On 1/4/08, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
I can see why individual users want this, and I can
see how it makes
their lives a little easier, but I am less convinced of the benefit to
the project.
Is there a backlog of identified yet unreverted vandalism needing rolled
back? On the contrary, we've edit conflicts of users trying to revert
half if it, and the bots usually win.
Now, I guess we can say that there may be marginal benefit in granting
it - if it encourages the vandalfighters (do they need encouraging?)
fair enough...but....
1) The wastes of time in creating a new "request process"
2) It will lead to at least some disputes, ANI traffic, wheel wars and
arbitrations. If I think user x should get it, and you don't....so?
3) If user y thinks I removed it unjustly, where do they appeal?
[[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback review]] - I predict, not in jest.
4) It occupies developers' time: have they not more pressing problems to
solve?
5) Instruction creep. Endless discussion over adjustments.
6) Abuse of the tool - and the drama that creates
So, on a cost/benefit analysis, this makes very little sense to me.
Again nearly all of the above is completely inside out logic. The idea
is not to bring in new activity (except in neglible amounts) but to
regularize activity that is currently being done via scripts rather than
software running on our servers.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]