"moderator restored to earlier version "

how do we gain access to this power? And shouldn't it show what was restored?

By being a moderator. No, there is no reason to preserve a record of vandalism. Doing so rewards the vandal.

Any chance that we'll get this ability to help restore after a vandalsm attack?

We are exploring offering users "curator" powers that include use of the reversion tool. We are not offering it for general use as of yet due to concerns about abuse.

Is this (in Wikimedia terms) a "rollback" tool?

The more people we can trust with it, the faster vandalism can be repaired, obviously. We're working out how to appoint people as curators. At the moment it looks like if we can get all the mods to appoint someone, then we can add that person to the group who can nominate and appoint new curators, making the group self-maintaining.

So far, we haven't had even 100% mod participation, so that idea may need some work.

edited 8th Nov '11 8:02:41 AM by FastEddie

Alright. Seems fair.

Yes, I think it is a roolback tool. It allows the user to pick an earlier version to restore as the current version.

Hopefully no legit edits get lost in the rollback >< that's where this can go badly with non-mods having access to it.

That's part of the problem; the other part is vandals using the rollback tool to commit vandalism.

vandals gonna vandal anyways, but I see how it could be a tech headache to revert reverts.

I'd rather reduce the vandalism, and right now, giving no regular users this power does that.

I could see Wiki Curators also getting this power, but that's it. They want what's best for the wiki, and that's our goal in general.

edited 8th Nov '11 10:40:18 AM by Hydronix

You can fix most vandalism pretty easily on your own, but a revert button certainly would make it easier.

It's just as easy for a vandal to abuse it too. It works both ways.

A powerful system needs to be trusted to those who aren't going to abuse it. Thus, Admin, Mod, Curator. If any random user can use it, that means that someone can and will abuse it. We both know it'll happen. There's too may trolls, and while it's sad, it's a fact that they exist.

Also, if it's that easy to do, then us regular users don't need this button. Let's keep in mind that the moderators/etc. are much busier than we are by default. They have many hollers to take care of. They don't have as much time as we do, so while they could use this, we don't need it in general. In other words, if laziness is the best reason to allow us to use it, then I'm just going to say no, we don't need it.

edited 8th Nov '11 10:49:25 AM by Hydronix

As far as I can tell, this is more of a Reset Button than anything else - all edits after the one selected are thrown away. An automated counter-edit function wouldn't need to be handled so carefully, but that's a lot more complex to implement.

Laziness is an excellent argument considering we aren't paid to do this. Anything that makes fixing easier is a good thing as it encourages more people to do so. I do see this being a very easy tool to abuse though, so I'm okay with it being restricted to trusted users.

True.

edited 8th Nov '11 11:13:55 AM by thatguythere47

Buddy, I'm lazy as they come, and no, it's not an "excellent argument".

The problem with that is that if we encouraged laziness, we're encouraging people to really not care what they put upon the wiki. It's a slippery slope by that alone.

The moderators aren't getting paid to do this either. And Fast Eddie is paying for this. If you want to enjoy, you should be willing to work for it.

Either way, I really doubt "laziness" is going to help in this situation. I don't even consider it a good reason in general for anything.

The point isn't to encourage laziness, it's too make it as easy as possible to contribute. I spend most of my editing time fixing mistakes or reverting vandalism. If I could save a few seconds per edit that adds up and I'll be more likely to do more work.

...Then why was your reason to have this because you're fine with laziness?

Anyway, I'm going to have to disagree there. There's a ton of people. It doesn't take very long, and it's extremely easy to do without a button that's easily abusable. Likewise, I find it easier to do the work myself, which is funny coming from a lazy guy. Also... a few seconds may add up, but that's not really enough to prove that all users should be allowed to use this. You'd still be getting just as much work done overall. Unless your computer lags.

To me, it's like giving a person a Cheat Device, telling them to only use it to improve the game by fixing glitches. Will they only do that? That's a negatory, captain. People will use what's there in a way they want it to.

So far...

-> Easy to use, especially if you're lazy.
-> Too easy to abuse right now.

I'm not seeing much of a reason right now that proves both wrong. You're right that you can do more, but how will this stop any abuse? The less bannings the better, after all.

edited 8th Nov '11 11:33:16 AM by Hydronix

Like I said earlier, I'm okay with it being restricted to trusted editors to avoid abuse. what are you arguing against, exactly?

That everyone shouldn't be allowed to use it. That one's asking for trouble.

Curators are pretty much "trusted editors" in general anyway. I'm fine with that too, but that's kind of the point of Wiki Curators, so it's done in general.

edited 8th Nov '11 11:39:57 AM by Hydronix

Then we're not really disagreeing. Okay, so what's a guy got to do to become a curator? hint hint, nudge nudge, subtle indication.

edited 8th Nov '11 11:42:30 AM by thatguythere47

Personally, I'd guess it'd involve a history of solid contribution and editing, and not actively advocating to be recognized as a curator.

Damn, I had already started working on my campaign posters.

@Eddie: Just to be sure we're on the same mental page, on Wikimedia platforms rollback doesn't just revert the article, but it reverts the edit history. That's how it's different from ordinary reverts, and why it gets restricted to sysops. (Rollback edit wars, a.k.a. "wheel wars", are punishable by immediate termination of one's sysop status with extreme prejudice)

edited 8th Nov '11 8:30:32 PM by Stratadrake