Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Rewrote page

I almost completely redesigned the page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header. Feel free to revert or make any additional changes as you see fit. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, it loos great! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of access

I've created a section so users can request removal of their own access flags. It's important that this section isn't used for misconduct purposes, and only when the user requests their own removal. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And I am assuming we will address misconduct as we do currently, at such places as ANI or are we going to have a heading here for that? Tiptoety ^talk 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think misconduct should be handled here. It's doubtful anyone but admins watch these pages. –xenocidic (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I am just trying to think of how to reduce the drama associated with removal of rights, and discussing it at such places as ANI really does not help. Tiptoety ^talk 02:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we want to reduce drama, but I actually think there;s been very minimal drama when we've removed rights in the past - AN/I has actually worked quite well for once! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I suppose informally it could be discussed here from time to time, I guess it would really depend on the situation. –xenocidic (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the case load is going to get much larger now that there is not just rollback, we will just have to wait and see I guess. Tiptoety ^talk 03:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there should not be 2 sections referring to removal of access. I'd suggest removing it from the header, and just leaving a subsection at the bottom for this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Template for use on page

I created a template, based on Template:rfr, for use on this page. Take a gander at Template:rfp and let me know what you think, or just fix my mistakes yourself. (:P ) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is overly complicated. No need to specify which type of permission within the template. Just a general one will do, as the users will add their request to the appropriate section of the page. So, basically, I think we should use one identical to RFR, except simply change the one link from 'give rollback' to something like 'modify user rights'. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought it would make it easier for the admin to know what to look for right off the bat. I'll add a note saying the "permission desired" bit is optional, but if you (meant as both singular and plural) still think it's too complicated, I'll remove it entirely. (Sorry, I like fancy templates, and I never have a chance to make them...) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I like fancy templates to; just when they are necessary. I think it is no problem for admins to see which section they're in. That's just me though; what does everybody else think? - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rjd here, there is no need to make it more complicated by having three templates when it could be done with one. I would hope the passing admin would be competent enough to read what heading they are under to know what right to grant ;) Tiptoety ^talk 03:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ran into a major technical problem, so I removed the parameter. I will update Wikipedia:Requests for permissions right after saving this. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW, I'm dumb. Ryan P already had separate sections for various requests on the actual page. Sorry for the confusion/wasted time. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy Meta

Meta permissions format. Seriously. It's quite simple. I support the idea, and support the meta format. Keegan^talk 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's basically the same as the meta page and would work in exactly the same way. Users request a permission, an admin approves or denies it and we quickly move on. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

More bureaucracy?

What this project needs is less, not more, bureaucracy. This page should only add to the "fill out form J23, get it signed by the Cleaning Lady and then stamped by three overnight supervisors". The current system works just fine. Don't add more bureaucracy to en.wp. Bstone (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(Sheesh, away for a week and it seems I'm following you around in places I want to reply. I swear I'm not.)

I would disagree with this if the form were fashioned after the meta requests page. Streamlines the process on a page instead of different ones- such as if meta had different pages for admin, de admin, oversight, etc. Kinda removes the paperwork. Keegan^talk 06:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this just helps admins start using the same playbook when granting ACC, as we (pretty much) do when granting RFR. –xeno (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how this creates more bureaucracy. We are not creating a new process, we are expanding and replacing an existing one. If anything, we are making less bureaucracy because we will now have a centralized place to ask for account creator rights and rollback rights. The number of pages we have for such things will remain the same, since if this proposal passes, WP:RFR will be retained only as a historical archive. Previously, to ask for account creator rights, you either had to ask an admin directly, or you had to ask on WP:AN, which clogged up the noticeboard even more than it already is. It's not like people won't be able to ask admins directly after we make this page, and having this page will remove the need to ask on AN, thereby removing some of the long-ishness of that page. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you pulled this "more bureaucracy" from, but I invite you to look at the page again. That doesn't make any sense at all. This page will work just like WP:RFR already does, and has worked for months. The only difference is that the page won't be just for the rollback flag – it will be for any admin granted right. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

IPBlockexempt

I'm rather uncomfortable having IPBlockexempt here. That should really be the type of thing that is only handed out after a checkuser has verified both the need and that the user isn't socking. The current WP:RFR page is very fast-paced ... a request left there is considered and approved in 20 minutes usually. A cursory check at a user's contributions is all that is necessary and there is no need for a detailed review of the applicant. But the IP block exemption is something that isn't really suited to a drive-by evaluation. My fear is that having it on the same page would result in admins just rubber stamping requests. It may not happen right now, today, but think about a year from now - the context of this discussion is going to be lost and if all someone sees is these three permissions people are requesting on the same page, they are going to treat them all with the same amount of thought. --B (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Having it on this page will actually ensure it is given out properly. Currently, userX goes to any admin page and asks. Several admins regularly review the list of users with the flag, and we're usually pretty good about who gets it. I don't think this will be a problem. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a bad idea. IPblockexempt should be handled by CheckUsers or the unblock list (IIRC that's what its policy says, too). —Giggy 04:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy is correct. From Wikipedia:IP block exemption, on how to request it:

"Request IP block exemption as part of an unblock request. Administrators granting this right may sometimes need to consult a checkuser to confirm the problem, or may wish to obtain further review by posting the request onto an administrative list or page for discussion if unfamiliar with the case."

Can someone else remove the IP block exemption part from this page? I really have to get to bed now; it's 1:00 in the morning for me. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done by NVS: [1]. —Giggy 08:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Another reason not to have it here is similar to the reasons I mentioned above. Having mentioned to one of those aforementioned badge seekers that they don't need to seek a 'crat to receive account creator because admins can grant rollback, acc, and ipblockexempt, his next goal was to attempt to acquire ip block exempt. So, support removing it from this page. –xeno (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Yes, it's very sensible to have a checkuser double check the situation before handing out IP exemption status. That's a reason to write up appropriate page rules, post a formatted caution, and visually segregate that op request from the rest of the page, but not to remove it entirely. It is also eminently sensible to have one centralized location for permissions requests--especially because a well laid out umbrella location is easy to research and remedy in case any errors occur. Strongly recommend putting IP exemption back in, and adding appropriate caveats/formatting to ensure it's handled properly. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I do as well - We could make it a condition that a CU must be contacted to confirm the request and other rules. It'd certainly be a better place to request it than the unblock mailing list - keeps thing transparent. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as long as there are appropriate checks and balances to ensure it is not handed out lightly. Tiptoety ^talk 03:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done

I've done all the redirects and archiving and link updating and brought this page online. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, has anyone made a announcement at AN? Tiptoety ^talk 02:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

{{youdoit}} MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

{{fine}}! :P Tiptoety ^talk 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Has anyone contacted the owner of the RFR bot? And if so are they going to have it begin arching requests over here? Tiptoety ^talk 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RFR Bot died when ST47 was kicked from the TS, all work there has been done by hand for the last several weeks, you might find someone willing to host a new bot though. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that User:SoxBot X has been doing it... Tiptoety ^talk 02:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Pinged Soxred. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I have set up talk page archiving. It is currently set up to archive threads idle after 1 week. Feel free to modify the time or to even remove the bot. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 06:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I'm going to increase the time to about 2 weeks just for now, so that people have time for review the discussions that led to the page and how it is currently handled, etc. –xeno (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

People who treat account creator like a badge

Ok, I guess this is as good a place as any. I've been noticing people who tend to view account creator permission like a type of badge. They do the minimum required to convince an admin to grant it to them (which ranges anywhere from just asking for it, to one day up and creating 6 accounts and saying "hey, I hit the limit!"), and then once they have it, they throw a userbox on their page and never participate in in the ACC process again. What about some kind of note that it will be removed from people not participating in the ACC process? Am I overthinking this? –xenocidic (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope you're not at all - it would be good to remove the permission if user don't participate at all in account creation requests. If they are active, but don't reach the limit, I'm of the opinion that they should keep the limit "just in case", but if they don't help out at all, they have no need for the tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - even if they're creating a few accounts per month I say leave them with it, but literally I've seen people create 6 accounts, receive flag, throw up userbox, never create an account again. Not even an exaggeration. –xeno (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Slight change to reflect this. –xeno (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

On the same note, adminship should be removed for those admins who don't participate in admin activities. See the parallel? Bstone (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Or how about we just up the requirements, only allowing users that have a history of account creation work and will clearly continue to do so after being granted the flag? I mean treat it like adminship in the sense that once you have it you have it (unless there is abuse) and just because you are in-active does not mean it will be taken away. Honeslty, keeping track of what users are using the tool are what users are not sounds like a nightmare and I would just rather take the time to really check to see if the user will in fact use the flag. Tiptoety ^talk 03:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

People really should not be granted it unless they are consistently hitting the limit. There is no shortage of people creating accounts, so if somebody hits the limit one time, I don't think they should be given the flag. It should be a regular thing (at least a few dozen account creations before they're given it). However, as always, admins should use their judgment, and discretion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and as such I think there should be some kind of requirement for being granted acct. creator, I mean if you have only had a need for it once I highly doubt you will have a need for it all the time and as such only active users should be granted the flag. Tiptoety ^talk 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I just figured if we put some kind disclaimer then people might not apply just to have an honour badge. Not like we actually have to enforce it =) –xeno (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I may just have to much confidence in my fellow admins, but I think (hope) we can use discretion, with no need for disclaimers. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough =) Feel free to revert or tweak the change I made there. –xeno (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No need for evidence they'll hit the limit everyday, just evidence that they'll create account - it doesn't matter if they don't hit them limit, but if they're creating accounts for ACC then there's a chance they'll need it. It should be removed from users who no longer need the tool however. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there does not need to be evidence they will hit the limit everyday, but evidence they have and will take part in account creation often. That said I really do not see the need to take the tool away from someone who has proven to be active at account creation even if they choose to take a three month brake from volunteering there. I mean once a administrator has proven he is trustworthy and has a need for the tools we do not take them away from them. Tiptoety ^talk 03:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I agree with Xenocidic in the fact that, yes, some people may create about six accouts for the sake of "earning themselves a badge", but there are other cases, where Wikipedians and administrators may work extensively in one area of Wikipedia, before trying out another area and lending their hand there. At the same time, the area in which they previously specialised is rarely visited by that user for a while. I mean, for example, I was once one of the most active participants at WP:F1, but since becoming an admin I went through a long period of inactivity at WP:F1 while concentrating on more admin-related areas. Even now, I only visit it occasionally and lend a hand when needed, but I still consider myself a member, because I have done a lot for that area of Wikipedia and still drop by to help. That could easily be the case with account creation here, and mustn't be confused with those who just seek a "badge". That is, we have to be careful about removal of rights and that. I hope people understand what I am saying... :S Lra drama 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Completely understand, and if I saw that someone was active with acc before and after receiving the flag, then I would probably say leave them with it. But if someone has not created a single account since being given the flag, it's clear they've treated it as a merit badge and moved on to the next flag/barnstar/award. –xeno (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes, definately. Yes, as you said, it is in those cases where corresponding action should be taken, but not in the cases as I have stated. :) It would just need careful consideration to reach the right conclusion. Lra drama 12:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Agree totally. If there is evidence that a user is putting their flag to good use, (or at least they used it a lot at some point in the past) I see no reason why admins should remove the account creator right if there is no evidence that the user is treating it like a badge,. That would look really weird on their log.

(00:00, June 31, 2010 AdminX (Talk | contribs) changed rights for User:J.delanoy from (Account creator, rollback) to Rollbackers ‎ (User no longer actively participates in account creation)

J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, I guess I just think that if we only give it out to those who will clearly not use it as a trohpy than we can aviod ever needing to take it away. {{Nutshell}}: Make requirements for acct. creation only allowing users to be granted the flag if they have a history of acct. creation work. Tiptoety ^talk 01:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Test case

Ok, we've got a user requesting who has hit the throttle with 6 accounts. So do we send him away, tell him to keep doing 6 a day for a week, or do we AGF and grant it on the understanding it will be removed if ACC activity drops off? –xeno (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC) (for the record, I am in no way indicating this user would/is treating it like a badge, I just think we need to come to some kind of consensus on how to Done and Not done these things.)

Done. Hit the limit, [2] clear good faith account, zero reason to deny and the flag can simply be removed sans-drama if it has to be. That's my outlook anyhow. Leaving report up for themoment so others can comment if they wish. Pedro : Chat 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. IMO if a person hits the limit and is a trusted user, they should get the flag. But if they don't create accounts ever again after receiving the flag, it should be removed. As you said - no drama - just "user no longer active in ACC process". –xeno (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think having to remove it would create more drama than just denying the request in the first place with a friendly note to come back after a few more days of work so that we can be sure they will actually use the flag. Tiptoety ^talk 05:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job

I just wanted to drop a note here and thank those involved for doing this - it was a good initiative to merge the different permissions mechanisms together and streamline the process. If anything, it reduces instruction creep. People don't get thanked enough for putting things like this into practice, hence the (somewhat belated) thanks. Good job, all. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 21:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I take full credit. Barnstars can be directed to User ta... just kidding. yep, kudos to the person who had the idea, and for everyone for pulling it together so quickly. –xeno (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

~~::Yes. Everybody who has been working on this (Xenocidic, Tiptoety, Ryan P., and anybody else)... Great job! - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)~~

Don't forget j. delanoy he did a great deal of reworking on the header. –xeno (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And who made it LIVE and closed RFR and changed all the redirects and links in policy? I guess it was a gnome. MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail at thank you's apparently. So, thank you to everybody who edited, or had some part of these pages: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions, and WhatLinksHere. Also, everybody who had any input or opinion on the process as a whole. I hope that's better. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, then:

Drinks all around, on me! =) –xeno (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty impressed at how quickly the whole thing was brought together, ammended and then put into operation. Well done everybody! It's been an extremely efficient and productive process. :) Lra drama 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome ;) No, but really this is how Wikipedia should always work..go team! Tiptoety ^talk 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a model of efficency and excellent result in minimising bureacracy. Stunning effort. Can I urge the team involved to take a look at another area where their skills would be particularly useful ..... :) Pedro : Chat 07:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep great job everybody! Gary King (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(To Pedro) Yes, I understand what you mean! Seems nothing gets sorted out over at RfA without a large-scale fight, but, I think most of those involved here work over at RfA too ;) ;) ;) Lra drama 09:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

OK, one of the subpages is named Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header (with "Header" capitalized) and the other is named Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/header 2 (with "header" not capitalized).

We should probably be consistent, so, should we have the subpages capitalized or lowercase? My personal preference is lowercase, but what do you guys think? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the other subpages are capitalized as well, i've moved it to /Subheader (header 2 sounded weird). –xeno (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad.. Tiptoety ^talk 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Protect the main page?

We had to subpage out the different sections to make it easier on the bot, and despite my non-subtle hidden cmt warnings, people are still adding their requests to the main page. Should it be protected to sysop only, or can someone suggest a better way to get people to the right subpages? –xeno (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording on the header and then I did this. Do you think that is too much? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

heh... i dunno, we'll see if it works. –xeno (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. If that doesn't work, I guess the only thing that will work is physically preventing them from editing the page, which is what you suggested in the first place. BTW, I figured out what was wrong with the template, and I fixed it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. Frankly I'd prefer not to have to protect the landing page, but if the requests keep coming on the wrong page, it might have to be done. Is there any way to supress the edit sections for everything but the transcluded pieces? –xeno (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Artichoker[talk] 15:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that could probably work, does it render properly on all browsers? –xeno (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(@ J.delanoy) It's kinda' hard for me to see. Is there a denser symbol than the $ you could use? --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually make it, I copy/pasted it from an ASCII art website. I'll see what I can do, though. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(@ xenocidic) Well I have now made the links even easier to see by adding them to the transcluded pages as part of the header, and it renders perfectly in both Mozilla Firefox and IE 7. Artichoker[talk] 15:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(to lifebaka) OK, I used "@" instead of "$". Is it dark enough now? If not, I can look for more "exotic" characters. I just wanted to avoid that if I could because I don't know what character sets other computers have.

(to Artichoker) I like it. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Cheers! --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup I think this all worked out nicely. Also I would like to point out that I changed all of the headers for the permissions to level three so that all requests are automatically placed on top. Cheers, Artichoker[talk] 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Time acted upon requests should remain before archive

I think it would be a good idea to add a time limit a request must remain on the page before it is archived. The whole purpose of this page as I understand it is centralize the requests and provide more oversight of who is receiving certain permissions and whether they are needed. The current system encourages archiving as soon as being acted upon. This does not really lend itself to greater oversight. We could require the acted upon requests to remain on the page for a day or two like RFPP and then move them. This would give others time to see if the permissions were being dolled out "correctly". KnightLago (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree in that there should be a delay before archiving. But, not a delay before action is taken (i.e.: done, or not done). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am only advocating a delay in archiving after some action has been taken. KnightLago (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I wasn't 100% sure. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I say that at least an hour is needed before requests are archived, if not more. Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What about a similar archive to RfPP? Once acted upon, they go to "fulfilled/denied reqests" where they remain for a while, before being deleted. Obviously for permissions requests, they would be archived rather than deleted, but having a "fulfilled/denied requests" section will separate the acted upon/not acted upon. If one or more is contested, they can be brought back for review. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking. KnightLago (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(<--) So it is. :) Sorry, I missed that bit. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just notice here, I think 12-24 hours would be a good lag time to let admins who know about a problem user have time to spot a right's grant before it slips into the archive abyss. MBisanz ^talk 21:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Soxred to move it down to a "Processed requests" or something and then shuffle it off to the archives after the 24 hour time period. –xeno (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Proc created for this purpose

Rollbackers and administrators

I'm probably late to the party on this, but sometime during June, the number of rollbackers surpassed the number of administrators:

Rollbackers: 6958

Administrators: 833

Has the person who won the rollback sweepstakes been given their award yet? :) Acalamari 19:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Good

Why not keep all of these requests centralized? This makes for better organization in the long run, and I can't think of a single downside to this. It is also great for 'accountcreator', as there is currently no central means for requesting it (other than "ask any admin"). This page can be expanded in the future, when there are more rights of this type. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I do agree. I normally watch WP:RFR and this page can be much more organized to handle all rights at one page. But ,ay I ask, what will happen to WP:RFR if we start using Requests for permissions page? -- RyRy (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably just redirect it to this page. It will be obsolete. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine then. I think it's a good idea, but more comments besides me would be much better. 3 people isn't enough. Cheers, RyRy (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Me like - sounds like a good idea to me, I do not think there was even a way for users to request acct. creator (other than admins talk pages). Anything to make my watchlist smaller is fine by me ;) Tiptoety ^talk 01:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support better to be centralized. The archives should probably just be on a daily log instead of having separate archives for failed and passed however. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as the history of Wikipedia:Requests for rollback is preserved, then yes, I support this. Acalamari 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, it would be, it would simply be a historical archive of previous requests. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, but we should probably create separate transcluded subpages for each permission to make it easier for bots to handle. –xenocidic (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Central location should make it easier for people to find what they want. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support per my above comments. -- RyRy (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support A good idea to address our growing userright's system. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - good idea. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Like the idea, much better to have an official place to request permissions such as account creator. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I think this is a good idea. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - having things more centralised like this creates less confusion and makes everything easier to navigate. I think this is a good idea. Lra drama 10:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Support. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Obviously useful so people can quickly vote. rootology (T) 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've got this wrong. There will be no voting, nor discussion from the general community. See how the current WP:RFR works for example; a user adds a request, and an admin comes along and either approves it and grants the flag, or denies it and does not. There is no reason for any voting of any kind. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Sounds like a good idea being that it would make requesting Rollback or Account Creator permissions easier and everything could be more centralized. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical, but (eventually) real situation

When a person with account creator or rollbacker status gains adminship, should that account lose the ACC/rollback tool(s)? Firstly, because admin status grants these tools automatically, and renders these tools obsolete. Secondly, if the account loses admin status due to controversial circumstances (ArbCom, compromised, etc.), then presumably the former admin (in this case) shouldn't be trusted with these tools either. —Kurykh 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Crats do this already when promoting people, and if admins who don't know better add it themselves, I or another admin usually lets them know and removes it. MBisanz ^talk 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Most bureaucrats already remove the redundant rights when they promote an editor to adminship to avoid overlapping userrights. With a desysopped admin, it depends on which tools they abused. If they were desysopped for abusive use of blocks and rollback, then giving them rollback would be a bad idea; but if their rollbacks were good, and were desysopped for other reasons, then there's no reason not to give them rollback. There are a few former admins with rollback rights. Acalamari 23:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then my issue is moot. Thanks!—Kurykh 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually most fail to do so, and I often find myself going through special/list user:syop and checking for admins with rollback rights and removing them. Maybe someone could drop a note a BN asking that all 'crats just remove the rights when promoting? Tiptoety ^talk 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary to post any messages to BN, and most bureaucrats actually do remove the redundant rights. I've personally asked bureaucrats who haven't removed the rights to consider removing them in the future, and they said they would. A message to BN was done once, I believe, but little came of it. In addition to rollback and others being redundant to admin, the log entries showing certain admins being changed from "sysop, rollbacker" to "sysop" were clogging up the rights log. Acalamari 16:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the section for removal really necessary?

I'm not sure we need a whole section for requesting removal of access. Has a user ever really requested removal of a rollback or acc flag? Needlessly bloats the page imo; we should just add a quick one-line that says "should you wish a flag removed, contact any administrator" as we had at the old rollback page. Again, I doubt any user would ever request a flag removed and if they did want it removed, I doubt they'd do so here. P.S., I overhauled the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header, if someone wants to take a quick look and make sure it all still makes sense. –xeno (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that section could be removed and a note stating that the user should simply contact an administrator should be added. Nice job with the overhaul too, looks a lot cleaner. Artichoker[talk] 18:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, no objections from me. Removal of rollback can be done by any admin, usually the one who grants it. Furthermore, requests for removal are rare, so a section on this page is unneeded. The header's great, by the way, a lot cleaner as Artichoker has said. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... this is

Done and the header has been updated accordingly. –xeno (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And now for something completely different (Shortcuts)

I think we should redirect WP:PERMISSIONS here. It's going to some low-traffic page and there's no incoming links for WP:PERMISSIONS other than the target page itself. I suppose we could settle for WP:RFPERMS but then it sounds like we're running a hair salon. –xenocidic (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Support redirecting WP:PERMISSION and WP:PERMISSIONS here. We could add a note on the top of this page pointing to the existing WP:PERMISSIONS, and we should probably redirect WP:RFR here if this proposal passes, to make sure people come to the correct place. As for a shorter one, WP:RFP already links to a much more high-traffic page. Unfortunately, I think we're going to have to use WP:RFPERM and/or WP:RFPERM. (*sigh* The sacrifices we must make to further the pursuit of free knowledge... :P ) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not? Tiptoety ^talk 03:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally like to user WP:PERM. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
PERM, RFPERM will be fine. Also, can re-redirect RFR to here also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I redirected WP:PERM to this page, since it was not being used (and I'm tired of typing out Wikipedia:Requests for permissions...). While doing so, I discovered that Wikipedia:Requests for permission (not permissions) does not redirect here. If this policy is adopted, it should be changed to point here. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that ever WP:X page has an associated WT:X page that should also be redirected. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done it for WT:PERM. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFR (once this page is approved and operational) should only be shoft redirected here with a {{historical}} template added to the page. Tiptoety ^talk 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I restored the redirect Wikipedia:PERMISSIONS to its original purpose, but figured I'd better follow through and see why it was changed. I seem to have found it. :) It has long been listed in the shortcuts at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, and when the redirect was repurposed, that wasn't changed. Given that "s" at the end of the word, I imagine that altering preexisting practice is probably all right, but I'm inclined to think that the matter should be mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Requesting copyright permission prior to implementing a change at least to give those of us who work copyrights a heads up that we might not be directing people where we think we are (and also to allow us to change that document). :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A hatnote on the top of WP:PERMISSIONS seems more appropriate. This redirect is established for that page, and this page already has a number of redirects. Support Moonriddengirl's decision, at least until consensus is reached at the talk page for WP:PERMISSIONS. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. WP:RFPERM makes more sense and we also have WP:PERM. xeno (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rfr

This template is currently redundant to {{Rfp}}. I propose that it's redirected to Rfp, in case it is inadvertently used again. Thoughts? PeterSymonds (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea - there's clearly no reason for it now. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to redirect this when we first started at RFP, but I forgot. I've went ahead and made the change. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ACC too restrictive?

I know it's important not to treat flags as status symbols, but is it too restrictive? For instance, User:TrustedUser decides s/he wants to do something different, and goes to ACC. They hit the limit; darn. If they are trusted, there is no reason for them not to have the tool. I don't think it should be limited to those who regularly hit the limit. Thoughts? PeterSymonds (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's been arguments from both sides at #Test case. Personally I'd prefer to, as you say, grant it out somewhat liberally to those who have been here for at least 6 months and demonstrate need. But I'd also like to see it removed (without drama or damage to the person's reputation) if they then stop participating in the ACC process. Per "no status symbols" and also, there's other important reasons not to leave someone with the ACC flag if they're not using it. –xeno (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC) (For the record, the test case has been very active in ACC after receiving the flag, creating 10 accounts the next day, so clearly it has been a net positive to grant it quickly rather than forcing them to hit the limit for a week).

I'm beginning to wonder if it might help if the rollback/acc categories and userboxes were nominated for deletion. Might cut down on "badge seeking" if there were no "badges".--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It might be useful for those who don't know about Special:GlobalUsers to use the categories and userboxes. If we delete everything that might be (ab/mis)used as a status symbol, we might as well blank all our user pages. —Kurykh 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that discussions like this are actually what makes the ACC flag really a status symbol. It would really just be better if any user who can prove he is not a vandal be granted the flag regardless of whether he has even shown the slightest interest in creating accounts at all, that would take away the status instantly and the ACC flag is not exactly dangerous is it? I believe it was created more to stop vandals from creation an account vandalizing once, moving to a different account ad infinitum. So what if some users try and treat it as a status symbol anyways? The ACC userbox does not particularly impress me when I view a userpage. - Icewedge (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not quite true. It definitely needs to be restricted based on need. –xeno (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Xeno on this one, and feel that the balance is probably right at the moment. Just as rollback is granted to trusted users with some experience reverting vandalism, ACC should be given to users who show that they have an interest in helping out by creating accounts. I am a little concerned about removing ACC from people who no longer use it though. This isn't from a technical standpoint, as there are clear security benefits from doing so (coroirations tend to do this sort of thing all the time), but because it's inconsistent with rollback and sysop flag removal. My gut feel on this is that we should go for consistency first, then look at how we handle inactive permission handling as a seperate item. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 06:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, rollback would be immediately missed by someone, but the ACC flag (if they weren't active in the ACC process) they would never notice. –xeno (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)+

This is the way I see it; Even when a user is well trusted, we restrict +sysop from them when they have no experience for obvious reasons, we restrict +rollback from them when they have no experience in vandal fighting because they may not know when rollback should not be applied, but why should we restrict account creator for lack of experience? The harm someone can do when using account creator through ignorance is minimal. The only possible way I see, is that, someone out of ignorance could be creating WP:U vio's, but even with out ACC they would already be able to create up to six WP:U vio's and if someone was able to create more than 6 improperly named accounts without getting a query on there talk page or realizing hey maybe I should not be creating User:fuckfuckfuck than I would be quite impressed. - Icewedge (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

16:18, 2 March 2006 Fuckfuckfuck (Talk | contribs) ‎ (New user (Talk | contribs | block))

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Although wait, if the proposal to allow ACC to override anti-spoof goes through then, yes, I think we should start becoming a little more selective.- Icewedge (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its pretty much a given that it will happen. Why should we wait until after it happens? Its not like users who get it before the new right is added won't get the new right. Mr.Z-man 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on granting rollback

* This discussion actually occurred around a user's request, and I thought it might be best if it was transplanted here, and perhaps continued. –xeno (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

{{not done}} Your account is a little new, and we can't judge your use of the tool would be appropriate. Suggest WP:TWINKLE or WP:UNDO for a few weeks and then come back again Fritzpoll (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this reasoning. They could easily use Twinkle or Huggle, why not allow this? John Reaves 04:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is a powerful tool and users must demonstrate they can properly identify vandalism from good faith edits. –xeno (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore Huggle is restricted to users with the rollback permission. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning, all autoconfirmed users should be promoted to the Rollbacker group, but they aren't because of how powerful the feature is. I have restored my template, and would rather you'd come to my talkpage to notify me that you were disagreeing. Still, ho hum Fritzpoll (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is meaningless and harmless, the only reason to deny it is if someone obviously has ill-intent with it or someone has a history of poor reverts. Why would I come to you talk page when I intend this to be a public discussion? John Reaves 18:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant to let me know that you were disagreeing with it - I missed this on my watchlist! Public discussion is quite correct, and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. My comment to your statement is simply that if a user has next to no edits (this user has 57 at the time of writing) then we can't ascertain if they understand the difference between blatant vandalism or not. I don't see the problem in suggesting going a way and getting a bit more experience before coming back in a very short timeframe. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I just want to make sure people don't start taking rollback seriously, that's all. Back when it started it was a little less bureaucratic, I don't want to see too much process or requirements sneaking in. John Reaves 19:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's that big a deal - especially not as it can be taken away just as easily as given out. Glad we got that sorted out! Fritzpoll (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ever since the advent of huggle, I think we've gotten a little more selective in assigning rollback because of its potential for misuse due to carelessness or simply misunderstanding when rollback may be used. –xeno (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The key thing is not the granting - it's the removal. Pretty much since the first month of Rollback being available to non-admins removal has not even needed a debate at WP:AN or WP:ANI - poor use gets the right removed with a polite note to the editor, advising they can appeal at ANI and possibly with a note to the admin who granted the right. Pedro : Chat 20:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with granting IP block exempt

Resolved

– Never mind =) –xeno (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never handed this flag out before, can someone take a look at this thread and see if giving it to the editor would be appropriate: Wikipedia:AN#User hit by Scibaby rangeblock. –xeno (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rfp

I have just added another parameter to Template:Rfp so that now the second paramater specifiys exactly which right is being requested e.g. {{rfp|USER|RIGHT REQUESTED|REASON PERMISSION IS DESIRED}} instead of {{rfp|USER|REASON PERMISSION IS DESIRED}}

The old template

User:Example

Example (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

The new version

User:Example requesting Rollback

Example (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign Rollback)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

If anyone has questions feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer them. Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary, since we have separate request sections for rollback and account creator. It only adds a bit more clutter. —Kurykh 04:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had originally done something similar, and it was decided that that was more complex than necessary. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not necessary, or else we wouldn't need sections for specific requests. We don't need any instruction creep. Artichoker[talk] 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, though it was a good idea in principle. The section headers cover the type of permission, however, and having permissions jumbled up at the time of requesting would be unnecessarily confusing. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So that's why the extra parameter should be removed. After reviewing this further, I strongly oppose the change. For instance, if I was requesting account creator rights, do I write that with the space (account creator) or without (accountcreator)? This is getting far too complicated and is becoming what this page intended to fix; an overly complicated process. Artichoker[talk] 12:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(<--) I've restored the previous version per above, and let Soxred know. Just as a heads-up to all, every time the template is updated, Soxred93 should be notified first, because he has to make the necessary behavioural changes to the bot. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Soxred is gunna kill you guys =) –xeno (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Xander756's request

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drama-llama. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved extended discussion from WP:PERM/Rollback. –xeno (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request rollback powers be reinstated. They were stripped earlier under false pretenses that I was using them to edit war when I was acting under good faith and the belief that I was reverting vandalism. If you look at my history of reversions you will see that I use rollback to patrol recent changes and have fixed dozens of vandalized articles. I would like to have rollback again so that I made continue with this work. --Xander756 (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- He needs to be checked into as I believe that is not all he uses it for.Swampfire (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not done The tool has just been removed and edits like this [3] are excatly when rollback should not be used. I suggest you use undo for vandalism for the time being, and remember to discuss changes on talk pages rathern than just reverting them. Pedro : Chat 07:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained why that reversion was made. The users account was less than a week old, had a history of making edits that were reverted and edit wars, and removed referenced information without any given reason. Removing referenced information without reason is vandalism no matter how you cut it. At the point of using rollback, I was under the impression I was dealing with a vandal, not an argument. As you can see through the edit history on that article, I switched to using the undo function once I found this information out. I was using good faith and you should reward someone not punish them for this. Rollback should not be used when it is clearly not vandalism but as I have explained, I was under the impression that it was. Therefore, how can this be defined as "clearly" not? I want to re-request it once again. --Xander756 (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not done Your vigorous defence of your actions regarding rollback misuse is concerning. Removing referenced information is certainly not clear cut vandalism. I've done so myself; I wouldn't want to be reverted. Furthermore, rollback is not an award; it's a technical tool, that's all. I suggest working with twinkle for a while to demonstrate a clearer understanding of when rollback should and should not be used. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I vigorously defend an action which is inappropriate and unfair? I was using rollback in good faith which the admin who retracted the tool has even admitted himself. When you have taken off referenced information did you provide a reason or just sneakily remove it? Not only that but I checked into the user before reverting and his account was less than a week old with a history of edit wars and reverted edits. The statement that rollback is not an award but a tool should further my argument because it being taken away as a punishment for something would imply it is an award, wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander756 (talk • contribs) 17:19, July 30, 2008 (UTC)

Since you've had rollback revoked, this is not the correct venue to ask for rollback to be granted. You will need to take it up with the admin who removed the rollback rights from you. –xeno (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page he said that I could ask other admin. Now I must ask him? Which is the correct thing to do? --Xander756 (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it appears that you've asked and been answered. Use Twinkle to rollback appropriately for a few weeks and re-apply. –xeno (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. If I'm supposedly not trusted to rollback any edits what difference would it make between using rollback or twinkle? The suggestion seems to discredit the decision to remove rollback at all. --Xander756 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

← Twinkle gives you the option to mark an edit as "good faith" , "vandalism" or "somewhere in between" (with an edit summary). You need to demonstrate that you can appropriately identify between the three. –xeno (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it doesn't make sense to say I should use Twinkle. If I am not to be trusted to rollback any edits, I should not be trusted to use Twinkle either should I? I have already demonstrated that I properly use rollback. How long have I had it? A year? I have reverted dozens if not hundreds of instances of vandalism with it and when I make one that someone deems controversial it is immediately stripped? I have argued that the revert was clear and blatant vandalism and the reasons why it was. I can no further "prove" my judgement as it's already been proven. It would be like asking a decorated police officer who has an incredible track record without blemishes to prove he can make good decisions. It's illogical. --Xander756 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(my e/c reply on the main page)(←) Twinkle is a good way to demonstrate differences between rolling back vandalism and undoing faith edits. Furthermore, rollback isn't a sign of community trust. You used it badly, albeit in good faith, and it's been temporarily removed in order for you to further develop your understanding. Four administrators have now declined to summarily restore your rights, and I think you should take that on board and re-apply in a week or two. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It still hasn't even been shown why it was a bad decision. I have argued the facts that it was a new user with a poor history removing referenced information without any reason given. Why exactly would this NOT be considered vandalism? --Xander756 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Native non-edit summaried) rollback should only be used for edits that are so clearly vandalism any user would agree. For example, almost every edit in this scenario (except for the edit at 11:18) can be considered "plain and obvious" vandalism. This is not. –xeno (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Because it simply might not have been. If it doesn't look like a clear and deliberate attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia, don't rollback. This wasn't clear-cut, and therefore rollback should not have been used. My explanation would have been "see WP:RS, this statement was backed up with a reliable source and therefore does not need to be removed" or something. Rollback should never be used liberally. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And why would you disagree that a new user with a poor history removing referenced information without any reason given is not vandalism? It is curious why you are skirting the question. I think that the problem here is that the admins involved are letting their judgment be skewed after witnessing events that happened AFTER these rollbacks and so really have nothing to do with them. This represents very poor judgment on their part and they are acting as if they happened as part some edit war. --Xander756 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you aren't admitting this was misuse of rollback isn't really helping your case here. Subtle vandalism and plain/obvious vandalism are not the same thing. Rollback should only be used for the latter. –xeno (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your attitude doesn't help your case either. It forces me to uphold that this decision was a correct one. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't admit that it was a misuse when I'm not even told why it was wrong. I'm beginning to think nobody here even knows which only supports the case that this was a mistake to remove it.--Xander756 (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Rollback feature. For ease of reference: Rollback must only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism. This includes edits that are obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject. ... If there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back, please do not use this feature.. –xeno (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please listen to what I am saying instead of trying to brow-beat me. There was obviously no doubt about it. In what situation would a new user with a poor history removing referenced information without any reason given not be considered vandalism by anybody? Again, you are letting the events that happened after this event distort your judgment and I think you need to re-examine the issue. Not to mention the fact that other users have said (on the subject material) "obviously you were right".--Xander756 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no familiarity whatsoever with any events that happened after this reversion, but I did just notice while reviewing your contribs that there's an ongoing AN/I discussion regarding edit warring and restricting your editing, so that thread should probably run it's course before we even consider granting rollback again. As far as you continuing to claim that this edit that you rolled back was vandalism - that may be so - but if so, it was subtle vandalism, and should not have been rolled back using native rollback. –xeno (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So then even if you would concede that it was vandalism you would take away rollback rights from someone for reverting vandalism? That is very contradictory. And yes I know of the AN/I since I was the one who reported it. I don't think I have ever seen an admin de-powered because he was currently fighting a vandal. Why should I be?--Xander756 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you aren't reading what I'm saying, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Subtle vandalism and plain/obvious vandalism are not the same thing, and rollback should only be used for the latter. –xeno (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am reading what you are saying but it just doesn't make sense and I'm trying to get you to see the fallacy. If you were to concede that it was vandalism then it would be plain and obvious by definition because you would be saying that it was indeed vandalism, thus there's no question if it was or not. Follow me? Either you have to argue that it wasn't vandalism at all or it wouldn't make sense to attempt to argue at all. --Xander756 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Plain and obvious vandalism doesn't need explanation. Otherwise, it wouldn't be plain and obvious. If I looked at this edit, I wouldn't think it was vandalism. In fact, there was even an edit summary that described why he was making the change. –xeno (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The equivalent of "close but no cigar" counts as a valid edit summary now? Boy have times changed since I came back from a 2 month break. Seems you and the other admins weighing in on this have contradicted themselves repeatedly. Basically this is just a big FU to my anti-vandalism efforts. Isn't wikipedia notorious for having a vandalism problem? I wonder why you would be so quick to get rid of those helping you? Hopefully someone with a clearer mind will reply if I ever want to help wikipedia fight off vandalism again. It's gone from a simple mistake to a putative action. Seems like rather than humble up and admit a mistake was made you would rather just sweep me under the rug. That's fine. This has gone on long enough and I will not help where I am obviously not wanted. --Xander756 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be the third admin to say

Not done. This did not merit rollback, and actually required an edit summary saying how it was necessary to rollback what seems to be a replacement of one name with another. This didn't seem like vandalism; more like a clash of opinions. Speaking of clashing, from what I'm reading above (from you and from others), it seems like you were engaged in a content dispute with Swampfire, a situation where use of the rollback tool is inappropriate. Using the tool in good faith is one thing, but using it correctly is another. —Kurykh 18:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That first link you said was a mistake. If you look at the edit history, which you should have done, you would see that I even admitted that was an error. I didn't mean to rollback let alone even revert that edit. As I also said, the content dispute came AFTER these rollbacks, not before. Therefore letting it affect your decision is very poor judgment. --Xander756 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

and these? [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] –xeno (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The first two seem fine to me, but they could have used an edit summary. —Kurykh 18:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[10] is changing to a racist term.

[11] was nonproductive

[12] was false information

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegeta&diff=prev&oldid=195381501 user was blocked for these edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=198314947#PlayStation_3 as per consensus on that pages discussion page, all additions must be referenced by an outside source else be subject to reversion. one was referenced with a wikipedia page and another not referenced

See? All cases of blatant vandalism. Why can't you just accept you were wrong instead of trying to grasp at straws? But as I said I'm done with this. There's no use in arguing with the ignorant. You believe your title makes you infallible so there's nothing I could say or do to change that. Have a nice day, sir. --Xander756 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

By aggravating some of the most active admins here you are only shooting yourself in the foot, Xander. I think you probably should have been warned before the tool was removed but many of those reverts are a violation of WP:ROLLBACK. I trust that this discussion has given you a good understanding of rollback policy however so go get TW, make 50 reverts, show you have learned and then come back in a few days. - Icewedge (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Icewedge, you should know that no admin gives back the rollback tool a few days after the tool was taken away unless the removal of the tool was an error in judgement. —Kurykh 18:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Rollback requires an extremely basic judgment call to use appropriately. The ignorance of policy that is usually behind misuse of the rollback tool is easily corrected. Refusing to give back the tool even after an editor has learned borders on unnecessary punishment. - Icewedge (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Although, yes, I do know that the admin cabal will be unlikely to re-flag him after only a few days. I am sorry for presenting my opinion as fact. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. But, honestly, if he can show he has learned why not? - Icewedge (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because a few days is not enough to tell whether the user truly knows about the correct use of rollback or not or if the user is doing it just for looks. It's not a punishment sort of thing. —Kurykh 19:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. I won't be re-applying. If wikipedia staff would like vandalism on the site then who am I to disagree with them? --Xander756 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Save the drama for your mama. I recommend to you (again) to cool off. Wikipedia is not worth the stress that you appear to be experiencing. Keeper ǀ 76 19:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the first one then. But you still have not explained the second link. Not only that, but words do not define when an edit war starts; actions do. Looking at the history of Forrest Griffin, edit-warring arguably started at your first or second rollback of Swampfire. You talked to Swampfire on his user talkpage, saying you used rollback to revert because he "wasn't discussing." That is not what rollback is for. —Kurykh 18:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view this is now resolved. Xander756 is not re-granted the tool for the time being, and is urged to consider using other tools to make similar changes. Rollback is not a big deal, and neither is its removal. Repeated protests by Xander make it appear that the tool has become a big deal in his/her opinion, which makes me even less inclined to re-grant. There are some other conversations going on regarding user conduct that relate to this case, but they are not relevant at this time, and for now I feel this thread is best ended. Pedro : Chat 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving requests

Is there a reason why the bot is not archiving requests that have been handled? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Soxred93/Archives/07/2008#WT PERM / SoxBot X. Hopefully things are stable so that once he gets it sorted, we won't break it again? –xeno (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 1