In particular, revisions whose parent IDs were messed up in pre-2018 undeletions should be able to have their parent IDs changed back to what they used to be. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I care about it. This is something I've occassionally come up against. As an admin, I sometimes want to know who created an article, or what state it was in as created as compared to now. Messed up histories get in the way of that and other investigative tasks. SpinningSpark09:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wishlist, not new features request. It is perfectly in order to wish for the tech team to devote more effort to certain bugs. SpinningSpark09:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: Global block reasons can't use any templates (since the block reason is rendered on the wiki the blocked user is visiting, and all wikis have their own separate template namespace). This means that the user (who might not be the intended target of the block) has to click to some Meta page to see detailed information about the global block that is preventing them from editing. For example, it would be useful to display templates like en:Template:Blocked p2p proxy directly on the blocked error message.
Proposed solution: Implement a way to display pre-defined block reason templates to users by rendering block reasons on meta. Alternatively instead of allowing use of arbitrary meta templates, implement a way to for stewards to configure longer block reasons on a Meta JSON page and selecting one of those on the interface (proposed by Legoktm on the Phabricator ticket).
Who would benefit: Users affected by global blocks (since the instructions they see will be clearer), stewards
More comments: The GlobalBlocking extension contains incomplete code to render block reasons on a central wiki (such as Meta), see phab:T243863 for details.
Kind of edges on global templates as a request, which skimming the Phab kind of looks like some similar concerns there, or at least which would exist if global templates were somewhere in implementation.
That aside, templated block reasons aren't well supported in some ways even today; en:MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown until recently had lint errors (and then someone moved it to plain text content model, which has its obvious downside of not tracking a link to the template in the page). --Izno (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the global block reasons can be logged in Meta, and a Meta page contains all the reasons, as stewards block user in a Meta-based interface. Thingofme (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: Currently all global blocks always block account creation. Stewards can only choose whether the block will affect unregistered or registered contributors (the so-called softblock or hardblock).
Proposed solution: In line with what happens with Special:Block, please add a checkbox to Special:GlobalBlock and give stewards the option to check or uncheck that box depending on the circumstances.
Who would benefit: Stewards as users of the extension; but all users too as we can allow account creations in case where the abuse exclusively comes from unregistered contributors.
Problem: Several requests for unblock cannot be handled in due time because of providers/tech depths of different organization mixing up networks which could legitimately edit the wikis with farms with open proxies, spam sources, etc. A quite common case are, also, private proxies on VPS or reverse proxies from different organizations hosted in third-party farms.
Proposed solution: create a Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist page where a global block can be revoked for a certain IP or subnet falling in a blocked range
Who would benefit: dozens of users caught by global blocks
The issue? Huge administrative overhead that stewards cannot bear. A quick example: a German free WiFi sharing project is routed through a series of proxies hosted in a bunch of blocked /16, an user asked us to be unblocked, so for each of these blocks I had to replace a single block with 15 blocks. Vituzzu (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so in that specific case, but that was just a simple example. I've seen countless private VPS, someone sharing the office with LTAs, etc. Vituzzu (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a generally useful and interesting challenge -- overlapping passlists + blocklists -- and a practical set of tasks that needs it. –SJtalk23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is sometimes also an issue on wikis (like the Dutch Wikipedia) where smaller ranges are inadvertently caught in larger (local) range blocks (unfortunately, locally in our case). A possible extension (once this could be stable... ) could thus be considered. Daniuu (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: When reviewing an IP's contribs, admins have to look in block history to see if there have been any recent blocks. When dealing with ranges (especially /64), this problem is worse. To see rangeblocks, admins must add /[16,32,48,64] and then go block (not block log because that only works on the base IP, not one within the range) to see recent rangeblocks. Even to see past warnings to editors in a range, admins must go to the range, scroll through and find individual IPs whose talk pages aren't redlinked, open a bunch of them, and see if there's been escalation of warnings over a recent time frame, and then go back to the first IP and warn accordingly.
Proposed solution: Add recent block information on contribs pages for admins to see, similar to recent change to Twinkle's block popup window, including rangeblocks. A similar feature on the contribs or talk pages for warnings should be great.
Who would benefit: Admins
More comments: This would be particularly helpful for dealing with LTA cases and vandals who jump IP addresses to avoid racking up warnings on a single IP.
Why limit this to admins? I reported an IP-hopping LTA today and obtained this information without sysop privileges; it was just rather tedious. Certes (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: Admins have the ability to mass-delete contributions of a user seen as problematic. This usually affects a large number of pages; currently it reads 'mass-deleting contribs of user Foo'. Having a templated reason that gets replaced, or a drop-down of common reasons would help.
Proposed solution: Either add a drop-down (with most common reasons, similar to QD), or provide a way that templated reasons get replaced.
Who would benefit: Admins: mass-deleting pages, users: knowing more precisely why the page was deleted
@Eptalon:Screenshot of the current last step of Nuke. can you be a bit more specific, what are the step-by-step directions you are currently using for this process? The "mass-delete" you mention above sounds like you are referring to Special:Nuke, provided by the Nuke extension. This extension already has the option to enter free-form text, solving the problem of admins poorly communicating. (See image below) Is there where you would also like to put a drop down box? — xaosfluxTalk00:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I delete a page, I get a drop-down with preselected ("quick-deletion") criteria. I was alluding to a simliar dropdown (in addition to freetext box you show)-Eptalon (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Over on the English Wikipedia I'm creating a list of deletions with edit summaries that don't refer to any standard deletion process, and mass deletions using Nuke are a regular appearance. * Pppery *it has begun18:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be me starting this, thanks Eptalon for starting this proposal. It indeed will help a lot in new users understanding the rationale of deletion if the standard drop down is used as there will be links to the relevant deletion reasons for most wikis. This will help in editor retention as newer users will have a better guidance on why their page is deleted than a generic mass delete or maybe even some reasons that isn't found in the deletion policy. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having some default reasons can be encouraging to leave an explanatory reasoning behind on why this page was actually deleted. The default "mass deletion of pages created by <user>" leaves anyone who wants to know why this was deleted as clueless as before. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: AbuseFilters are a great way of preventing problematic edits before they happen. However, guessing "problematic" is currently done using user segmentation, common phrases used by vandals etc. We have a much better tool to determine if an edit is destructive: ORES. If we were able to prevent all edits above a certain threshold, the workload on patrollers would be significantly reduced and, possibly, would prevent some communities from requesting and all-out IP-editing ban.
Proposed solution: Expose the raw ORES "damaging" score as a variable in AbuseFilter
Who would benefit: Patrollers and admins would have less work
More comments: Exposing ORES levels from the Special:RecentChanges interface (very likely, likely, less likely, unlikely) would also be OK.
I'm not an ORES architecture expert, but I think this would be a major timing issue. AF has to be real-time to work, having to wait for ORES processing would likely be a huge bottleneck on every edit/action made - since between clicking publish and your save committing the data would need to go in to and back our of ORES, then in to AF before AF can do anything with it. — xaosfluxTalk19:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since all edits pass through ORES, this should not increase global processing time. If you’re assumption is right, this feature would require to queue edits (so they could take several seconds to be live), but it is not blocking in my opinion.
@Pols12: AF is an interrupt, it will prevent saving an edit or present a warning to the user - it can't wait for ORES to process and also still do this. We're not going to leave our user sitting at a "processing" screen after they click publish - and once they left that screen it is too late to present them a warning. Now perhaps AF could add scores that ORES could use for things like deferred edits, but the reverse doesn't seem feasible. — xaosfluxTalk22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger problem is that right now ORES is working on revisions, not diffs. But since ores is good enough for en.wp RC stream, I expect latency issues only for the biggest changes. But if I'm wrong, maybe other solutions, such as auto-revert, can be considered. Strainu (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not missing anything, that's what I also meant by "ORES is working on revisions, not diffs". I suspect making an ORES API that can receive a diff will be the main software change of this project.
However, I don't expect this to bring along any latency issues. If ORES can work in near-real-time at en.wp scale, likely it can also be scaled to handle (in the worse case scenario) double the requests. Note that everything will happen locally (i.e. the same datacenter). A few hundred milliseconds of additional delay seems acceptable to me. Strainu (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have heard from the Performance team in the past that AbuseFilter is one the biggest slow-downs and causes of concern. I strongly suspect even a few hundred milliseconds is asking too much. As Strainu says, ORES would need to be first be able to accept raw content rather than just a revision ID. That alone I think makes this proposal out of scope for Community Tech, but it could deserve a spot in the Larger suggestions category (intended for things we can't do or promise, but still should have visibility to the broader movement). MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CAlbon (WMF) I'm not sure if you're the right person to ping about ORES, but if not maybe you know who we could talk to? I'm trying to find out whether this proposal is feasible. The questions are:
Is it possible to give ORES some wikitext and it gives us a score (i.e. before the edit has been saved)?
If it is not possible, how hard would it allow ORES to accept arbitrary wikitext rather than a revision ID?
In either case, can ORES be potentially a bit slow? Several hundred milliseconds, or longer?
The primary problem is speed, and I strongly believe the lack of speed is from I/O. When a request for a prediction for a revision ID is received, ORES hits the mediawiki API to get the wikitext, parses it, converts it into a feature vector, then serves it to the model to get a prediction. That is slow, obviously. Right now that slowness is hidden by pre-caching scores.
That said, with some changes to we could deploy a version of the model that accepts wikitext and scores it. I'll create a ticket for that and we can do a spike on it. CAlbon (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ORES has been incredibly useful for me, and over the years its scoring has become better. I would advise caution in using edit filters as it still has a fair amount of false positives, but that's not an issue with this proposal. Asukite (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: If I upload bad files, I cannot remove or rename them without the help of an admin.
Proposed solution: Users should be able to easily delete any of their own files, without having to ask someone. They may want this for multiple reasons. For example, maybe they improved in terms of photography skills, and took new pictures of something which are much better compared to older ones uploaded by them.
Who would benefit: Any user that uploaded files which they want deleted.
On English Wikipedia, at least, this is already covered by speedy deletion criterion G7, which allows editors to request deletion for their own work, but includes a safety: if deleting said work would be disruptive, then the deletion may be declined. This proposal merely takes the safety off of that process. As such, I can't support it. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}}15:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the main problem is that your file may be already used on a lot of pages, and once you delete yours we get a problem... even though I want to support it... Omer abcd (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's then to stop people with, say, reuploading File:Example.jpg as a "new version" of their file and then deleting old versions? If anything, that sounds like more of a headache. Worse, it would be trivially easy to upload a "new version" that's outright vandalistic and then complicate reversion of the vandalism by deleting old versions of the file. In the (rare!) instances where deleting old versions is desirable, users can ask any admin to delete the old versions under existing deletion policy (on English Wikipedia, at least). {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}}16:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a kind of vandalism that is also possible now from the end user's POV. The only difference is that it takes 2 clicks to fix instead of 1.Strainu (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could possibly be something useful in mediawiki, but I can't see it being useful in WMF wiki's that this project is mostly focused on. In most situations, once you upload a file you also attach a non-revocable open license - just like you do when you publish text. That being said, see also phab:T113508 / phab:T20572 that is related to this. — xaosfluxTalk19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Once you've published content under such a free license, you have [usually] given away your right to delete the content. This applies to Wikipedia article content and Wikimedia Commons images. Yes, the people at the English Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons are usually kind enough to perform reasonable deletion requests by the only author of a page, but they may also decline such requests for various reasons, including "the content is good, we want to keep it". There should be no technical tool for an uploader to delete their own content in a disruptive way. ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This would allow some kind of abuse, so we would limit it to: pages with less than 5000 links/tranclusions, 500 revisions, your own userspace and user talks, and user with the delete-self permission must have 90 days and 1500 edits. Also, if a page deleted by you, you can restore it (only in userspace) Thingofme (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea. External sites may be reusing content originally uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons and provide a backlink (caveat: attribution is explicitly required by some free licenses) to the original URL. Deleting files breaks this attribution chain, which is why Commons admins will decline author-requested CSD if the file has existed for more than a few weeks. -FASTILY02:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What if we made it within 30 minutes of upload? That way obvious errors and or mistakes can be taken down by the uploader. EoRdE6 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As on en:wp we delete on Commons such files speedily per request. So this proposal would be a good idea if there were additional restrictions: 1) The file must not be in use on any wm project, 2) it must not be superseded by a new upload of another image, 3) the upload must not be older than x days. That would save sysops some time. However, I don't think that creating such a special user right is technically feasible. --Achim55 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea, as per brion's two bug reports linked in the request.
Renaming / deletion should definitely be possible in the day after an upload; just as basic common sense. It's silly to have an arbitrary irreversible action that you could just have done differently on creation.
Renaming / deletion for a few weeks after creation also makes sense, if the file is not in use.
The arguments above are well-intentioned, but besides the point: a. Deletion doesn't change the license under which the deleted versions can be reused. It just changes whether those files/versions are visible to non-admins, or transcludable on other pages. b. Deletion is reversible, so there's a limit to how disruptive this can be. Conservative parameters (no older than a few weeks, not in use anywhere) + triviality of reversal would make the convenience available to all w/ little risk. –SJtalk22:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two reasons not to do this. Firstly, deleting images that were once on a page damages the history of the page, as does deleting old versions of an image in the file history. This especially should not be done with images that were once in article space, but even in the user's own space, this may not be advisable. If the user has been doing something unconstructive with images, it is not beneficial to allow that to be hidden from the community as a whole. If there are constructive reasons for deletion that can still go through an admin. The second reason is that editors who have lost disputes or had an article deleted sometimes try to "withdraw" all their work from Wikipedia by deleting it in a tantrum. It is not helpful if they have a deletion tool to help them in that. SpinningSpark12:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Users start to use the ability on malicious purposes. I have seen the users, who say: I have worked for years in Commons and uploaded thousands of files, now I will quit and want to delete all my uploads. This is the worst idea here. Taivo (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others' opposes here and in discussion. The license is irrevocable, so uploaders don't have a right or presumed ability to delete their files. We do courtesy, but we decline even that if a file is in-use, or someone happens to think it could be useful or a worthwhile part of our collection. I don't think we should default to assuming that uploaders know all about c:COM:EDUSE. DMacks (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If someone publishes a file under a free license, he or she waives some of the rights to the file. If the file really needs to be deleted, the rules present on many projects allow the administrators to quickly delete the file. Wostr (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's used by vandals. If there is a proper reason for deletion, we can be removed according to the wiki's policy. --𝑇𝑚𝑣 (𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑘) 00:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per others' opposes; abusable; since the file is irrevocably published under a free license, the uploader has no right to delete their file. – Aca (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - by the edit reason dropdown template, it says as "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.", so you have no right to delete it. Also, it can be abusive for large files. Thingofme (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose as an administrator in Wikimedia Commons I saw several times users requesting deletions of some, or of all, of their uploads just because of an angry time, e.g. after a dispute or a disagreement. Such files are sometimes used a lot of time and may be very usefull. This proposal is IMO a very bad idea. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose abusable, once a file is published under a free license, it's no longer up to the uploader to delete it - otherwise, it becomes a kind of "ownership rights". --L736Etell me15:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose clear-cut violation of our licenses. It might be ok for personal (but truly personal) files, but I don't see how these could be marked as such. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose think at a content for which the original poster wants to remove the provisions of CC-BY-SA... --.mau. ✉ 17:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Conditional on it being limited to some short amount of time, like ten minutes or an hour, after the initial upload; if an image has been up for weeks or years, allowing a feature like this could be extremely disruptive (and should go through a deletion process). JPxG (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Yep, conditional on it being limited to wash of some short amount of copyvio times are also good to me, like ten minutes or an hour after an LTA made their initial spam upload. No need to repeat me about how you think it's good. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Restricted to the first 30 minutes or a similar time limit. It could reduce distress if someone accidentally leaves private info in the meta data, or someone uploads an image as a joke and then comes to their senses. -kyykaarme (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have a bad day and want to destroy many WP-articles? With that idea we powered vandalism. Would be useful if only images can be deleted, that are not used in any project and younger than a week (misupload or testupload) or older than 10 years (e.g. quality reasons). --Quedel (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: Vandals frequently continues their behavior after blocks expire. ClueBot will start at level-1 warnings for IP editors after a block expires. So, after blocking an IP, admins must keep a tab open to follow up on that editor's edits once a block expires to watch for continued vandalism. The longer the block is, the harder this becomes. Watching talk pages doesn't help, though that's a checkbox in Twinkle's block popup window.
Proposed solution: Provide admins with option to be alerted if an editor resumes editing within a select time period after a block expires.
Who would benefit: Admins
More comments: This would be immensely helpful for tracking LTA cases. To distinguish this from Community Tech/Add a user watchlist, I'd request that this only be done on IPs and only available to admins, which I think Twinkle could manage. An alternative idea would be a "review edits" page for admins that shows diffs like Review Changes log but for recently blocked IPs.
Problem: When deleting a large amount of pages for the same reason by hand, having to open the drop-down menu and select the same reason over and over again is cumbersome and error-prone, especially considering that the deletion reason cannot be changed.
Proposed solution: Instead of always defaulting to "Other reason", the reason selected by default should be the one used in the previous deletion. This feature could be made opt-in so that it first has to be activated in one's preferences. The text box under "Other/additional reason" should keep being filled out the same way as without this feature.
Who would benefit: Administrators.
More comments: This feature could be generalized in order to pertain to more actions (such as moves or protections). The benefit is however arguably lower for those.
Not my problem. My web browser (Internet Explorer 11) automatically remembers 200 last reasons for deletion. And I like that. Taivo (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd do instead is allow the current deletion reason to be "locked in" somehow and then reuse that until the locking action is undone. I had a user script for that once, but it was quite crude and I have no idea if it still works. --Tgr (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this if it were an opt-in, but as stated it would be a permanent feature. I would only want it turned on if I was doing some kind of mass delete. For instance, when I delete a prod or a csd, the deletion reason is automatically copied from the proposal template. I would not want that to be overriden. SpinningSpark11:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We (nqowiki) needs an administrators who can help patrolling and protect against autobiography writers and blanking articles and vandalism and more... ߒߓߋ߫ ߝߏߝߣߊ߫ (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: Vandalism takes lots of time to identify and revert.
Proposed solution: Being able to fight vandalism without leaving the page you are on; for example pressing diff brings a drop-down that will allow you to rollback/revert and see the diff view on the same page and being able to warn after rolling back without going to the user talk page. I often find edits that are not vandalism and I waste around 30 seconds finding it isn't vandalism and going back to recent changes.
RedWarn had a dif viewer from the recent changes page at one point, however it has since become broken. Don't know when it'll be fixed but if I were to guess it'll be fixed in the next RW version. Blaze Wolf (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is true! And I'm aiming for it to work (at least in a basic form) on every Wikimedia wiki that supports CentralAuth, with more advanced features such as warning and reporting etc available with custom algorithms for that Wiki. You should keep an eye on Teyora if you're interested. Ed6767 (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo Have you enabled Navigation Popups in your Preferences? Doing so let’s you view Diffs / Hist etc with a simple mouseover. What I hate at Recent Changes is that clicking a diff link doesn’t open a new tab, but takes you away from Recent Changes, sometimes making it a long-winded process to return.. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're referring to something like Huggle (or a similar, web based version like SWViewer)? Or RTRC for an all in one page solution, which is compatible with Twinkle. You can also configure RedWarn to not open the user talk page after rollback. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs19:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RedWarn is only used on enwiki and we can't use RedWarn in other wikis. Also, I like web-based version, because it's easier to use and we only need to log in via OATH. SWViewer is a better way of doing this, but we have to gain the rollback rights, similar to Huggle. Thingofme (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Powerful tools like AWB or Huggle are sometimes locked behind manual approval. This is due to the damage these tools can cause in the wrong hands, and their performance at making mass edits is part of the danger. There is no need for a new tool – your argumentation just displays a need for access to the existing tools. ToBeFree (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zippybonzo: I agree with others that there are better tools out there for counter-vandalism. Twinkle is just Swiss army knife that has some counter-vandalism features, but it wasn't designed solely for that purpose. What I'd like to do is find an actionable from this proposal, or confirm if other solutions work for you. As a (pseudo-)maintainer of Twinkle myself, I think issuing a talk page warning at the same time you rollback edits is something we could do. Would you like to reword your proposal to be about just adding this feature? Or do the tools others have mentioned satisfy your needs? Thanks, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Ed6767! @Zippybonzo: We've been exploring Twinkle's functionality as potential features for our team to build into MediaWiki more directly. What pages are you finding a need for this on, Special:RecentChanges specifically? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF) Yes, Special:RecentChanges, it takes a long time to revert things like that. Moderation tools would make my life and everyones easier. No specific asks but some improvements would be nice. Twinkle has some features that I would like to use more often but since it takes a lot of time to use I prefer redwarn as it is faster. Thanks, Zippybonzo (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear @Samwalton9 (WMF)'s team has this on their radar! I'm assuming then it would be good to let this go through the survey, so we can get community feedback? I do think we should remove any mention of "Twinkle", however. With your permission, @Zippybonzo, would you mind if we rename this proposal so that it doesn't mention Twinkle, and that it's more explicit about what you're asking for? I'm thinking something like "Revert edits and warn vandals from recent changes". Does that sound okay? MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tools said above, Twinkle, RW, Huggle among others, provide a powerful interface and abilities to fight vandalism. The rollbacker user right allows for a faster reverts and can be used by these tools. One who patrols and fights against vandalism might want to use these. There is no need to reinvent the wheel DaxServer (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - this is a bug MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 22:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Per above, absolutely no reason to "fix" parent ids, should be archived as soon as possible. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Saad Nabbi (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
17:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Weak support but only if restricted to a limited time-frame (such as 30 minutes - 1 hour) KylieTastic (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Strong support InvadingInvader (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
