Wikipedia talk:Non-administrator rollback

Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators proposal

Why isn't this taking place there, or linking there to see past discussion? –Pomte 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By all means add it, I just forgot - not sure where the best place to put it is so I'll leave that to you :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

roll back scripts

Is this different than things like Twinkle? Lawrence Cohen 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's simply faster - with twinkle, you go through the edit screen and then it saves the revert (even though twinkle doesn't show the edit screen) - rollback misses out the edit screen completely. It also cuts server load. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, neat. You just issue warnings by hand after? Lawrence Cohen 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Warnings aren't automagically included with admin rollback, but some clever javascript might fix that. Probably over my meager skill level, though. Currently I give out warnings with a separate script (not quite "by hand", but close to it). – Luna Santin (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of sciprs already available that issue warnings after using admin rollback - I use one and it's fantastic. Twinkle will probably be extended. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick feedback

I generally like the quick, no-nonsense approach to an approvals system -- this is not and should never resemble anything like a quasi-RfA, and I'd prefer to avoid any system that makes it a big deal. Just a few things to consider...

• Keep a centralized request page (as with WP:AWB or WP:AIV) or make requests via user talk templates (as with {{helpme}} or {{prod}})?
• Is the edit count suggested too high? Bearing in mind that this is not another RfA. Is there a better measure of activity that is both quick and relatively objective?
• Is three months too long? That seems to be getting into quasi-RfA territory.
• "No history of edit warring in six months" sounds very difficult to check. Perhaps something more akin to "no history of frequent or excessive edit warring"? Block log and user talk history might be good indicators.
• "No blocks for edit warring in the past year"; a year seems to be a very hefty penalty, what about seeking support from multiple users in these cases? Seems to balance the risk without being too draconian.
• I still somewhat like the idea of giving rollback to everyone, throttled, and then selectively releasing the throttle on request; but it may be late for such suggestions.

Thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I've changed the guidelines somewhat, they take away most of your concerns (I think!) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Couple Questions

• Will there be clear usage guidelines? I'd expect a lot of traffic and new usage, I think there should be some pretty clear standards as to when usage is exceptable, obvious vandalism for example.

• Do people expect a large rush of applicants up front? Are there plans to handle the initial burst (or to limit it to some extent)?

Thanks, RxS (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)