Ryan Delaney wrote:
While I support this idea (and I would even approve of a measure where the software automatically granted rollback to all users after they passed a certain number of edits), this can also be accomplished with godmode light. I suggest that more non-admin vandal patrollers familiarise themselves with this and other powerful monobook.js scripts.
Thanks for the compliment Ryan!
Two of the points you have asked above have quite reasonably been made before. I'll give short answers here and point you to where it is discussed in more detail.
Firstly, using javascript does not work for all contributors, and for those it does work for, it doesn't offer any advantage if you are on a slower connection (that is, the same amount of data is transferred whether you do it manually or use a script). Rollback, as it is a server-side implementation, will work for all contributors it is given to, and also uses less bandwidth to 'operate'.
Regarding giving rollback automatically, I think this is a bad idea. Basically, rollback should only be used in certain circumstances because of its lack of edit summary. Granting it automatically (for example, at the same time someone gets the ability to move pages) will mean that people unfamiliar with our policy on it will use it in 'content disputes' - which is itself Wikipedia lingo - and this may become uncontrollable. It's best to give it out if people ask for it, so they will have to be familiar with our policy on using it. Also, giving it out automatically means it is unfortunately gameable and exploitable by trolls and vandals.
For more detail on this, see: --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback_privileges#Repl...
Chris