Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Putting the key in the ignition does not pass your driving test...

I have amended the Rollback section - I believe it now more concisely reflects our understanding of what we look for when responding to flag requests. Hopefully it will reduce unnecessary requests, for instance, this chap, with 11 edits to his name (none of which are tackling vandalism), requests Rollback - his tenth edimnmt being firing up Huggle, the eleventh, um, his request. WilliamH (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ROLL

I've noticed that the shortcut redirect WP:ROLL redirects to this page, supposedly because the Wikipedia:Requests for rollback page is inactive. Since it redirects here, shouldn't it be redirected to the Wikipedia:Rollback feature page instead? I was also thinking that it might redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, as the Redirect shortcut used to point to the inactive RfR. SchfiftyThree 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, it will make some conversations (such as User_talk:Mister1nothing#Rollback) a bit out of context but it does not appear to be heavily linked so that problem is minor. - Icewedge (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be changed to the rollback page. Like WP:VAND redirects to WP:Vandalism not WP:AIV. – Jerry^teps 07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It should redirect to Rickroll. — Werdna • talk 13:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a coffee roll would be tasty during this discussion. MBisanz ^talk 13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has objected I have been bold re-targeted the redirect. - Icewedge (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

I would eventually like to apply for the NewPageWatcher. My preference page tells me I have 503 edits. However, the counting tool tells me I have 452. Which one is right? RockManQ (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your preferences pages includes edits to pages that have been deleted. It does not really matter though, 500 edits is only a guideline. It is weather you know what you are doing that is important. - Icewedge (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. RockManQ (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

New anti-spoof changes

Cross posted from WT:ACC

Now that those granted with the account creator flag can ignore the anti-spoof, I propose that the flag be given out way less erratically considering the possible consequences. Am I right in assuming this new feature is more damaging than rollback? —— RyanLupin • (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this (in addition to the other aspects of ACC) means that we need to be very selective. –xeno (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback on WP:AN

Just to give a hint to this discussion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback on WP:AN. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback -- do I have it? Inconsistant

I have been vandal fighting for a while, and I think I used to have rollback. I still sometimes get the rollback links when I view histories, but they appear inconsistently. Can someone check to see if I have it, and if so is the code correct? Cheers. Digital^Ninja 01:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you don't have rollback enabled for your account. – RyanCross (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Sighter

Could a new section be added, per Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Trial? Thanks GTD 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus for the granting of such a right, just an essay proposal. What are we meant to be doing? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Header

I'm not quite sure why my changes were reverted. This isn't a policy and there was never specific consensus for the header content in the first place. Why does it need it now? My text is much more inline with Wikipedia:Rollback feature which makes no mention of these random restrictions on "need" for rollback and unlike the header, is an actual guideline. I have to say I'm somewhat offended by the "Never seen you there, btw" comment. I don't see what that has to do with anything, but I was fairly heavily involved in the discussions in January that led to non-admin rollback (I have 86 edits to the proposal+talk page, and at least 48 other related edits). AFAIK its always been that anyone who wanted rollback, wasn't a vandal or edit warrior, and showed that they were competent in editing was granted rollback. If that's no longer the case, and experience reverting and "demonstrated need" are actual requirements for rollback now, its a rather disappointing turn of events. Mr.Z-man 21:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're discussing a standard to grant rollback, it should generally be quite liberal, and that was my practice. If the user had more than 100 edits (yes, for reverting vandalism, I feel that is enough if the reverts seen are fine), a clean block log, no edit warring with the undo tool, and some of the things mentioned above, it should be granted. The standard for granting rollback is steadily increasing, and that is not a good thing; it does nothing more than undo, except revert the edit(s) with one click and leave an automatic edit summary. Rollback is not a community-given tool, and one does not have to earn trust for it; trust is given per WP:AGF. it can be removed extremely easily, sometimes without warning (where it differs from +sysop). Rollback really is no big deal compared to other user access levels. That's my view anyway. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Granting rollback is no big deal. It's removal is a moderately large big deal - the problem is that the "easy come easy go" philosophy is generaly getting lost on WP and this tool is being perceived (wrongly) as a "right of passage". However admins serve community expectations so good admins will try to reflect current standards. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The main issue I have is the change in wording at some point to require a "demonstrated need" for rollback. While this has always been a requirement for accountcreator, I don't see why its necessary (or even desirable) for rollback. Mr.Z-man 21:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The job of this page is to provide guidance for users, which want to request rollback. Therefore the page must reflect common practice and not something that was decided a year before — With all due respect, but that would be utterly ridiculous given the aim of this page. Having that said, I am going to revert the changes. Generally speaking: Tempora mutantur, yeah, really, they do — and it's the best to accept that :). —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Are the current standards based on what the community actually wants, or just what people have been doing since an undiscussed change to the header some time ago added these random requirements? Mr.Z-man 21:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a difference? Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the latter shouldn't be locked in by reverting all changes to the header. If people follow whatever someone writes in the header, why shouldn't people be allowed to change the header to change what peopla actually do, if the change would arguably be better? Mr.Z-man 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not going to answer your question (now), I just want to emphasise something: This question is completely irrelevant in view of your changes, because, as I explained above, the job of this page is to provide guidance for users, which want to request rollback. To serve this aim it would be completely pointless to change the page in this way, as —not reflecting common practice— it could no more provide any guidance. Actually, the other question is: Where is the point in your changes? Where is the point in granting rollback to a user, who has, let us say, in his last 1000 contributions 3 reverts? Where is the point in that? Sure, there would be the risk that the user —not having any experience in reverting vandalism— misuses the tool (reverts good faith edits, etc.) and causes harm. However, is it really that what you want? Another thing is, as I said above: Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. And that's good. In January the tool was AFAIR introduced. It's completely normal that some things changed since then: Things had to change since then: Talking about things in theory differs from the practice (!). That's just a matter of logic. Practising the tool over the time since January it's just good that there were gained some new experiences. Therefore, even if this was decided in January, the practice has changed the rules. That's called development. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Development in a direction away from WP:AGF and toward bureaucracy and WP:CREEP is not a good development. Mr.Z-man 22:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What about answering my questions and not ignoring them and the bitter truth? —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What about trying to be a little less offensive? The bitter truth? That Wikipedia is unable to not be a bureaucracy? That I'm a terrible admin? What? Why does there have to be a point? What's the point of denying them? Are there negative consequences from someone getting rollback but not using it, or only using it rarely? No, if they use it just once its a net positive. Mr.Z-man 22:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please explain me why you permanently want to see something offensive in my comments? —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm completely dismissed because I'm not active recently on the page, now instead of getting a reply to my comments, I'm accused of ignoring your comments (which is coincidentally what you did with regard to me in your last 2 comments) and told I'm ignoring the "bitter truth." I'm sorry, but just saying "With all due respect" doesn't mean all your comments have appeared especially respectful. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as far as I can see you ignored all my arguments completely until now and keep claiming that the rules would be bad. Although, just to mention that besides, nobody has complained about them until now and they worked quite well in the daily business. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you want to protect the rules that much, I really don't have the time to argue this. If others want to continue discussing this, the following is a summary of what I've noted so far:

• Originally rollback was given to pretty much everyone who asks for it. This process is used successfully for at least 6 months.
• At some point (between July when RFR was changed to this, and now), the header was changed to require a "demonstrated need" for rollback.
• At some point, admins started requiring a "demonstrated need" before granting rollback.
• Its unclear which of the above 2 events happened first.
• Changing the header, or trying to reduce the restrictions on rollback, is apparently now forbidden.

--Mr.Z-man 00:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-requesting after being denied

How long should a user wait to re-request a permission after being denied?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Which permission? For example if it was AWB then wait until attaining the required number of edits. If rollback, time is lees important than showing use of WP:UNDO and other vandalism reversion. If ACC try clering at the board. Hopefully the declining admin will have given an indication of why the request was declined to help. Pedro :  Chat  07:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

Are there any guidelines that demonstrate of getting this feature? We have a template notice that gives idea an user not to use it improperly. However, I have noticed some users request (most them are newly registered user) are being declined because of not having sufficient edits or other policy reasons. Other Wiki tools, NPWatcher and Autowiki Browser requires 500 main space edits in order to get these features. So at least by me, there should be a section which would express some guidelines of getting rollback feature, such as the number of main space edits an user made, whether s/he has reverting experience (by using "undo" or other wiki tools). If that is added editors would be beneficial before making requests. --NAHID 09:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously referencing rollback. I've come to the conclusion that some guidelines (and I mean guidelines not hard and fast rules) would help for many reasons. There are a number of admins who clerk the PERM board who I would like to add some input. I'll notify them. Pedro :  Chat  19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploader

How do you apply for the "Uploader" user right? There is no information on this available here or Wikipedia:Uploaders. I don't see that this available at WP:PERM either. There is a new user at the help desk asking to upload images without the normal procedure of autoconfirmation, so can anyone help here? Cheers. Chamal ^talk 12:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think Brion VIBBER (talk · contribs) configured it already and there was no discussion on how it should be granted, so it is not listed at WP:PERM and I doubt people know it exists. It can't be granted by admins at the moment and I doubt by crats, but I'd just ask Brion if I were you, he has to know it (seeing that he implemented it). Regards SoWhy 21:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the configuration as to who can grant it is undecided. Therefore it remains an unused right, and only stewards (who can modify all rights) can grant it. This will be changed when there's a decision about who should be able to grant this right. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

From my personal experience, Stewards are extremely reluctant to give out this right, even with good cause. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does this one user have it? User talk:Heathermtimm. She doesn't show in the meta rights logs or local that I can see[1]. rootology (C)(T) 07:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Brion VIBBER granted this right: here (local user rights log). I'm not sure if this user right grants more than normal uploading, but I can't imagine why it wouldn't be one sysops (admins) shouldn't be able to grant here (other than the technical issue of it not being configured presently). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for rollback hidden message

On the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback page, there's a hidden message with a big STOP sign with instructions on how to make a request. Since there's a special message that appears at the top once you click the Edit tab/link, should we stick with the special message or the hidden one? SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I made it look nice a bright :) Any improvements can be made at {{RFR edit-notice}} which is transcluded on MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Requests for permissions. I did this so non-admins can edit the header. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit was undone (apparently because it's a "high risk"). Personally I agree with your edit, this is a wiki, why should it be hard to make changes to things like this? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And I undid User:Aitias's edit. It is a little absurd to say the edit notice for this page is "high-risk." It's one page that is rarely visited or edited, and it's in the Wikipedia namespace. I'm open for discussion, but as you said, this is a wiki, we shouldn't be making it hard to edit these types of pages. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollbackers who have had the permission involuntarily removed

Wikipedia_talk:Protected_editing_rights#Rollbackers_who_have_had_the_permission_involuntarily_removed - this topic may be of interest to readers of this page. Discuss over there. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revision reviewers

May as well start the discussion since we're getting Flagged Revs at least in trial per Jimbo. This is the place to request non RFA/RFB permissions. So, whats the criteria for being a Reviewer? What does German use? rootology (C)(T) 02:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

According to de:Special:Listgrouprights, autoconfirmed users can automatically mark revisions in non-main namespaces patrolled; move stable pages. Sysops can add and remove the 'editor' group and mark edits as patrolled. Bureaucrats can grant and remove the 'reviewer' flag. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is not necessaryly how it will be set up here. See here Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 02:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that all rollbackers automatically become reviewers (according to Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Trial#Technical implementation), I'd say we grant reviewer status the same way we grant rollbacker status: Easy to gain, easy to lose. If someone seems trustworthy enough, give him the right, if someone abuses it even slightly, take it away again. --Conti|✉ 12:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is reviewer status automatically granted to those with other flags, such as administrators and bureaucrats? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Rollbacker's, admin's, and 'crats...(and pretty much anyone that is signed up in the WikiProjects for WPBIO and WPVANDAL? (Minus the people in the list above "involuntarily removed"...I would like to propose that "new" requests or requests outside of these other groups: A) must have been part of a related WikiProject for a year AND B) have at least 1000 edits (with NONE being flagged as vandalism)...or they can go request rollback? Would we ever split Rollback from Review? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Header

I reverted the header per the discvussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archives/2008/December. I really don't see a consensus there (plus current practice) for the "demonstrated need" requirement. Garion96 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you had read this discussion before reverting, you would have noticed that there was no true consensus at all. To the contrary, the concerns raised by Pedro and me there have not been addressed — not even a bit. There is no basis for your changes. — Aitias // discussion 14:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no basis for yours either. Which I noticed you nicely reverted again. The "demonstrated need" was not there in the beginning and there is no consensus for it. Garion96 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what do you mean by the "demonstrated need"? I can not see anything like that in the current version... — Aitias // discussion 15:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Found it. I agree with you and thus I have changed it — do you think you could agree with this new version? — Aitias // discussion 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Slightly better, but still too bureaucratic. First RFA turned into "a big deal" and now this. It should be that rollback should be given to someone who "can be trusted not to abuse the tool". Garion96 (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider, Garion96. One "can be trusted not to abuse the tool" just if they can "demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting" (i.e. they need some [usually something about ~100 reverts] history of vandalism fighting) so that they can "discern between good and bad faith edits". I don't think that's neither "bureaucratic" nor a "big deal" — really not. It's just reasonable. Again, I respectfully ask you to reconsider. :) — Aitias // discussion 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference is getting smaller but I don't think I will ever change my mind. Granting rollback is no big deal, neither is removing it of course. Just look at the user and look at his history and see if he can be trusted with it. If he made 50 vandal reverts, you can't give rollback because he needs a 100? That example is of course exaggerated, but it the reason why this version is the better version. More common sense and less rules. Garion96 (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(<--) Just a point that's sometimes forgotten, any autoconfirmed user can get their hands on some powerful scripts, far more powerful than MediaWiki rollback. Twinkle, for example, has rollback, warnings, mass-delinking capabilities, CSD, AIV, RfPP links all in one. Anyone can use that after just four days and 10 edits. Rollback in comparison is rather minuscule in my opinion, but I won't make a comment on the current wording. I mean, who reads that stuff anyway? ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just a heads up my colleagues, but this also relates. Given rollback now appears on your watchlist and on RC Patrol WP:BEANS applies but it could be a lot more easy to use malevolently. I agree with Garion96 that granting rollback is no big deal, however in reality it's removal is - it can cause some misery to the editor who had it, lengthy ANI etc etc so better to get it right first time and grant it with at least some discretion. "Need" for it is one thing, but to be honest if all an editor ever did was clear out some white space and rearrange the TOC I'd be questioning why they wanted the tool as well as needed it. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some notes

There have been a few things about rollback grantings that I've been thinking about for some time, and I wanted to voice them here to hear some other people's thoughts on them.

1. Why do we tell new users who request rollback, but are declined, to use undo or Twinkle? While I see no problem with advising them to use undo (it's a good starting tool), but why Twinkle? I don't understand why we'd decline them a less powerful tool and then tell them to practice reverting vandalism with a more powerful tool in order to get the less powerful tool. Has rollback become a "rank" among certain granters?

2. Again, this is with new users. When one is declined rollback, they are often advised to "come back in a few months" when they have more experience. I find this strange; why are we advising users to come back in a few months time for a tool that could easily be mastered carefully and correctly in a few minutes? A few months is normally the time between RfAs, not rollback.

3. I've noticed steadily increasing standards for rollback in the last two or three months. While I agree that we shouldn't grant rollback out to everyone, I don't understand why the standards for rollback have been increasing, yet rollback removals are rare, and (as mentioned in #1) we tell users to practice with Twinkle. It seems that any small mistake a user makes can sink someone's RfA, and now that mentality seems to be spreading to the granting of rollback.

Note that I'm not criticizing the standards or conduct of admins who grant rollback. I'm simply seeking opinions on some things I've been thinking about. Thanks in advance. Acalamari 20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting thing that I've been observing about for a while. I think Twinkle in itself is a very good starting point for active vandal-fighters. Most people apply for rollback these days to use Huggle, which is much more powerful than Twinkle in terms of what it can do. Someone who wants to use a tool like that may find Twinkle a slower starting point. It's certainly no rank. The idea that rollback has become the "first step to adminship" is not particularly valid, and shouldn't be, but unfortunately that is how it's seen among some.

Months is patently ridiculous in most cases, but I can't remember seeing this. Do you have an example? I usually recommend a week or two for newer editors, and I think other admins do as well. Removal of rollback is indeed rare, but its removal is a relatively big deal (at least two of my removals were done during large discussions at AN/I). Thus I like to see some evidence that the user understands that rollback is used for blatant vandalism (either explicitly in their request, or inexplicitly through their contributions).

Essentially this informal process was given community go-ahead because it was understood that rollback would be an easy-come-easy-go tool, granted with WP:AGF in mind rather than the "trust" factor discussed at RfA, for example. I still believe it is an easy-come tool, and I will grant to anyone who appears to know what they're doing (without other factors: revert warring, recent block, etc). One admin (nameless) declines if the user has less than 1000 edits, which is totally the opposite of how rollback should be seen. But that's just my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@Acalamari:

1. Regarding your first point, I'm in perfect agreement with Peter. Huggle is a much more powerful tool than Twinkle; rollback is a premise for Huggle, not any kind of "rank".

2. A few months is certainly exaggerated; I like to see at least one week. However, I think this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some days ago I granted a user's request, whose prior request I had declined just a few hours before ([2]).

3. I for one have indeed noticed people claiming there would be "steadily increasing standards for rollback" and people complaining about rollback being a "big deal". Nevertheless, I have honestly not noticed these "steadily increasing standards for rollback" in practice. I think it's save to say that I'm quite active in helping out at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. And, bluntly, I don't think the standards have increased much since I've started helping out there; actually, they are pretty much the same. I truly think the "page regulars" Peter, Pedro and Tiptoety are doing a quite good job there — @Peter: none of them has such standards like you mention above (1,000 edits), am I mistaken?

One last point I'd like to make: I don't know if you consider it a "big deal", but I for one think at least 50 reverts are mandatory for rollback. I don't deem this a "big deal" at all. After all, 50 reverts are necessary to constitute appropriate experience and they are necessary in order to judge whether one is able to discern between good faith edits and blatant vandalism. — Aitias // discussion 21:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• PeterSymonds already hit the nail on the screwdriver, rollback==huggle==requires some proof of cluefulness. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@Aitias, this admin isn't (wasn't) a page regular, which is probably part of the issue. It was used to emphasise the divide between different standards which I noticed when the admin I was in correspondence with mentioned it in passing. None of the page regulars use this, as far as I know. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Aitias, you mention that you haven't noticed the steadily increasing standards for rollback. Well, (note that I'm not trying to boast with the following text) don't forget that I'm one of the few admins who granted requests on this page since it's beginning, and are still granting it here on a regular or semi-regular basis (I'm not as active here as I was because there are more admins handling requests and I end up edit-conflicting), and I have seen the standards increase over time: it's hard to diff it all because it's been a gradual thing. You also mention I for one have indeed noticed people claiming there would be "steadily increasing standards for rollback" and people complaining about rollback being a "big deal"., which, by the fact other people have said similar things to what I have just said, I interpret that I'm not the only one who thinks that standards have risen and rollback has become a bigger deal than it used to be.

Regarding the "several months" standard I mentioned, in all fairness when I looked at the page history, I found that the last one was about a month ago, so that seems to have faded for now. I'm confused, Aitias, why do you think I exaggerated it? If I hadn't seen it happen, I'd never have mentioned it.

Regarding Huggle and Twinkle, I find it disturbing that based on what has been said above, some users have been denied rollback on the basis that they might use Huggle, and that Huggle has been a factor in the increased standards. One of I major reasons I supported rollback was so non-Firefox users could have a tool to revert vandalism with, and telling people to practice with Twinkle (which doesn't work on Internet Explorer) to get rollback, to know that they know how to use Huggle defeats that purpose. That to me is clear proof that the standards have risen.

This all being said, I'm certainly not advocating we hand rollback out to every revert-warrior and vandal that drops by, and neither am I trying to cause offense or criticize. It's just that I feel rollback has become a bigger deal than it used to be, and I wanted to discuss it. Acalamari 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so much that. I think, when rollback was first implemented in January 2008, there was a relatively low-risk factor. Having rollback was really no big deal, and I (certainly after my first promotion in May) granted it fairly liberally. When Huggle was restricted to rollbackers, that was a fairly big indication that Huggle was getting more powerful as a tool, so I thought it might be better to check for at least a few reverts, to make sure the editor understood correct uses of rollback and undo. J.delanoy made around 5000 Huggle edits alone on the day that 4chan was on the main page, giving an indication of how fast Huggle is, and how dangerous it can be in the hands of someone who is demonstrably unclear about what to revert. I think it has become a bigger deal than it used to be because of tools like Huggle. Is that a good thing? I'm pretty divided on the point really. On the one hand, it's good to be cautious; on the other, vandalism isn't too difficult to label. But Huggle's interface now has a lot more available, which could make it potentially harmful in the wrong hands (for example, I don't huggle much, but on my first attempt, I accidentally reverted a good faith IP four times and reported it to AIV). PeterSymonds (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Acalamari, I'm afraid that you've misunderstood me a bit. By “A few months is certainly exaggerated” I did not mean you. What I meant was this: If one wants to see a few months between requests, that would be exaggerated. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 13:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Few questions

I have a few questions and do not know if this is the place. Ive encountered a peculiar edit the other day on (Liz white the canadian politician) rollbacked by a 'vandal fighter'. To further elaborate a warning was placed on the editors IP user page for unconstructive edits (the Ip user did provide an edit summary). I tried to communicate with him and explain it wasnt vandalisim. However his stance was that it wasnt consdtructive. He told me becuase the edit had grammatical errors, it was unconstructive and all the edits could be roll backed. I felt that the edits were targeted as an IP and a mistake was made. I looked at the history of the vandal fighter, and almost 90% (if not more) of his rollbacking is on IP addresses (mind you he is fighting alot of vandalism), and subsequent warnings plastered on their IP user pages. Is any of this wrong? Can an edit with a grammatical mistake make an entire work, worth being roll backed and have an warning tag? I can imagine newbies who have dynamic ips get a bit shocked by seeing so many warnings that they arent responsible for (ironholds lectured me on that), or if maybe they contribute and make a grammer mistake it is undone. It just seems like a loop whole to me in the process 'unconstructive edits', can someone help me understand more about roll back and edits that arent vandlaism, as well as mass warnings on IP user pages using huggle. ThanksOttawa4ever (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edits with slight grammar errors shouldn't be rolled back, they should be copy edited. Major grammar errors (unrecoverable) may be undone with an appropriate edit summary (not rolled back), but an attempt at copyediting could also be made. Diffs? –xeno (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with header link

The following was copied from the header page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header

Once an administrator has granted a permission or decided to deny a request, they should add {{done}} or {{not done}} respectively under the request with their comments. The request will then be archived automatically: approved requests for this month will be placed here. Declined requests for this month will go here.

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Approved this page just does not make any sense. Can someone explain what is going on? Or am I just not understanding the way thing are suppose to work?Dbiel ^(Talk) 06:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors' names are posted under the day on which they were granted rollback... –xeno (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warning

Attempting to add a new request displays a warning above the editbox.
How on earth did you accomplish this? (I know there is a similarly implemented edit message at locations such as User:Jimbo Wales) Fahadsadah (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want such a message for your user or user talk page you may use Special:Mypage/Editnotice and/or Special:Mytalk/Editnotice. Hope that helps. — Aitias // discussion 18:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Edit notice#Editnotices for user space. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Fahadsadah (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Reviewing request

It happened quite a few times to me that I was reviewing a request and when I was going to save the result I saw that another admin had decided on it in the same minute. As I think there is no need for two admins doing the same work twice, I have just created Template:Reviewing request. If you are going to review a request please add this template before doing the review so that no one does the same work unnecessarily twice. Thank you. :) — Aitias // discussion 17:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Abusefilter-modify permission

A discussion regarding the abusefilter-modify permission and when it may or may not be granted is ongoing here: Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#-modify right .28moved from AN.29. More input would be beneficial. –xeno (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer functions

I'd like to be added to the list of "reviewers" as discussed at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions. That refers me to this page - how do I go about doing this please? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been implemented yet. Icestorm815 • Talk 06:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Archive Bot

Anyone know what happened to it? Pedro :  Chat  22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

SoxBot X has been disabled by its owner, probably permanently. I'll look into coding a replacement. Wronkiew (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in a request for approval for DustyBot (talk · contribs) to take over archiving Acc and Rollback. It will continue the current practice of discarding all discussions during the archive process, and will not notify users of the status of their request. If you have any concerns about this, please comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DustyBot 4. Wronkiew (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DustyBot is now archiving the pages on a trial basis. If you notice any problems, please let me know. Wronkiew (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wronkiew. Pedro :  Chat  12:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we reduce the delay on the rollback archival? Maybe let it sit for 24 hours. –xeno ^talk 20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've done the needful, anticipating no objections... –xeno ^talk 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

Please can I have +abuse filter editor ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFA is thataway :) Pedro :  Chat  06:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He is an admin! ;) Done. Though I think most admins have granted themselves this right. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he didn't trust himself to be impartial enough to trust himself with the right ;-) SoWhy 10:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah - apologies to Martin. Maybe WP:RFA works as Request For Abuse.... filter .... :) Pedro :  Chat  10:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. Yeah it didn't really feel right giving myself user rights! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback inept?

Since it has now been demonstrated that Huggle can easily be modified to work without rollback permission (which is unsurprising, considering the fact that tools such as TW emulate rollback), I can't help but wonder if RPF/R has maybe outplayed its role, the only difference between an actual rollback and an emulated rollback being a slight difference in speed. Thoughts? Opinions? decltype (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because some clever folk were able to tool around with huggle to make it work for them without native rollback doesn't mean all users shouldn't be expectd to do so as well... –xeno ^talk 21:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And native rollback will still be easier on the servers than a Huggle hack, even if we don't worry too much about it Pedro :  Chat  06:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

xeno: I assume you meant "(...) should be expected (...)". Maybe not, but since a working binary has been published, they would not have to reinvent the wheel.
Pedro: Yes, and that's why I think rollback might as well be enabled by default (or come with autoconfirmation). decltype (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Decltype - you have a point. I'm someone who once had rollback, then had it removed (at my request) and then installed TW which does the same thing so never bothered to reapply. You need to be quite savvy and experienced to install the tools, so it means newbies in practice dont have that ability - but RFP does nothing to prevent savvy vandals from getting rollback. I agree that we should change this to an autoconfirmed user right. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely not. Not everyone who is autoconfirmed manages to get rollback here (for very good reasons sometimes). So why should it be changed to make so they do? Becoming autoconfirmed is pretty easy, 10 edits wait four days, anyone could do that (even someone with bad intent). And imagine the damage someone using Huggle with bad intent could do. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is, you do not need rollback to use Huggle. decltype (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So we're just going to make it easier for bad faith editors? By "published" you mean...? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A description of the trivial code changes required, and also a link to a modified version was posted on a talk page. I don't see the problem exactly. Vandals seldom employ scripts and tools to vandalize. That said, I would much prefer the other option, namely to make Huggle unusable without rollback, but I don't see how that could be done. decltype (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise the source code for huggle was avalible. Still think this is a bad idea for the following reason:

Scenario: a new user happily edits, when suddenly a new button appears on their watchlist: "[rollback]". Wondering what this is, the user clicks on it.... This is what's likely to happen, with nearly every new autoconfirmed user we get (quite a lot I should think). Resulting in a lot of trouble - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To pick up on that point I do agree. We don't give the trainee on a building site an arc welder just because they've been there for seven days. WP:BEANS applies but one click rollback, thanks to certain changes in where the "rollback" link appears, could be very disruptive. At least by having a minor vetting process we remove the risk of Grawp et.al. setting up sleepers, waiting for four days and then causing a lot of grief. Yes, poor rollbacks are easily reverted so no long term damage but the disruption could be substantial. Pedro :  Chat  10:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I kind of agree with decltype here. In the current setup a new user suddenly gets a new button after four days, it's the "Move" button. There is also a degree of disruption that can (and often is) caused by moving pages. But I don't see people proposing a "Requests for Move" process. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but move takes you to another page, which explains what you're doing, and requires you to actually click "move" after reading that page. Rollback does it straight away - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback "add request" link?

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, I can't find the "add request" link for requesting Rollback permission. Hotcrocodile (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's because it's not there, the idea being that you read the two links at the top, which you may have missed. I suggest you read both pages, but the one which helps you is WP:Rollback feature, which details where to apply for it under "How to apply for rollback". Good luck and happy editing - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Hotcrocodile (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RFR-SMG

Thanks...just please do me one last thing...just count all the TOTAL REVERTS I did TOTAL...not from the last time and all the warning messages on vandal talkpages as we and then I'll leave you alone.SchnitzelMannGreek. 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Anyway, I need to calm down so I might be retiring for a while but I'll still check my page. I need to regain my lost confidence on wikipedia...I actually thought I was improving after my TOTAL 30 Reverts and dealing with vandals through warning templates and stuff and designing my userpage(feel free to visit).Guess I'm just worthless.SchnitzelMannGreek. 01:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

New Page Watcher

There's a bit of a buildup, does anyone else feel that the old requests should be archived? MacMed^talk_stalk 19:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The archive is at User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage/Requests/Archive. Which User:Juliancolton seems to take care of. I'm sure he won't mind if you add some (I'm not sure if there are certain times when they are archived). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have archived all the requests between April and May - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

I don't think that "autoreviewer" is a "permission" really. Therefore perhaps this page should be called "Requests for user rights"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe. Although I'm reluctant to change :). NPW and AWB aren't really "rights", as defined at Wikipedia:User access levels (redirect WP:RIGHTS). Autoreviewer just came in, and might not be sticking around (it probably will), so I personally would want the "old" ones to take "priority". Although I don't see a massive problem with having autoreviewer in this list and keep the name as it is. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer is technically a user permission per mw:Manual:User rights. The only difference is that it's called "autoreviewer", and not "autopatroller"l, but it does the same thing. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback header keeps getting deleted

It seems the header at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback keeps getting deleted by the archiving bot. I restored it from history before placing a request but I don't know how to keep it from being deleted again. Siawase (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, it didn't use to do that. I'll have a bit of a look through the history. If nothing has changed I'll bring it up with the bot owner - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think it may be when it archives all the request (i.e. It doesn't leave any behind) it just blanks the page regardless of the header. I'll try and talk to Wronkiew. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer

Is there a way to set up a archival bot for the above page? It is getting a bit long. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 04:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we need a bot to do this? I'm happy to set up and (help) mantain an archive (by myself if need be ;D), in the same way which we do the requests for WP:NPWatcher - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And I wouldn't mind helping Kingpin13 in this endeavor if he so desired. :) -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 06:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it would be possible to set up a bot to do it, but I think the "human approach" is both safer, and allows us to archive requests at the right time (e.g. there could be a conversation going on about a certain request, but the bot archives it) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues with that, I am just wanting the page to be archived. ;-) I just thought, a bot would make out jobs easier, but if you guys want to do it by hand...go for it. Tiptoety ^talk 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. The archive is located at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer/Archive. Anyone is free to add requests there when ever, just make sure you use the right format :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage/Requests comment

I have changed the comment at the top. I think it's much better like this, hope everybody's okay with this. The reason for changing was that a lot of requests still get put at the top, and it makes it very difficult to sort out if they are ignored. As a note to admins; when you deal with a request, please move it to the right place, if it's not already there. This'll make it much easier to archive them. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer "Copy and use the following template"?

When I just tried to request this permission, the edit screen contains the instruction "copy and use the following template" but I cannot see a template there to copy and use. Help please. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• The template is on the main page as <code>*{{subst:rfp|Your Username|Short reason for wanting permission}} ~~~~</code>, but I've simply gone ahead and given you the userright per this thread. MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) but I still can't see that template when you click where it says to click to request it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-added, it must have got removed at some time - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

'Confirmed' usergroup is grantable now

was: 'Confirmed' usergroup will be grantable in the near future

FYI bugzilla:19611 gives us the ability to grant "confirmed" (jumpstarting autoconfirmed). We can grant it when discretion warrants it, and remove it after autoconfirmed is granted. –xeno^talk 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't get removed automatically when autoconfirmed comes along? Anyway, do peeps wanna add this to WP:RFPERM? I'd be happy to set it up if there is a consensus to do so. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

re: being automatically removed - No, ... I don't think so. Don't think it's possible to do that.

re: adding to project page - I would wait until it actually comes down the pike before adding it to WP:RFPERM. –xeno^talk 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Would this be granted to anybody who looks good-faith, or just people who need it? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is only 10 edits, so I am thinking the primary granters will be OTRS, ACC, and {{Help}} monitors. Also, some interwiki users probably. MBisanz ^talk 21:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the edits so much as having to wait the time. But I don't think this should be given to everybody who looks like their editing in good-faith, it's not really that difficult to get. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What guidelines, if any, will apply to this userright? The best scenario I can imagine is similar to what MBisanz mentions: somebody asks, "Hey, how do I upload images?" and the reply after a brief sanity check is, "Oh, I just confirmed your account, see <help page>". If we're not going to be handing it out like candy, I think I oppose having or using it at all. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, in that case, it's good-faith account, which has a need for the confirmed status, so that's the kind of situation were I would think that it's okay to grant it - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that's the idea, but figured we should clear that up sooner rather than later -- the early chaos at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback is something I hope we can avoid, this time around. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I have a feeling we'll set up our lemonade stand and won't have a customer for some time. It's more likely people will filter in through the venues that MBisanz pointed out. –xeno^talk 03:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there's any need to give this to many genuinely new users. I don't think this should be a widely used ability- just to allow bots, legitimate socks and the like to jump straight into action. That said, I can certainly understand the irritation at having to wait four days before being able to upload pictures. J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• If folks could click here to watch the requests page, that would be good. –xeno^talk 14:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving requests

Hello there. At the moment, the only requests which are properly archived are Autoreviewer, AWB, and NPWatcher requests. Rollback and account creator are meant to be archived by User:DustyBot, which has been shut-down since the 4th of July. Confirmed has had no requests yet, although it is set up for DustyBot to archive them. And AWB is currently manually archived to Archive 1 & 2. So basically we currently have 3 pages which aren't being archived. Should DustyBot be fixed, I'm happy for all the pages to be archive by it. Otherwise, I'm happy to archive all the requests to a subpage of the request page (in the same way as AWB, NPW, and AR are currently archived). What do people think is the best way to proceed? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of archiving, archiving this page into monthly subpages is a waste of subpages. I'm going to consolidate and change the archiving format. –xeno^talk 14:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)  Done

permision

what do i need to do to ask permission to access the paramore page? Parafan 2 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to be an autoconfirmed user. Ironholds (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Permission in the German Wikipedia

Hi

I think it is not correct, that a Sichter in the German Wikipedia does not get the same permission in the English Wikipedia. I did a request in the English Wikipedia, first it was rejected, till now I did not get this permission in the English Wikipedia. In the German Wikipedia I am a Sichter.

--Urs.Waefler (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about our "Autoreviewer". On the German Wikipedia you have flagged revisions. But here on the English Wikipedia we do not yet have flagged revisions. Autoreviewer marks new pages as patrolled when created by the user who is "autoreviewed". Autoreviewer and "Sichter" are different things. Best - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The extremely long ToC on the rollback requests page

The Table of Contents on the rollback requests page (when viewed as a page by itself) can sometimes take up a full screen or more. I tried to fix this by adding the 'ToC right' template into the code, which I would consider an improvement. But doing that also caused the ToC to appear in the transcluded version of the page, which is probably not an improvement. Should I just leave it be, or is there some way that we can have a pretty Rollback page both when viewed by itself and when transcluded? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I added it with <noinclude> tags. –túrian^patois 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My request has come up... in a different language

Why is my request in a different language? What's causing it? FF3000 · talk 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's called lorem ipsum ... there is a template called {{lorem}} which appears near the end of the code in the {{rfp}} template that is used for rollback requests. I think the lorem template might appear automatically if you file a request with a blank reason. (Perhaps we shouldn't do that?) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

But I left a reason. It was long and complicated though, with links to some of my recent edits. Anyway, if a blank reason is left, some template like "This user hasn't left a reason for rollback" should automatically appear, rather than lorem. --FF3000 · talk 14:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, although the {{rfp}} template isn't edit-protected, it does have a notice which leads me to suspect that there's a chance that even a minor edit like that break the bot that scans the page (though, having said that, what exactly does SoxBot do here? I don't see any edits from it.) Anyway, I'm not even sure that I'm reading the code right, so I can't be sure what causes the lorem ipsum to sometimes appear. (You're not the first one who's had that problem.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To Our Newest Rollbacker...

I'm not sure what other admins do when they give rollback rights, but I've been using (for a while now) a template I created in my userspace. Granted it links back to my talk page at one point, but I thought I'd let everyone know that they are free to take and customize for themselves, because I think it's important that new rollbackers get a quick lesson or cheat sheet in using the new tool. The code is {{subst:User:UpstateNYer/Rollbackyes}} and it creates the section you see below, including the header; you just need to add your signature. Cheers. upstateNYer 02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! upstateNYer 02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but who is User:Wadester16? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated. upstateNYer 04:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Requirments for Rollback right

I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the minimum requirements are to become a Rollbacker. I currently have:

• Total edits (including deleted): 731
• Deleted edits: 41
• Live edits: 690

My active status can be seen here

Would it be worth me adding a request now or waiting a couple of months. Thanks Paul2387 12:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi all. I [boldly?] semi-protected Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer to avoid requests for the confirmed flag taking place there (such as this). Was this the wrong thing to do? Let me know, and regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems an intelligent move to do. Could have just small issues. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New Archive Bot

Hi there. I'm looking into (have been looking into for months) creating a replacement bot to archive some/all of the request pages (most importantly the rollback requests, since this is the hardest to archive manually). I haven't programmed it yet, and I can't guarantee that I can or will. But I was wondering if any of you had suggestions for different/extra features to the old bot. Such as commenting on a request to note if it's a repeat request, regularly sorting the open requests chronologically etc. I'd welcome your input on this. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a bunch of programming today, and am pretty pleased with progress. I've open a BRfA for this task, input is welcomed at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 2. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The bot is now being trialled on the rollback page. I expect it may make a few mistakes to start off with, but I'll make sure it's kept under control. Feedback is still welcome at the BRfA, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okeyday! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And now approved. I'l look into integrating the rest of the request pages into this over the next few weeks. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to Admins??

Hi , I just need to upload a picture on a page where it has been requested ( the page is titled " Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva" or FOP in short . The pictures for this condiion have been awaited I guess by users as the talk page suggests. I want to upload the picture there , but it seems im unable to and I need some special permissions to do so ? Even the permissions page doesnt tell me which permission to request for ? Help ! Mage007 (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Autoreview bot discussion

I have requested the construction of a bot which will automatically nominate users for autoreview privileges. In the negative short term this would create a larger workload for permission-granting admins, but in the positive long term it would greatly reduce the workload for NPPatrollers. Please join in the discussion here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A report has been generated here. I will be dropping off batches of 10 at WP:RFP/A. Hooray. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please ensure that the editors you nominate are not indefblocked. Nakon 01:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic, you seriously need to be more diligent in your checks before bulk-nominating these editors. I have been declining blocked users, retired users, and inactive users. Please ensure that those you nominate are at least semi-active in creating decent new pages before adding them to WP:PERM/A. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add [[es:Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de los bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Permisos/Actual]] to the list of interwikis of the page. Thank you. —Dferg {meta} 15:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Added.  Chzz  ►  21:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done

New template

Users interested in getting rollback could find the {{toolbar experiments}} template a useful way of demonstrating experience of removing editing tests and vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I am interested in getting rollback so i can make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia on the net, I have made constructive edits to Wikipedia thus far, but i am requesting to have rollback so i can usehuggle,to make Wikipedia better,faster!--Light for JC (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Light for JC

The page to request rollback is Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. At any rate, your request will be declined because you have only been here one day, have only really edited your userspace, and have no vandalism reverts. Take some time, edit some articles, and get a feel for the 'pedia before looking into something like this. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Note of interest: The Account "Light for JC" has actually been banned now as it was found to be a sockpuppet. KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Researcher group discussion

Wikipedia talk:Research#Researcher permission --MZMcBride (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Script for easy granting of reviewer

• Amalthea (talk · contribs), fount of awesomeness, wrote this at my request:

// simple script to enable the reviewer bit and leave the user a note
 
MakeReviewerConfig = {
    groupReason : "User can be trusted with reviewer",
    sectionHeader : "Reviewer granted",
    sectionBody : "{{subst\:reviewer-notice}} ~~\~~"
};
 
importScript("User:Amalthea/MakeReviewer.js");

Config can be changed or omitted, etc. It adds a button along the top of the screen called "make reviewer". If user doesn't have right, it grants it, and in either case, it leaves the message. –xeno^talk 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

On denying requests for reviewer permission

Comments invited: Wikipedia talk:Reviewing#On denying requests for reviewer permission. –xeno^talk 15:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Add request links

These links are sticking requests in the wrong place- right at the bottom, below the permissions navbox. It's getting rather annoying having to move the request or the navbox on PERm/R and PERM/A every time someone makes a request, so what changed and, er, how is it fixed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the button can't go above anything it only functions as a new section button. Why are there navigational links on the subpages? –xeno^talk 04:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fastily removed the navbox. It looks like a bot re-sorts them to be newest on top so that should take care of it. I played around with a "section=T-1" which was actually in the code around early June - but it doesn't appear to work and isn't in the MediaWiki API.  7  05:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support, and have already been, removing the navbox on the subpages. There always seems to be one or two requests stuck below the box. Nakon 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yuh, I noticed this problem, and set the bot up to reorder the template (while reordering all the requests by date). However, the bot only runs once a day, so it isn't exactly the quickest response time. Would a suitable alternative be to run the bot more often? Obviously there would be times when my computer is off, but other than that this might fix the problem. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Delist New Page Watcher

Hi all. I'd like to propose that New Page Watcher section be removed from the New Page Watcher Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. The tool has been down for little over half a year and during this time, a new tool has been created, Kissle, which serves the same purpose. In an effort to maintain Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, I think the page can be safely untranscluded. If no concerns are raised within the next week, I'll be WP:BOLD and untransclude the page. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur, sounds like a sound proposal. MBisanz ^talk 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I was wondering why this was still included, given the long downtime. It also would be simple to re-include if the tool ever does get updated. ^Avicenna_sis tb? @ 16:24, 3 Tamuz 5770 / 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright then - I've untranscluded the page. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot missing?

Is the archive bot down? Or are people just not archiving? Rollback is full of old requests right now. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 15:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The bot isn't down as such, I just haven't been around to run it recently, and there's a slight problem with it, so it'll need some changes to the code. Should all be good to go in a week or so. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Header template on PERM/R

In the last 500 edits, <noinclude>{{Requests for permissions}}</noinclude> has been added and removed from the page at least a half dozen times. The bot, on the rare occasion it runs, adds it back, as have a number of different users, and it has been removed shortly after each addition. I can't find any rationale for removing it in the history of this talk page or in any edit summaries on PERM/R, so I'm at a loss: Is it supposed to be there or not? If not, perhaps a hidden comment is in order. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's previously been added add the bottom, which, with the new format for requests which uses the new section feature, means we end up with it in the middle of the requests where it's both useless and irritating. If it were added to the top, it shouldn't be a problem. Also, we're going to need to start manually archiving PERM/R- some of the old requests have been sat thre for well over a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yes, well that does make sense. —DoRD (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot normally runs regularly, however, I've been away over summer, and things have gone a bit haywire. I've got a lot of coding and catching up to do, and have only just got home from camping for a week (following being away in another country for a month) so please be patient. I will try and get the bot fixed, but I'm afraid it may take me a while. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:rfp - transclude rather than subst

Any particular reason these can't simply be transcluded, rather than substed and expanded into a mess of wikitext? The archiving bots don't even use the expanded code when placing requests into the archive, so it's not like they need to be substed in case of future changes to the template. –xeno^talk 15:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

75?

Earlier today, I asked Bruichladdich1 (talk · contribs) to request the autopatrol bit and I was surprised to learn that there was a threshold of 75 articles created. Where can I find the discussion on this magical number? For one thing, it's ludicrously high. Moreover, it completely misses the point: this is not about quantity, it's about quality. Bruichladdich1 has always created nice short starts with references, categories and infoboxes, in other words precisely the kind of article that should be skipped by the newpage patrollers. Pichpich (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a general guide-rule that can be ignored like all others. –xeno^talk 15:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Create 75 articles? Even I won't reach that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that 75 is too high and that it should be quality rather than quantity. For example, I believe I once denied the request of an editor who'd created over 200 articles, several of which had issues with lack of sources, categories and other things that NP patrollers would fix or tag the article for. Conversely, I granted it the other day to an editor who'd only created around 30 articles, but those included 2 GAs. I think the guide should be lowered and admins advised to use common sense rather than wedding themselves to this arbitrary number. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit counts for various language versions?

Are the edit statistics of editors active in various language versions accumulated when they request any additional rights? Shenhemu (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They aren't taken into account as a general rule, but perhaps might be mentioned if they wouldn't otherwise qualify for the right with their en.wiki contributions alone. –xeno^talk 19:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrollers who create unreferenced BLPs

I'm starting to remove the Autopatroller flag from editors who are creating totally unreferenced BLPs. I think I'm being quite cautious about this, and I haven't been doing so if they have made any attempt at sourcing. There are several Autopatrollers I've looked at who I personally wouldn't have set as Autopatrollers, but I'm conscious that I may be more cautious than others both in who I set this flag on for and who I am removing it from. But I would appreciate feedback on this, and especially:

1. Should we also remove the flag from people who create uBLPs with purely self published sources?
2. So far all the editors from whom I've removed this flag were made Autopatrollers before the rules changed earlier this year. Am I correct in thinking that it is only relevant to discuss a flag removal this with the admin who set the flag if they had done so since the Introduction of the sticky prod?
3. What reassurance do we need before reinstating a flag?

Regards ϢereSpielChequers 11:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Remove them from autopatrolled users told to stop making uBLPs, but who keep making them.
2. For those with unreliable (YouTube, MySpace, Twitter, etc.) sourcing only, tell them to stop, and then revoke the rights if they do not stop. These are just about as bad as uBLPs.
3. Correct, I would think.
4. They assure us they will never again create a uBLP. They create several (2 or 3?) well-sourced BLPs in the meantime. They agree to lose the right indefinitely if they make another uBLP after having the right reinstated. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the autopatroller right is supposed to denote that the user creates articles that require no third-party review or cleanup whatsoever (constructive expansion notwithstanding), I think that you are on the right path. –xeno^talk 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with xeno. If a user is creating articles that shouldn't be created, they shouldn't have the autopatroller flag. Also, it's easy enough to restore the flag if it is determined that its removal was a mistake. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all above. WSC remarked on my talk page, "one of the Autopatrollers who I was about to deflag was flagged by you just after they received some uBLP warnings." I cannot think why I would have would have flagged that person, but feel free to deflag them if they meet the above conditions. NW (Talk) 16:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is an extremely good idea. It may actually make a difference in the accuracy by which we spot these. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Having now gone back as far as May I've realised that before removing a flag we also need to check Soxred for their latest creations. The chap NW flagged in April was still producing uBLPs in May but now does referenced BLPs of sportspeople interspersed with the occasional Myspace sourced hip hop star.. Big progress but maybe not quite enough, does anyone know enough about sourcing hip hoppers to volunteer to have a quiet word? As for Orlady's comment, if they were articles that shouldn't be created they'd be speedied, I didn't check for that - I was looking for articles that should be created but needed references, i.e. uBLPs created by people with the autopatroller tag. If someone wants to do a trawl for A7s and worse created by Autopatrollers I fear that might also be fruitful, but I don't know how you could efficiently do it. Also we need to do this diplomatically, these are volunteers who in most cases simply haven't kept up with rising standards, so as per Fetchcomms excellent point we need to check that they have been informed of the new rule. In one case I've done this by sticky prodding the relevant uBLP rather than deflagging them. ϢereSpielChequers 21:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)