I would agree that whatever happens it should be a permission that stewards can revoke; that ability should always be there. You've got some good arguments for an automatic level of granting, but perhaps a page where you can hit a button to request the flag might be more appropriate, a page that only works once and only once you've met the requirements? I don't know about the coding of this but it would mean that any user who had lost the flag for any reason would have to use a request page to get a b'crat to assign it again, meaning that they could be checked out for a 3RR violation or whatever. I am against any form of automatic upgrading once edits are made because it makes the permission seem like an automatic right of making those edits, and this could be socially abused. I know it could be made clear, but I can foresee many conflicts over permissions being revoked, so having to ask for them (in a sense) may prevent upset. Does this make any sense?
—Xyrael
On 13/07/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/07/06, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
I would disagree with the idea of restricting it to rolling back anons
only,
as I think with a requirement of that many edits this wouldn't be an
issue.
Your ideas of using the 3RR rule to autoremove the rollback is a good
idea,
though.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but I would disagree with
automatically
enabling this ability and instead would suggest that users who are into vandal fighting request it in a similar manner to bot requests.
As I see it, we've got a few options...
- Just give it out, to all autoconfirmed users.
- Give it out to all autoconfirmed users who have passed some
additional threshold, such as edit count; record user edit counts somewhere, or maintain a flag on their account which is updated when the desired threshold is passed. 3. Have bureaucrats and stewards give it out.
Each option has benefits and each has disadvantages. For instance, suggesting #1 on wikien-l would be liable to get me shot, owing to En Wikipedia's lack of desire to use simple functions such as block against users who deserve it. Abuse it? Blocked. Simple.
Reliance on either of #2 or #3 alone isn't quite optimum in my book. What we *could* do is combine the two. If the implementation for #2 added users to a group with the rollback permission (granted one-off on their 2000th edit, to take an arbitrary figure), as opposed to adding them to an implicit group (effectively re-granted with every session), then it could be revoked for the short or long term by bureaucrats and stewards and ArbCom, oh my.
Retaining option #3 would allow it to be given back, or given out prematurely.
#2 as an implicit group is not too horrendous to code into MediaWiki; we can add a new column to the user table and add checking code to the edit form or Article::editUpdates() method, etc. The more complex proposal starts to look uglier, so I'm thinking implementation of that *might* be via an extension, assuming we have or could add all the required hooks and grappling ledges.
Rob Church _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l