[WikiEN-l] A six-day roll-back poll?

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On 1/4/08, doc <doc.wikipedia at 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]]