convincing reason to create another user subclass for something of marginal value (especially given the good alternatives to rollback that already exist).

    Let me offer a third reason, although this may be more of a personal preference. While I agree that adminship in some ways "is no big deal", in others, there's an implication of trust and competency that goes with it. Since it takes a demonstrated knowledge of WP policy to become an admin, and rollbacks are an admin-only funtion, when I see a rollback in an edit history I feel less of a need to double check to make sure that the edit is correct - there's that implied trust which it carries. On the flip side, even though I don't check out every Undo summary, it helps make be aware of who's behind it (and whether it may need verification). It's a small thing, and I don't mean to imply that admin edits are "better" than those of non-admins, but when you're sorting through a great number of edits while looking for vandalism it makes a difference. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose For two main reasons: 1. a new kind of user between admins and "standard" users will be formed; 2. one admin would be deciding to issue rollback, and currently, we have a whole RFA for it (and other tools, but that's not the point: the point is, it's a powerful tool, and I wouldn't trust one person to hand it out). · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Weak Oppose for a couple of reasons. First, since becoming an admin, I've found very little difference between admin rollback and Twinkle's rollback feature, and therefore find giving non-admin's rollback capability quite unnecessary. More importantly, however, I just don't like the way this proposal is worded, i.e. letting individual admins decide who gets rollback and who doesn't. I could go weak support if the proposal were better (again, weak just because I don't think it's necessary). For instance, if a "Request for Rollback" were established as something of a less-strenuous RFA, I could conceivably support that. But I think that this current proposal would give admins power that we ought not have, would result in rampant corruption (melodramatic as that might sound) and would take time away from admins that could be better spent elsewhere. faithless (^speak) 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Unnecessarily increases complexity. We already have ppl with checkuser bits, OTRS people, WP admins, Commons admins, bureacrats, stewards, ... We'll end up with titles like "HRH, Prince of Wales" soon enough (parental advisory: may contain humour). Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    Except that OTRS and steward are decided on meta and commons is a separate project altogether. Mr.Z-man 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

80 opposers

1. Oppose as it creates more hierarchy and Limited administrators with little benefit. Rollback can already be done manually and thus there are already software tools to do it automatically. —Ashley Y 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose I've pondered this, and can't really give support for this. Why fix what is not broken? Being an admin in Real Life, given the alternatives that already exist, I'd look at this from the technical view: the only positive motivation I can dredge up is the possible load reduction on the servers. I'm sure we've all had our database is locked or database is lagging moments. Will this be a measurable improvement on server load? Yngvarr 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose: The last thing we need is another tool to make it easier to start a revert war. Towel401 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose unless section 1.3 ("Usage") is taken out (in which case I would support), per #Please don't Limit the Usage. -- Ddxc (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose: for many of the above already given reasons Anne-theater (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose Open to abuse. I suspect admins are overworked and they want to hand over some of their functions to select users. Rather than risk the misuse of power, why not tighten up admin? And what would be the criteria for selecting users? A good history? There's going to have to be narrower criteria than that.--Gazzster (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose we already have enough cases of admins abusing the rollback tool in disputes and it is not meant to be taken lightly. The cases of users who are vandal fighters but do not wish to be admins are several in number, but minuscule in comparison to the whole of wikipedia users. the abuse outweighs the use in my mind. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   One does not have to be an admin or have a rollback tool to be a good vandal fighter. You just need to reach out to the community, and not be affraid to be slapped from time to time..:) Igor Berger (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   And there's a huge difference between vandal fighters who want to be admins and vandal fighters who could actually pass RFA. Mr.Z-man 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose I don't see much of a need for anything beyond undo, for anyone. I do use rollback sometimes since it's there, but its hardly necessary.DGG (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose Far too many issues can more than easily arise. Jmlk17 06:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose There are no prerequisites per se for getting the tools, although a user should not have a history of edit warring and should show a need for the rollback permission (i.e. lots of vandalism reversion). - Users that comply to this can launch an WP:RFA and most likely become full administrators. Common reasons for experienced users see their RFAs fails include lack of trust, trigger-happiness and levity. All of these are good reasons for not handing them the rollback tool, so why trying to get it somewhere else? Húsönd 07:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose per WP:CREEP. Either give it to anybody that can edit semi-protected pages or limit it to administrators. Besides, we have undo for this kind of thing. --Goobergunch|? 07:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose, personally, this sounds like it will create many more problems than it will solve. shoy 08:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose, Seems that already available tools makes this create more problems than it will solve. BeShaMo (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose, Sounds like a good idea, but I've seen editors revert without good faith in the contributor, had it happen to me, and the rollback only affects multiple edits on one user. Multiple edits from one user are usually not a sign of vandalism. Multiple edits from many IPs often are, and this doesn't sound like it solves it. In addition, I have found on Siege of Yorktown that constructive edits are made unaware of any vandalism, so reverting becomes more complicated. Once dates and numbers are changed, all hell breaks loose. I suggest the ability to search revision history for when certain changes were made, count how many and possibly which revisions include a fact, and a revision rating system where we can mark vandalism, edit wars, and good contributions, so that reverts are more effective. Contributors can also check to see if they are working from a good revision, or whether anything unapproved might have taken place previously. That would help create an effective encyclopedia, but I'm not sure how to propose it. MMetro (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. One of the big problems with Wikipedia is the ease with which changes can be reverted. Too many editors simply revert any change to their material rather than bother trying to find consensus. This would just make the problem worse. Timbertlam (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose Creates a separate class of users that is not needed right now. Also there is Twinkle for non-admins, and while Twinkle might not be as fast it works well enough that for this proposal to be unnecessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose Not necessary, creates extra work for admins and takes away from activities that admins should be doing. Wiki-patrolers revert vandalism because it is something we feel is worthwhile to do. Making the process a few steps faster is not that important. Besides, much of the revert-time is spent notifying the offending editor, and I don't see where this tool will do that. Not enough gain to warrant this. Truthanado (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    Additional comment: Wikipedia operates by consensus, not vote counting. The numbers of support and oppose users and comments on this topic indicate that we are far from consensus. Truthanado (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    I see consensus, one must take into account the arguments, not just the number of votes. If you look at the discussion or the votes it seems clear that the community wants this and for good logic. 1 != 2 15:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose – At first blush, I thought; “…I would love to have the additional tool.” However, the more I contemplated the process I currently use in rolling back vandalism, the additional tool would not be that much of a time saver and in fact could actually do more harm than good especially with a lethargic editor. I have found, especially dealing with IPs, that in many cases that for every “Bad” edit there are some very good and constructive additions made. With a tool that has the ability to make blanket rollbacks from one editing source, I can see the baby being thrown out with the bath water. If the tool is given to non-administrators, I feel a policy should be in place that this be a privilege and is not given out indiscriminately but rather through an approval process. Shoessss |  Chat  15:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose: There are no prerequisites per se for getting the tools? Ok what's to stop a troll from removing content from your favorite article? Sure there are checks and balances to combat this - but prevention is more efficient  — master son^{T - C} 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose Rollback without checking what you're rolling back is reckless behaviour, at odds with WP standards. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    Eh? Have I read that right? Who said anything about people not checking what they're rolling back? I use a script for rollback already, and I always check what I'm rolling back.--Phoenix-wiki 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

    Rollback doesn't allow checking of what you are rolling back. Scripts do allow this. Carcharoth (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    Twinkle doesn't. Lupin's tool doesn't. You have to check by clicking on the diff, first. Can you also please name a tool which checks the diff for you? --EoL talk 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

100 opposers

1. Opposefor many of the reasons above.Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. This, as pointed out on the mailing list, was snuck through here with little discussion, and this is a recipe for edit warring as a past time among some users. Popups is just fine for me. Hell, Twinkle is an issue that reduces thought among some editors, this would be a disaster. --M^ask? 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   You do realize that this would only allow users who request rollback the ability to get it, and if they abuse it (i.e., use it for non-vandalism), it would be revoked? This comment makes me wonder if you actually read the proposal. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   I read it, several versions over the years, including this one. It does nothing to address my concerns. -M^ask? 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose because if you're good enough (trustworthy enough) to "apply" for rollback, you're trustworthy enough for all the tools. MECU≈talk 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   However, many worthy adminship candidates failed at RfA. There are also users who have no intention of blocking, deleting or editing protected pages and want to always continue the fight against vandalisim. There are also still those who don't want to be administrators. Marlith 18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   Not necessarily; I've seen a few RfA candidates who are very effective at reverting vandalism and are trustworthy with rollback, but they may have done something such as apply speedy deletion tags incorrectly, and then they are opposed because people don't trust them with the "delete" button. Acalamari 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

4. Having twice had edits on Dinosaur reverted with very little justification and in contravention of my reading of WP:REVERT (.e.g. those edits could not by any stretch be considered vandalism), I oppose the granting of any similar or more powerful facility to anyone whose conduct has not been thoroughly vetted and from whom the privilege cannot quickly be removed; and the general rule should be such privileges are automatically suspended if any complaint is made (except perhaps if the complainant has a bad record of misusing Wikipedia processes). Philcha (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Rollback is a tool that could be easily mishandled. I'd rather keep it in the hands of administrators. Showers (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose for reasons given on the talk page here. This is an opt-in form of "trusted user" which has been rejected numerous times by the community for excellent reasons; it appears (once again) to be far from gaining consensus here. Sdedeo (tips) 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose Rollback is a very powerful tool and can do some serious damage if in the wrong hands. Plus, most non-admin vandal fighters use Twinkle, which is just as good. Please, I really don't think this is a good idea. However, if implemented into the software, there should be a way any admin can easily grant or revoke rollback rights to any non-admin. I think that would be the best way to go.   jj137 ^♠ 19:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   Admins granting and removing it is exactly how it works. Mr.Z-man 19:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Rollback is better than TWINKLE - TWINKLE is just a fancy way of editing the previous page revision whereas rollback actually interfaces with the servers to cut down both the time and resources required. Bear in mind that TWINKLE can cause almost as much damage in the wrong hands as rollback. The developers have indeed produced a mechanism whereby an administrator can easily grant and remove rollback privileges, exactly as you have described it (this is the page to get consensus for them to turn it on). Hut 8.5 19:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   (ec) You're exactly right. Also, imagine a mass rollback of ClueBot?! (I heard someone mention that)   jj137 ^♠ 19:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   The tool is only going to be given to trustworthy and established users. There is no way a vandal is going to spend months making edits in order to perform one act of vandalism. Hut 8.5 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   And if it did happen, the vandal would be blocked and someone can mass rollback the vandal if VoABot doesn't do it first. Rollback is just an edit, its not permanent and can be undone by anyone. Mr.Z-man 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   (changing to support)

7. Oppose for various reasons given here.Itake (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose too much opportunity to blindly rollback without reviewing potentially valuable edits. Franamax (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   If users are being careless with rollback or any similar tool (Twinkle, AWB), you should complain so that it can be taken away instead of opposing a tool that would help many since it might be misused by a few. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   Not really, people can still rollback edits without reviewing them by using Twinkle or other scripts, and people who abuse Twinkle or other revert features get them taken away: it'll be the same with this rollback. Acalamari 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   I'm thinking this might just make it harder to spot careless use, that's my initial impression. I'm going to check the talk now, it seems to me I can already do a rollback with judicious clicking in the history page, without having a tempting button - although I would have to do more thinking, which I always try to remind myself needs to be done. I correct a bit of vandalism, I don't mind the extra time just to be sure. Franamax (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose all editors can all ready use UNDO, I've seen too many problems with inexperienced editors using tools like twinkle...WP:BEANS I have already said to much, no more...Gnangarra 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   But this would not be given to inexperienced editors. Mr.Z-man 00:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

   But There are no prerequisites per se for getting the tools Gnangarra 06:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose for the same reason I opposed WP:RFR. It is only a bureaucratic, unnecessary stopgap for reform of WP:RFA; rather than trying to invent ways to deal with the problem of adminship no longer being 'not a big deal,' and needlessly complicating the privilege system, the community should recognize that such people that would be likely eligible for rollback under this system should simply become admins. --Wikiacc (°) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose a ridiculous atempt by non-admins to powergrab and allow them to furhter trample all over the rules of wikipedia. if this pases it will be a blow against encyclopedic honesty and a blow in favor of big pharma mainstream scientific totalitarianism. Smith Jones (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    Um... So now not only do we not assume good faith, we assume the worst faith possible? Many of the users who were working on this proposal are in fact admins. Mr.Z-man 04:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    • dont be naive; while they're are admins who are do supporrting this issu e the majority of the people who wil benefit are not ordinary editors by the new elite lcass of sub-admins who wil be created and continue to their influecne to control what evidenceis allowed on wikipedia.

    • Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Seeing such an assumption of bad faith on the part of dozens of users you have never met is quite disappointing. Mr.Z-man 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Franamax. --Jake {talk2me} 02:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose Too much abuse will happen.--hail me 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    If someone abuses it, they get it taken away. Simple as that. Acalamari 19:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose. This begs for abuse. --Historian 1000 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    If someone abuses it, they get it taken away. Simple as that. Acalamari 19:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose. Stopping 1,000 Admins from abusing tools is difficult; this is a bad idea. I revert vandalism (maybe 30 times/per day on average) - its no problem. Sarah777 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    We have a thousand admins abusing their tools? Mr.Z-man 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    Heck, I knew there were a few, but that many? Proves my point, eh? :)Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

    Not sure if I follow. I'm suggesting that taking the view that without being constantly monitored that admins will just defer to abusing their tools is an assumption of bad faith. Mr.Z-man 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose So very often it's been a good thing that reverting someone like this isn't easy. In a perfect world, the tool would only be used for vandalism, but Wikipedians are not perfect, and that's understandable. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
17. No, I don't personally like the idea of enabling this non-adminstrative rollback. I see some pros, and I see a few cons. And I see problems. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
18. No. There was a time when I would have supported this. But there are already too many edit summaries that read "Reverted edits by..." when they shouldn't. —Encephalon 11:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Unnecessary stratification and rule creep. A new "class" of users isn't going to solve anything. Plus the burden of dealing with the inevitable abuse of this tool is going to be enormous. Wikiacc's comment above hits the nail on the head in saying that "such people that would be likely eligible for rollback under this system should simply become admins". — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose. The proposal doesn't solve any existing problems. Current solutions are good enough. (I am an administrator in Finnish Wikipedia, so I know exactly how little time the rollback button saves.) --Jannex (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

120 opposers

1. Oppose. Create more admins if that's what's needed. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, vandal-fighters are almost always opposed simply for being vandal-fighters. Acalamari 19:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose - no. Rollback is too dangerous to be dumped into the hands of users who may (unintentionally) use it for undesirable purposes. Leave it to administrators and users who have passed the initiative test of finding WP:TOOLS. If anyone comments on or replies to this vote, can you please poke me on my talk page as I won't remember to check back here. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

   I think you misunderstand the proposal. This is to create a process to which users may apply for the tool, it would not automatically be given out to all users. For that proposal see below. --Nn123645 (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Buggrit. Wrong section. I'll move my vote down. In that case, my vote for this section stands the same - I feel it's unnecessary to have an officially endorsed method like this with request pages when users can still very easily install TW. It also provides extra work for administrators - is that something we need? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose I cannot see any advantage to Wikipedia in any these proposals. It is so easy to make corrections using the normal method. The only people who could benefit from this are destructive users.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose I can't see how this would be a significant time-saver as compared to the tools that all users currently have at their disposal, i.e. Twinkle, Lupin, popups, etc. Honestly, I like the process required at present for a non-admin to undo an edit, I believe that it requires users to be more conscious of their reverts without sacrificing efficiency. Further, I fear the increased bureaucracy combined with the creation of a separate strata of users would cause more difficulties than it prevents (i.e. increased revert efficiency would be balanced by the increased bureaucracy) Lazulilasher (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose as above. Asterion^talk 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose for the simple reason that there is really no need to fix something that's not broke. Normal reverting is fine for regular users like myself. — Ian Lee (Talk) 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose as above.GrandmasterRUS (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above. Unnecessary. hezekiah (talk to me) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose - No point whatsoever. Will only create problems. Undo for non-admins, rollback for admins. It's been working, let's not stuff it up eh? Spawn Man (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose - lack of ability to change edit summary is a deal-breaker for me (and the main reason I don't use rollback). Undo is much more flexible. Even reverting vandalism should be explained. If the ability to edit the rollback edit summary (eg. a setting in preferences to make rollback one or two steps depending on what you were working on) was provided, then I could support this. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose. It ain't broke and don't need fixin'. There are plenty of excellent reversion tools available. I see this as adding another unnecessary layer. Let's keep things as simple as possible. Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose. See no benefits, current setup works fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Undo works just fine for me. NJGW (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I have 3 strong motives to oppose: first Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, second we need to reduce our backlogs for administrators not increase, third WP:TW and similar tools does the job. I see only one good motive to enable rollback for non-admin users, that is reducing server's bandwidth usage. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Unnecessary, and possibly counterproductive. This ham-fisted dial-up user who has reverted a fair bit of vandalism doesn't find the current methods cumbersome in the least. Rollback is a valid tool for administrators, but WP certainly doesn't need a new category of users: "Administrator Lites" (Administrators Lite?). It would lead to innumerable accidental reversions and attendant hurt feelings, it would place an additional burden on administrators who would have to vet applicants and then police abuse, and, most importantly, the benefits would be too minimal to make it worth implementing. Rivertorch (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose This just unnecessarily creates another work queue for admins. Why bother when Twinkle, Popups and other tools accomplish the same task (albeit slightly slower) and without the counter restrictions. Plus, it's not like WP:ANI isn't stretched to its limits as it is... Caknuck (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose I am seriously concerned about the overuse of a rollback button made potentially available for everyone, as well as the lack of edit summaries in possibly controversial reverts. Let's keep things as they currently are. --Angelo (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    This would not be given to everyone, only experienced users. Mr.Z-man 09:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    But admins are experienced users, and personally I think adding an admin-lite level is counter-productive. --Angelo (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose - I am concerned about having this for everyone, as IP's may abuse it. Also, it's reasonably easy to revert multiple edits in the page history. StuartDD _{contributions} 10:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    IPs wouldn't be able to get it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 11:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    Alright, but it could still be abused by vandal editors - so my vote still stands. And it is not needed as there is a way to reert multiple edits already. StuartDD _{contributions} 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    No it wouldn't: if an obvious vandalism-only account requested rollback, they would be blocked, not granted rollback, and no one is going to spend three-six months editing here just to obtain rollback, and then lose it after a minute or two of abusing it. Acalamari 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

19. Oppose - I personally would like to use such a feature, but I am afraid that it will be taken advantage of...and lead to worse edit wars. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose, the WP:TW tool works fine for me at present and is available to all users who want it. Adding this "new class" of user just adds to bureaucracy and will create a backlog of users requiring admin checks - Dumelow (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    Twinkle may work fine for some users, but it's useless for Internet Explorer users such as myself. Unfortunately no, it is not available to everyone who wants it, I'm afraid. Acalamari 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

140 opposers

1. Oppose - Redundant to existing tools, WP:CREEP, hassle of dealing with even more levels of user permissions...take your pick from the arguments above. --jonny-mt 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Its more efficient than existing tools, has a minimum level of new rules, and since when have user permissions been a "hassle?" Mr.Z-man 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose I see "widening the gap" between new and veteran editors as something that should be avoided unless there's good reason, and I just don't see this as a pressing need, especially given the presence of the "undo" button. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Regarding the "widening the gap" thing - it wouldn't be. It appears that the function would be given to any user who has been making constructive edits to Wikipedia. Therefore...all users making extremely constructive edits, well, would get said function. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose due to the lack of any specific requirements for non-admins to have this powerful tool, other than a "need". What constitutes a qualified non-admin.? One month on Wikipdia and 200 edits? Six months? One year and 5,000 edits? As the proposed guideline is currently stated, this would vary tremendously from one administrator's interpretation to the next.I'd change my vote to Strong Support if a specific guideline were incorporated into the proposal, say, 6 months on Wikipedia, minimum 1,000 edits, and no user warnings. An editor meeting these qualifications, could surely be trusted with this tool for blatant vandalism rollback. For those who say, "aren't TW and undo enough?", the answer is no, they're not, because they don't work on all platforms. I, for example, regularly check my Watchlist on my Blackberry, but using Undo on large (over 100 kb) articles can result in unpredictable truncation. So, while I can't support the proposal at present due to the overly discretionary threshold to be granted rollback, I do agree with the need and intent of the proposal, JGHowes ^talk - 21:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Its main use is reverting vandalism. Simply basing it on edit count and time experience is not effective. There are users who have thousands of edits and months of experience who may misuse this. Do they have a history free of edit warring or behavior problems? Do they have experience reverting vandalism? If you can say yes to both, they could probably be trusted with rollback. If we have specific criteria, someone turned down because of something not on the list could complain and drama could ensue. Mr.Z-man 03:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   It is the vaugeness of the proposal that is causing so many people to oppose it. Marlith ^T/C 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose because it is totally unnecessary- simple vandal reverts can easily be done- complex ones can be done by admins without too much trouble. I don't like simple tools getting into the hands of vandals to wreak all havoc. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose This simply does not seem necessary. There are many other more important issues to deal with than this one. --Stormbay (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose per JGHowes above. What exactly constitutes a "need"? Kamek (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose It's not needed, the undo is fine as it is. Besides if this thing passes, mindless vandalism will constitue. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   Why isn't it needed? The undo feature is useless against reverting mass vandalism, which I've only cleaned up by using rollback. Twinkle is not a good alternative because it doesn't work with Internet Explorer. Finally, on your last point, yes, vandalism will continue unfortunately, and this proposal is to help make vandal-fighting easier, as well as to reduce server load. Acalamari 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   Can't people just get Firefox? Marlith ^T/C 03:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   Not really: some people may prefer the look or interface of IE, or, in my case, have problems with Firefox where it's not easy to use. Acalamari 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   This should make Firefox easier to use if some prefer IE7s feel Marlith ^T/C 05:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

8. For one thing, I'm disturbed that the "voting is evil" comments, including my own, were moved. If I can't "vote" not to vote, then I'm moved to oppose. But beyond that, there are other issues with this, and undo and twinkle are good enough. Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose Rollback I am new but it seems like a tool for potential vandals and experienced vandalsAcuhill (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)acuhill
10. Strong oppose I revert about two-three times a week. The reversion process gives me a chance to see the messes that the lunatics and kids-who-think-they're-funny make and allows me to observe possible patterns. (Recently I observed one that turned out to be a proscribed sock-puppet -- I had to revert far back in time to restore the damage). I really do need to review the "edit" before I revert it. The process works fine for me. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose No thank you, no need for extra levels of user - the amount of oneupmanship and aggravation will most likely soar. As has been mentioned by others, we certainly don't need more bureaucracy. There is really no need. May be marginally more efficient but why not just do the legwork? - ‡Pelican eats pigeon‡ message _{contributions} 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.