-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I didn't realise that MediaWiki 1.5 was so close to being introduced, otherwise I wouldn't have come up with my previous proposal, mentoring for admins, quite so quickly as I did!
As unfortunately my proposal is not too popular, I have come up with a new one titled "Requests for rollback", taking advantage of the "privilege separation" available in MediaWiki 1.5.
In a few words, it's a system like RfA but just granting rollback rather than all admin powers
This proposal is described as how I imagine it would be implemented at: --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talrias/Requests_for_rollback
My reasoning behind creating this proposal is principally due to the following:
* Useful for those who do not wish to be nominated on WP:RFA, either because they do not desire admin powers or because they would not be confident with them. * More people being able to quickly deal with vandalism is by no means a bad thing. * It devolves power to the community.
I accept that some might say that is an unnecessary addition to Wikipedia, duplicating requests for adminship, but I believe that people who want to contribute to Wikipedia but do not wish to become full-fledged admins will benefit from the times when rollback can be used.
I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this.
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
I don't believe that it is necessary. A rollback button is useful, but I don't see why it is worth a "Requests for Rollback" to get it. If a user does RC patrol and wants the aid of rollback (ie, 'the mop'), then they probably would prefer full admin powers in order to be able to block vandals, and so on. Being an admin doesn't have many set, 'must do' responsibilities - RC patrollers can happily become admins without further hassles, if they want to keep out of Wikipolitics.
Most people who want rollback wouldn't mind the other functionality of adminship. A Requests for Rollback feature would be unnecessary. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Jenkinson" chris@starglade.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:28 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: Requests for rollback
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I didn't realise that MediaWiki 1.5 was so close to being introduced, otherwise I wouldn't have come up with my previous proposal, mentoring for admins, quite so quickly as I did!
As unfortunately my proposal is not too popular, I have come up with a new one titled "Requests for rollback", taking advantage of the "privilege separation" available in MediaWiki 1.5.
In a few words, it's a system like RfA but just granting rollback rather than all admin powers
This proposal is described as how I imagine it would be implemented at: --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talrias/Requests_for_rollback
My reasoning behind creating this proposal is principally due to the following:
* Useful for those who do not wish to be nominated on WP:RFA, eitherbecause they do not desire admin powers or because they would not be confident with them. * More people being able to quickly deal with vandalism is by no means a bad thing. * It devolves power to the community.
I accept that some might say that is an unnecessary addition to Wikipedia, duplicating requests for adminship, but I believe that people who want to contribute to Wikipedia but do not wish to become full-fledged admins will benefit from the times when rollback can be used.
I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this.
Chris
Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCwbLVEq6+ijeBrJ8RAg8oAJ0SARCFkmcR14G9ZJ4kyvfgJP8zPQCeK1hm S0KvMu3kfhdTh6bTO/cB3B4= =rVph -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
I don't believe that it is necessary. A rollback button is useful, but I don't see why it is worth a "Requests for Rollback" to get it. If a user does RC patrol and wants the aid of rollback (ie, 'the mop'), then they probably would prefer full admin powers in order to be able to block vandals, and so on. Being an admin doesn't have many set, 'must do' responsibilities - RC patrollers can happily become admins without further hassles, if they want to keep out of Wikipolitics.
Most people who want rollback wouldn't mind the other functionality of adminship. A Requests for Rollback feature would be unnecessary.
This is a fair point. I however disagree with your statement that being an admin will keep you out of "wikipolitics". Having the ability to ban/block/delete is a "power" which many do not have and therefore would place the person with that power in a position where they will get involved in wikipolitics, whether they like it or not. Rollback, on the other hand, is just a shortcut for an action which anyone can take. Avoiding politics for those who desire to is simply not possible for someone with more abilities than the general community.
As for your statement that user would prefer full admin powers rather than just rollback, that is really a subjective view based on your own experiences, and obviously people feel otherwise as I wouldn't have made the proposal if that viewpoint was universally held. I know that some people have scripts to emulate the rollback feature.
Your penultimate sentence sums up why I made this proposal. "Most people who want rollback wouldn't mind the other functionality of adminship". What about the other people? That is why I made this proposal.
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
I, quite simply, think this is a really good idea :-)
Dan
On 29/06/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
I don't believe that it is necessary. A rollback button is useful, but I don't see why it is worth a "Requests for Rollback" to get it. If a user does RC patrol and wants the aid of rollback (ie, 'the mop'), then they probably would prefer full admin powers in order to be able to block vandals, and so on. Being an admin doesn't have many set, 'must do' responsibilities - RC patrollers can happily become admins without further hassles, if they want to keep out of Wikipolitics.
Most people who want rollback wouldn't mind the other functionality of adminship. A Requests for Rollback feature would be unnecessary.
This is a fair point. I however disagree with your statement that being an admin will keep you out of "wikipolitics". Having the ability to ban/block/delete is a "power" which many do not have and therefore would place the person with that power in a position where they will get involved in wikipolitics, whether they like it or not. Rollback, on the other hand, is just a shortcut for an action which anyone can take. Avoiding politics for those who desire to is simply not possible for someone with more abilities than the general community.
As for your statement that user would prefer full admin powers rather than just rollback, that is really a subjective view based on your own experiences, and obviously people feel otherwise as I wouldn't have made the proposal if that viewpoint was universally held. I know that some people have scripts to emulate the rollback feature.
Your penultimate sentence sums up why I made this proposal. "Most people who want rollback wouldn't mind the other functionality of adminship". What about the other people? That is why I made this proposal.
Chris
Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCweErEq6+ijeBrJ8RArJhAKCurWYATj4STpA7hzShetvsmpUkjwCeLq6X RKMgiVsc5ZEL965/TMH0mw8= =7WbQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/29/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Having the ability to ban/block/delete is a "power" which many do not have and therefore would place the person with that power in a position where they will get involved in wikipolitics, whether they like it or not.
It shouldn't be seen as a power, but as a technical feature that is given to trusted users. There is no requirement for admin to use the features of blocking or deletion, so I don't understand why being an admin would force anyone into wikipolitics. If they don't want to be involved in the politics, they can just choose not to make controversial blocks, or even no blocks at all.
If someone can be trusted to use rollback, they should be trusted to use deletion and blocking. Perhaps limiting admins to rollback rather than the other features could be something the ArbCom decides if an admin proves they can not be trusted with other features, rather than needing a separate request page for this.
Angela.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Angela wrote:
It shouldn't be seen as a power, but as a technical feature that is given to trusted users. There is no requirement for admin to use the features of blocking or deletion, so I don't understand why being an admin would force anyone into wikipolitics. If they don't want to be involved in the politics, they can just choose not to make controversial blocks, or even no blocks at all.
Just that the feature is there will involve them in Wikipolitics, regardless of whether they use them. Having a privileged position will mean they become involved in politics, just by association.
If someone can be trusted to use rollback, they should be trusted to use deletion and blocking. Perhaps limiting admins to rollback rather than the other features could be something the ArbCom decides if an admin proves they can not be trusted with other features, rather than needing a separate request page for this.
I do not agree with your first sentence. Rollback is just a shortcut function for going through history and saving a previous edit again, while deleting and blocking are privileged features. Since they are in clearly different categories I think that the level of trust required before granting people the different permissions should reflect this.
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
Just that the feature is there will involve them in Wikipolitics, regardless of whether they use them. Having a privileged position will mean they become involved in politics, just by association.
not really. If you go through the lsit of admins you will find only a small number are really political.
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Just that the feature is there will involve them in Wikipolitics, regardless of whether they use them.
Can't say I agree, from own experiences. For what admins are you speaking?
My own experiences tell me that it's always your own actions that involve you in wikipolitics. This can include actions that don't require admin privileges, such as nominating something on VfD. (Comment on my talk page: "How dare you VfD other people's articles??" -- apparently you're only allowed to VfD your own articles.)
Timwi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Timwi wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Just that the feature is there will involve them in Wikipolitics, regardless of whether they use them.
Can't say I agree, from own experiences. For what admins are you speaking?
My own experiences tell me that it's always your own actions that involve you in wikipolitics. This can include actions that don't require admin privileges, such as nominating something on VfD. (Comment on my talk page: "How dare you VfD other people's articles??" -- apparently you're only allowed to VfD your own articles.)
As I'm not an admin at Wikipedia I'm not speaking from my experiences there. I've been a moderator on several large community sites, and I frequently get asked to do things which I either can't do, am not allowed to do and all kinds of other stuff like that. Admittedly, there are less moderators on that site than admins on Wikipedia, but the principle remains. Those having what other people see as "power" will always be politicking with those who have the "power". Wikipedia just has a more diluted-power environment (no bad thing - this proposal dilutes it even further).
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
I don't believe that it is necessary. A rollback button is useful, but I don't see why it is worth a "Requests for Rollback" to get it. If a user does RC patrol and wants the aid of rollback (ie, 'the mop'), then they probably would prefer full admin powers in order to be able to block vandals, and so on. Being an admin doesn't have many set, 'must do' responsibilities - RC patrollers can happily become admins without further hassles, if they want to keep out of Wikipolitics.
If only it was as easy to become admin as you're making it out to be!
The current situation seems to be that the people who frequent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] are quite paranoid with giving out adminship status. Anyone who isn't obviously completely dedicated and who doesn't think of nothing else than Wikipedia's well-being day and night, can't possibly be a suitable admin.
I especially don't get why most people seem to think that someone with a minimum number of edits and/or a minimum average number of edits per day is automatically a more suitable admin. I would think that someone who edits frantically is much more likely to turn into a troublemaker than someone who edits only sporadically.
Timwi
The current situation seems to be that the people who frequent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] are quite paranoid with giving out adminship status. Anyone who isn't obviously completely dedicated and who doesn't think of nothing else than Wikipedia's well-being day and night, can't possibly be a suitable admin.
So we should give admin privileges to people who aren't dedicated and don't think about Wikipedia's well-being? Huh?
Sean Barrett wrote:
The current situation seems to be that the people who frequent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] are quite paranoid with giving out adminship status. Anyone who isn't obviously completely dedicated and who doesn't think of nothing else than Wikipedia's well-being day and night, can't possibly be a suitable admin.
So we should give admin privileges to people who aren't dedicated and don't think about Wikipedia's well-being? Huh?
Just a *bit* black-and-white there, are we?
From: Timwi timwi@gmx.net
Sean Barrett wrote:
The current situation seems to be that the people who frequent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] are quite paranoid with giving out adminship status. Anyone who isn't obviously completely dedicated and who doesn't think of nothing else than Wikipedia's well-being day and night, can't possibly be a suitable admin.
So we should give admin privileges to people who aren't dedicated and don't think about Wikipedia's well-being? Huh?
Just a *bit* black-and-white there, are we?
Rather less so than your original claims.
Jay.
This query isn't related to the current discussions over requesting rollback powers, nor is it in regards to an issue on Wikipedia - it's about something on another project.
What was the original purpose of the Rollback - purely to revert vandalism? And is it considered bad form to use it to revert good-faith edits by other editors (not troublemakers)?
Dan
On 7/1/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
What was the original purpose of the Rollback - purely to revert vandalism? And is it considered bad form to use it to revert good-faith edits by other editors (not troublemakers)?
I asked a similar question (a very long wikitime ago)
Brion replied: "Its intent is solely to be a timesaving shortcut for reverting mass vandalism."
Reverting good faith edits without explanation shouldn't be done, and the rollback prevents any explanation, giving the impression that you are viewing the other person's edits as vandalism, so I would suggest that it is bad form to use it in that way.
Angela.
And when "troublemaker" is in the eye of whoever is being a POV warrior, it becomes a tool of edit warring.
Just like the "block" button in the hand of some recent Admins has been a tool of revert warring and asserting dominance.
They pay NO attention to the fact that blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Instead, we have hags like Ambi who take PRIDE in the fact that they are doling out punishments to those who cry foul over their abuse of power.
From: Angela beesley@gmail.com Reply-To: Angela beesley@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Intention of Rollback Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 14:57:41 +0200
On 7/1/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
What was the original purpose of the Rollback - purely to revert vandalism? And is it considered bad form to use it to revert good-faith edits by other editors (not troublemakers)?
I asked a similar question (a very long wikitime ago)
Brion replied: "Its intent is solely to be a timesaving shortcut for reverting mass vandalism."
Reverting good faith edits without explanation shouldn't be done, and the rollback prevents any explanation, giving the impression that you are viewing the other person's edits as vandalism, so I would suggest that it is bad form to use it in that way.
Angela. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Millions of quality singles are online now - click to meet them! http://match.msn.ie
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:22:41 -0700 Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
The current situation seems to be that the people who frequent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] are quite paranoid with giving out adminship status. Anyone who isn't obviously completely dedicated and who doesn't think of nothing else than Wikipedia's well-being day and night, can't possibly be a suitable admin.
So we should give admin privileges to people who aren't dedicated and don't think about Wikipedia's well-being? Huh?
I think you're overlooking the critical phrases "nothing else" and "day and night".
James
From: Timwi timwi@gmx.net
If only it was as easy to become admin as you're making it out to be!
The current situation seems to be that the people who frequent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] are quite paranoid with giving out adminship status. Anyone who isn't obviously completely dedicated and who doesn't think of nothing else than Wikipedia's well-being day and night, can't possibly be a suitable admin.
That's hardly the case. There currently are hundreds of admins (500?), with 2 or 3 new ones being created weekly, so its hardly impossible. And I've never seen the argument made that someone should be an admin simply because they aren't completley Wiki-addicted.
I especially don't get why most people seem to think that someone with a minimum number of edits and/or a minimum average number of edits per day is automatically a more suitable admin. I would think that someone who edits frantically is much more likely to turn into a troublemaker than someone who edits only sporadically.
I've also never seen anyone make a "minimum average number of edits per day" argument for or against adminship. As for the "minimum number of edits" argument, you have misconstrued it; people with a large number of edits are not automatically considered more suitable. In fact, I've seen more than one nomination for admin that was soundly rejected even though the editors in question had many thousands, even tens of thousands of edits. The real point is that the more you edit, the better people are able to guage whether or not they think you have a good grasp of policy and are reliable. People who are very new to Wikipedia are not likely to have a good grasp of policy, and people with very few edits are not well enough known yet; in other words, there is not yet enough evidence to show they will use admin powers responsibly.
Jay.
On 30/06/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
The current situation seems to be that the people who frequent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] are quite paranoid with giving out adminship status. Anyone who isn't obviously completely dedicated and who doesn't think of nothing else than Wikipedia's well-being day and night, can't possibly be a suitable admin.
That's hardly the case. There currently are hundreds of admins (500?), with 2 or 3 new ones being created weekly, so its hardly impossible.
We've 498 just now; number five hundred will probably be created tomorrow (or tonight, possibly, in the Deep West)...
I think this is an excellent idea.
I am not an admin, and do not want to be an admin at this time.
I would be interested in having the rollback feature available to me, and I think it would lead to me doing at least a little more counter-vandalism work.
On 6/29/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is an excellent idea.
I am not an admin, and do not want to be an admin at this time.
I would be interested in having the rollback feature available to me, and I think it would lead to me doing at least a little more counter-vandalism work.
I strongly oppose it. Rollback is one of three four technical features made accessible to administrators as people that are generally trusted. The anti-admin lobby has tried to build adminship up into something it wasn't meant to be, isn't, never was and never will be, but that doesn't mean we need to accomodate them in this way. If you want the tools, then there's a page and a very simple process for you to go through to get them - else don't whinge when you don't have them.
-- ambi
On 6/29/05, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/29/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is an excellent idea.
I am not an admin, and do not want to be an admin at this time.
I would be interested in having the rollback feature available to me, and I think it would lead to me doing at least a little more counter-vandalism work.
I strongly oppose it. Rollback is one of three four technical features made accessible to administrators as people that are generally trusted. The anti-admin lobby has tried to build adminship up into something it wasn't meant to be, isn't, never was and never will be, but that doesn't mean we need to accomodate them in this way. If you want the tools, then there's a page and a very simple process for you to go through to get them - else don't whinge when you don't have them.
-- ambi
Whinge? How is saying "I think that's a good idea" complaining or protesting in an annoying or persistent manner? (I had to look up "whinge", as I'd heard it, but never was fully certain what that meant.) That seems a little aggressive, and more than a bit rude, considering I only mentioned my support of a very simple idea.
(Anti-admin lobby? Do you really think people get together and say "how can we oppose the admins today"?)
Back to the subject: exactly why are you so strongly opposed to separating the tools, especially along these lines? It seems to me that this tool exerts exactly NO control over other users, while all the other admin tools that I am aware of do exert a degree of dominance over other users. Why shouldn't this be available individually to those who aren't interested in the powers that include domination?
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
Michael Turley (michael.turley@gmail.com) [050629 16:56]:
Back to the subject: exactly why are you so strongly opposed to separating the tools, especially along these lines? It seems to me that this tool exerts exactly NO control over other users, while all the other admin tools that I am aware of do exert a degree of dominance over other users. Why shouldn't this be available individually to those who aren't interested in the powers that include domination?
If you want the equivalent of a rollback function, there are tools to simulate it using Javascript. (I don't have details to hand, sorry.)
- d.
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com Back to the subject: exactly why are you so strongly opposed to separating the tools, especially along these lines? It seems to me that this tool exerts exactly NO control over other users, while all the other admin tools that I am aware of do exert a degree of dominance over other users. Why shouldn't this be available individually to those who aren't interested in the powers that include domination?
Interesting that you would use the highly emotive word "domination"; if others share your understanding of what adminship involved, then Rebecca would be entirely warranted in her view that there is an "anti-admin" group out there for that reason alone. Regarding the rollback feature, it makes edit wars considerably easier, which is not a good thing.
Jay.
On 6/29/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com Back to the subject: exactly why are you so strongly opposed to separating the tools, especially along these lines? It seems to me that this tool exerts exactly NO control over other users, while all the other admin tools that I am aware of do exert a degree of dominance over other users. Why shouldn't this be available individually to those who aren't interested in the powers that include domination?
Interesting that you would use the highly emotive word "domination"; if others share your understanding of what adminship involved, then Rebecca would be entirely warranted in her view that there is an "anti-admin" group out there for that reason alone. Regarding the rollback feature, it makes edit wars considerably easier, which is not a good thing.
Jay.
The blocking feature makes newbie biting much easier, which is not a good thing.
Page locking makes enforcing a single POV easier, which is not a good thing.
*All tools have a proper use, and all tools can be used abusively.*
Ignoring the proper use of a tool in favor of it's potential abusive use is a specious argument, in my opinion. It still doesn't address the reason why ambi thinks (and perhaps you agree) that they belong in an unseparable package. If that's the case, why not give admins all the powers of bureaucrats? And stewards? And arbitrators? And all the powers of Jimbo Wales, while we're at it? It would certainly more convenient to have all the powers in one single package.
Regarding "domination". I chose the word to best express why *I* am uninterested in a particular subset of admin tools. I prefer persuasion to force. I have no current interest in tools of force here at Wikipedia; I intend to test the boundaries of wikilove, good reason, and persuasion.
I believe my understanding of what adminship involves is very similar to your own. However, my preferences regarding implementation are obviously different. I prefer that you and others have those domination tools. However, I think you're being disingenuous if you don't admit that that is what they are. I support the existence of "overwhelming force" being available to those who are interested, capable, and willing to use it judiciously.
Finally, the rollback feature, as far as I can tell, is unique, in that it is a very valuable editing enhancement, but is the only one that doesn't have any powers of enforcement behind it. That's why I think it should be available separately to those who are interested.
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
The blocking feature makes newbie biting much easier, which is not a good thing.
The only newbies who get bitten by this are ones who are abusing policy (and other editors).
Page locking makes enforcing a single POV easier, which is not a good thing.
*All tools have a proper use, and all tools can be used abusively.*
Yeah, in theory. But rollback is ideally suited for edit warring, and newbies would take full advantage.
Jay.
On 6/29/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com
The blocking feature makes newbie biting much easier, which is not a good thing.
The only newbies who get bitten by this are ones who are abusing policy (and other editors).
Page locking makes enforcing a single POV easier, which is not a good thing.
*All tools have a proper use, and all tools can be used abusively.*
Yeah, in theory. But rollback is ideally suited for edit warring, and newbies would take full advantage.
Jay.
Rollback is *ideally suited* for reverting vandalism. Perhaps it is equally suited for edit warring, but if it were *more* suited for edit warring than its intended purpose, I'm pretty sure it would have been written out of the software by now.
The proposal floated does not include offering rollback ''carte blanche'' for newbies.
It proposes a system similar to WP:RFA where the feature would have to be requested and approved by consensus.
I'm fairly sympathetic to the idea of separating out features to be doled out on a finer grain level, but many oppose it because it is creating different shades, and thereby different classes, of users, which is something Wikipedia has never been about. As mentioned in other threads, this leads to "collecting privileges" like medals or awards, when the spirit of Wikipedia has been to treat adminship as even "no big deal."
A reminder - the primary reason for admin status was because of page deletion, and that's where the "trusted user" idea came from.
On 6/30/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Rollback is *ideally suited* for reverting vandalism. Perhaps it is equally suited for edit warring, but if it were *more* suited for edit warring than its intended purpose, I'm pretty sure it would have been written out of the software by now.
Um, but because rollback is given only to trusted users right now, this is not a problem.
Even for admins, they are discouraged from using rollback for issues related to legitimate content issues. Rollback should be used for fighting vandalism and trolling, and not as a standard part of an editor's toolbox.
-User:Fuzheado
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andrew Lih wrote:
I'm fairly sympathetic to the idea of separating out features to be doled out on a finer grain level, but many oppose it because it is creating different shades, and thereby different classes, of users, which is something Wikipedia has never been about. As mentioned in other threads, this leads to "collecting privileges" like medals or awards, when the spirit of Wikipedia has been to treat adminship as even "no big deal."
I don't think that having the rollback feature would necessarily create a different "caste" of Wikipedians. As David Gerard pointed out above, rollback can be emulated using JavaScript if really desired. Having access to rollback is really no extra privilege over the rest of the community. It's just a one-click reversion.
And, if more people have access to what were previously adminship abilities, treating adminship as "no big deal" will definitely continue.
A reminder - the primary reason for admin status was because of page deletion, and that's where the "trusted user" idea came from.
[...]
Um, but because rollback is given only to trusted users right now, this is not a problem.
Even for admins, they are discouraged from using rollback for issues related to legitimate content issues. Rollback should be used for fighting vandalism and trolling, and not as a standard part of an editor's toolbox.
In my proposal I outlined that the rollback feature is only to be used for fighting vandalism/trolling. Since users must go through a confirmation procedure similar to the current RfA one (albeit with a lower threshold), it will still only be given out to trusted users.
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rebecca wrote:
I strongly oppose it. Rollback is one of three four technical features made accessible to administrators as people that are generally trusted. The anti-admin lobby has tried to build adminship up into something it wasn't meant to be, isn't, never was and never will be, but that doesn't mean we need to accomodate them in this way. If you want the tools, then there's a page and a very simple process for you to go through to get them - else don't whinge when you don't have them.
I am quite offended you would label me in this way, as part of an "anti-admin lobby". I made this proposal in good faith as a way to *improve* Wikipedia as it would increase the number of vandal fighters! You are accusing me of whinging? Whatever happened to assume good faith? I find this incredibly bad form of you, and even more shocking that you are one of the people who forms the Arbitration Committee who regularly rules that "no personal attacks" is one of Wikipedia's key policies.
Let me remind you that I have never voted on requests for adminship before, and that I have never insulted or in any way had a confrontation with any Wikipedia admin. Do you have any proof of these accusations?
The only person to make such ridiculous claims as an 'anti-admin lobby' and 'me whinging' is you. Maybe you have strong feelings about that - but that is certainly no reason to attack or insult others in this way.
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org