Forum:Additional requirements for the rollback group

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Additional requirements for the rollback group
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 August 2010 by Gaz Lloyd.

Currently, anyone asking for rollback gets it. Which is fine to a point. I believe this is that point. While it has been a while since one of the super-vandal bots or w/e have attacked, we know they are out there, and they have made and used accounts several days old in order to create more damage. Yes, I do recognize that it is pretty rare, but it has happened. With that in mind, I propose that rollbacks not be granted to people with accounts under 30 days old and 200 total edits.--Degenret01 14:58, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Note Where I said total edits I was thinking the same way we look at edit counts for Aotms and the like, the 200 will not count user talk or or user page edits.--Degenret01 21:01, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Makes sense, and these are pretty mild requirements compared to many other wikis. ajr 14:59, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't see a reason why this shouldn't happen. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 15:02, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - To avoid clutter, would anyone mind if I moved this to a separate forum? ajr 15:02, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I thought as it was related here made sense, but go ahead. Link the new forum to this one at the top and same for the other? Thanks.--Degenret01 15:07, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom.   Swizz Talk   Events!   15:53, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I've never really seen why rollback was given out so easily, since it's not exactly minor. Sure, anything they can do with rollback is minimal and easily fixed, but my belief is still that too many chefs spoil the applesauce. All else, per nom. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 16:12, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as long as a considerable number of those 200 edits are mainspace edits. I don't want to see someone that's edited their user page 200 times over the course of a month getting rollback. Andrew talk 16:43, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I might even go farther, but at least a step in the right direction. HaloTalk 16:44, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I also like Andrew's idea. Maybe 100+ mainspace, another 100+ that aren't in userspace? But can be files, forum, anything else really. HaloTalk 16:57, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I guess that this would help against the vandal bots, also Soldier's idea is also good, useful contributions always help. ~MuzTalk 16:54, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm pretty sure I don't meet the edit requirement on this account, but I do on my old accounts. Am I going to lose my rollback? Take care, Elijah doucheface.png 17:29, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

No, we know you are trustworthy and I think this would only apply to people that are requesting rollback as of now. Andrew talk 17:55, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Edits no, we go with total accounts on that in my opinion. (So long as they are all secure.) But if we decide to do the "test" that I am suggesting below I think all current users with rollback would need to take that (including myself), because if you can't pass a simple test determining when to use rollback, then you clearly aren't capable of "using them in the field". That's just my view on it. HaloTalk 21:57, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - maybe even 250 edits =P LordDarkPhantom 18:04, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - On other wikis I go on the requirements are much steeper to be granted rollback, I see nothing wrong with these requirements. insaneular The original Hazelnut spread 18:07, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think it should be higher in all honesty. I did not request rollback rights until I had around 600 edits I believe (if I am remembering right.) I believe that 200 edits maybe to minimal, I know when I had 200 edits I didn't know everything about the wiki. I think maybe a higher number should be picked so first the editors can get used to the wiki and how it works before we trust them with these tools. But this is a good start anyway. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 20:13, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Support - I think I had around 1000 mainspace edits when I requested rollback. As we move towards giving rollback users (or whatever we may call them when additional permissions are granted) more rights, we must of course be more vigilant in who we give them to. However, instead of having some certain requirement for the group, why not just leave it up to the discretion of the bureaucrat? There would of course be stricter guidelines and the 'crat would have to take a longer look at each applicant, but I think a set-in-stone number of edits is simply encouraging all of the wrong things. ʞooɔ 20:18, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for leaving it in the hands of the 'crat, but we need some basic reqs. I almost think we should turn R(equest) F(or) R(ank) -> R(equest) F(or) R(ollback). 'Crats aren't really around much, so maybe it would be better if consensus determined if someone was ready for rollback or not. Especially if we are adding noratelimit to it. HaloTalk 20:29, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
I've been noticing a trend lately of people picking quality over quantity when forming policies. Anyway, consensus over who gets rollback seems like overkill to me. We don't need a new thread every time someone wants rollback (which is often enough). By the way, if we are going to giving rollback users more rights, maybe we should change the name of the group. No ideas here, just throwing that out ^_^ ʞooɔ 20:33, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
The group is an official wikia thing. I don't see any reason to complicate it by changing it. If it's just aesthetic I don't care. Look here. That's really not all THAT many people. 'Crats just really aren't around all that much, so they don't know people as well. There's only so much looking at someone's contribs can tell you. You kind of need to know context and need to know the person. It's not essential however. I was just throwing it out there as an idea. HaloTalk 20:39, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Halo, Request for Rollback would certainly be an overkill. bad_fetustalk 21:33, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Degen Slayer Timwac talk Fire cape.png 20:29, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The current system works well, abuse of rollback rights is something extremely rare, and we always have active admins, so they can get blocked pretty easily, and it wouldn't take a long time to revert their edits. I'm getting bored of people trying to find metrics for everything. Also, having someone with over 200 edits and 1 month account abusing their rights almost as likely as having someone getting rights with the current system. bad_fetustalk 21:33, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. But who needs rollback tools that soon after they start editing? No one. So there's no reason to give them those tools. HaloTalk 21:40, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
You can easily gain 10 antivandal edits in 30 edits, and that's simply enough. I'm not saying that we should give them to all newcomers, I'm saying that 'crats should decide if they are eligible or not, like they do now. bad_fetustalk 21:46, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Actually they give it to anyone who signs the thing. Most people who find the thing have been around for a while and stuff so it's good. Also...most new people don't know how to do antivandal edits. HaloTalk 21:49, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call someone new when they have over 50 edits, and while most new people may not know how to do antivandal edits, not all users are like that, we have several users that have edited other wikis before they joined this wiki. bad_fetustalk 21:51, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Not new=/=you need rollback tools. Rollback is something generally given after quite a while. Anyways, this is fruitless, we both have good points. So unless you have some crazy card up your sleeve I'll be leaving it here. HaloTalk 22:06, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have always though rollback was just to easy to get, i mean i looked through the list and there were people there who i really wondered why they already had rollback. Also we are so stringent on who we give admin tools to you would think we would at least have some requirement to get the roll-back tool but not a request for rollback.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't see much reason not to. Our current requirements are too lenient. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 06:59, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

What requirement, are there any? (other than sign a page)Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:47, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
... exactly that. <_< To sign a page. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 05:35, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Support - I like the idea, but at the same time it seems to me that some users can prove they can be trusted in fewer edits than that. I would rather see a system that requires proof that you know when to use the tool rather than hoping that after 200 edits they figure it out from skimming a page about it. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:17, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

What about a combination? We could draw up some sort of "test" and you would have to answer what action to make. Also you would need a certain number of edits. No reason not to have them both. HaloTalk 12:55, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
But what would be the line between vandalism (rollback) or good faith (undo)? Everyone has a different line that good faith fails to explain the edit and it is identified as vandalism. Having a standard test with definite answers would make that line not as the persons. A written, explained, answer may do better, as the person can explain why it is what they chose. ~MuzTalk 12:58, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
That is a good idea. I know how much I hate multiple choice tests when you don't really like ANY of the answers. We could say "choose the best answer and explain why you picked it". It's going to be some work to set up, but if other people are on board, I could start on something later this weekend. HaloTalk 13:02, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Thats actually a really good idea maybe 10 questions and you need to get 9 right, and 2 weeks between attempts?Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 13:51, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
We can worry about the number of questions later. With this, are we going to make people who have rollback currently take this test to keep that tool? I would generally say no, but considering it is asking them whether they can make the calls on when to use that tool or not, I think we should (yes, myself included). This means the test would have to be sysop-made, and we assume honor system with other people's tests? Or we do them on something other than wiki (in game clan chats maybe?) just to make sure nobody copies other people's answers? HaloTalk 13:54, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe someone makes one with lots of questions and only a certain amount are used for each person, and it could be js meaning it is automarked ect, if we can get someone who know js to put it together.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:03, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's only so many scenarios that you can have. After that you will just be changing names of the people editing. Perhaps we could just make a page with a list of questions (that people could look at to know what to expect) and then people wanting rollback could be asked a few in game. HaloTalk 14:19, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - As we don't delete discussions, people could easily cheat, making the whole thing pointless. bad_fetustalk 21:51, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Chess, that's why I said "in game". Also, you don't need to put '''Comment''' on a response. HaloTalk 21:53, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't really sure which comment I was responding to, that's why I put that Lol. Anyways, I must have skipped the part you said ingame, sorry about that. bad_fetustalk 21:55, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Although I would like something similar to Wikipedia's permissions, I agree with these requirements. Not only because of the simple click, but because of current support of the noratelimit rights for rollbacks forum. Ryan PM 12:25, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think that Rollbacks should take/have a more active role on this wiki. --FarxodorTalk 15:10, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support, and Question - I agree that giving anyone who wants it could be dangerous, as they could do real damage. However, i have one question. I do not have 200 mainspace edits, will I lose my rollback rights?--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 04:23, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

See my answer to Elijah further up on this page. I don't think so; I think this will only apply to people that are requesting rollback as of now. Andrew talk 04:31, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support, and Answer - No, you would not. Firstly there's a thing called the Grandfather clause in which new rules do not apply to people who entered a system under old rules and terms. Secondly, from a maintenance standpoint, it would be a tremendous hassle on our few crats to un-rollback everyone who was rollbacked with under 200 edits. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:33, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the list, from a quick guess, only around 10 users or so would have this (and most of them are probably not active editors-and thus irrelevant for most of our purposes). But I still think people should have to take a basic test determine whether they understand when to AGF and revert with a reason/rollback. INCLUDING people that already have it. And also, I don't know if the Grandfather Clause applies as we are not wikipedia. But it should. HaloTalk 06:02, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Take a quick look at that article, Halo. It isn't a Wikipedia essay or policy. It describes what it means and gives some different examples of how it's used in real life. Andrew talk 06:32, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I knew it by what the article says. I just assumed it was a policy there. Does anyone have any problem with requiring people wanting rollback to have to take a (very) basic test to just make sure they understand. (Because right now you just must sign a page and say you want tools. You are supposed to read stuff, but there's no way to prove that you have or haven't done so. I'd be interested to hear more feedback on this. HaloTalk 07:00, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
I tried suggesting that at Forum:Rollback: prove you know when to use it over a year ago and it was basically decided that our bureaucrats shouldn't have to spend the time giving tests to everyone that wants rollback. Andrew talk 07:16, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it has to be a 'crat thing. Just a sysop+user in a separate clan chat, takes 5 minutes or so, then sysop could edit the page (such as having a requests page-semi protected+approved page-fully protected) and add their name to it. From there, they could request a 'crat to give them the tool. HaloTalk 07:22, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Not necessary IMO Andrew talk 07:45, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
No it's not essential. But I just thought it would be a nice "checkpoint" per se. Because I've a few people who use it incorrectly. HaloTalk 07:50, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
That's why I created Forum:Rollback: prove you know when to use it and it was decided that a quiz wasn't necessary which is why the page you have to sign was created. Andrew talk 16:12, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. We have tons of RC stalkers/anti-vandals anyways. So I'm not really worried about it. HaloTalk 16:14, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
If it did not work in the past or did not get approved then I doubt it will now. Anyway, like you said Halo, we do have a large amount of anti-vandals, a lot of experienced ones. If anything they themselves will see the wrongful rollbacks and leave a message on their page. I know I have left messages on new rollbackers. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 21:04, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Fishing.png NnK Oliver (600613) talk 19:10, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Ah, this is a fine line between balancing the "common good" with "individual rights", something politicians seem to fail at dramatically. As Degen mentioned in his proposal, vandal bot rollback attacks are very rare, and when they do happen, a simple block and a click of Quarenon's rollback all button will work. As I cannot think of any more pros to this proposal, and the one that is presented is weak, I cannot assign this proposal much merit.

Now, for the con argument. Rollback is a very useful tool in combatting vandalism. Any user that uses this tool has a much higher anti-vandalism potential, and so can combat any prospective vandals much more effectively. Restricting this tool to those accounts that are old and have edits is counterproductive, since not every person likes to edit. Some just pop in every now and then to watch for vandals, and so may not have accumulated the necessary edits in time.

I remember that I got rollback before I reached 200 edits (I think). I also know several others who have gotten rollback with a low edit count. Yet, not one of them has actually become a vandal. The time limitation isn't much better. Several accounts have received sysop in a month (I think Andrew is an example), and others have received bureaucrat in an amount of time not much longer than a month. Placing a time limitation just for rollback seems to be odd.

My main belief is that the bureaucrats who hand out rollback to people can accurately judge whether or not to give someone rollback. There is no need for these limits. --LiquidTalk 00:06, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that most 'crats aren't around enough to know users requesting rollback. They know nothing except what their edits tell. While edits tell some of the story they don't tell the full picture. If rollback users get the noratelimits right, we want to make very sure that the right people are the only ones getting the tool. And by right I mean people who will use it correctly. This would just be an added precaution that shouldn't inconvenience anyone needing the tool. HaloTalk 04:24, July 6, 2010 (UTC)


Request for closure - Almost everyone wants to have the minimum requirement for the rollback group. Not everyone is onboard with the quiz, however, we could compromise and call it "optional". When I next have internet access I will expand the questions so that they include more context. ajr 13:40, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Rollback Quiz discussion moved to Forum:Rollback Quiz {{Close|Almost everyone wants to have the minimum requirement for the rollback group. Not everyone is onboard with the quiz, however, we could compromise and call it "optional". When I get time I will expand the questions so that they include more context. {{User:Ajraddatz/sig}} 04:08, August 9, 2010 (UTC)}}

Strong Oppose - Shouldn't the crat handing out the tool look at the person's contributions? Now anyone with 200 edits who's been here for over 30 days can get the rollback tool - I think that someone like that who has made mediocre edits doesn't "deserve" (couldn't think of a better word) it as much as someone who's been here for 15 days or has 100 edits, but those are excellent, especially if those are antivandalism edits. I know this is late, but I'm not that active anymore and only just saw this discussion. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:14, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - This is tantamount to a Wikipedia:Vote of no confidence for the bureaucrats, and I am shocked that so many of you have supported this proposal. I've said before on a similar thread (on Forum:Additional requirements for the rollback group) that:

My main belief is that the bureaucrats who hand out rollback to people can accurately judge whether or not to give someone rollback.
— me

Is is mistrust in the bureaucrats' judgement that spurred this thread? --LiquidTalk 00:24, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

What judgement? They do not use any for handing out this tool. It is requested, a 'crat checks they signed in two spots, the 'crat enables the tool. No judgment involved. (Please note, I am certain all of our 'crats are capable of judging when needed, but in this particular case, they are not supposed to use any). If we implement this, at that time the 'crats will need to spend a few moments checking the contributors edits. This will actually be asking them to use judgment now, because we do trust it.--Degenret01 03:21, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - From now, all users requesting rollback require their account to be at least 30 days old and to have at least 200 non-user/user talk/sandbox edits (in a similar way to AotM and UotM, but a larger number), in addition to our current requirement of understanding and signing the page. Bureaucrats are free to use common sense and check contributions (or whatever) on a case-by-case basis where appropriate. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:47, August 14, 2010 (UTC)