Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

Rollback

I was recently asked what the criteria for the rollback right are. I can't speak for the other admins, but I'm copying my response here as a point of general interest:

"From WP:ROLLBACK: While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism.

There are no fixed guidelines for rollback and it depends entirely on admin discretion. It's something admins don't discuss among themselves, noted that there are very few admins who actually work on PERMS. Those who do so regularly more or less appear to use similar criteria. What we look for is an overall edit count of around 500 or more to article space with a couple of hundred correct manual reverts of clear cases of vandalism, and without having to examine every edit to see what it was. The ES is therefore very important, even if using Twinkle. We also check block logs, and the users' talk pages for other warnings because a degree of general maturity/competency also needs to be determined."

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just look for evidence of common sense and reasonableness. I also watch out for gamers, and deny as many of their requests as I can. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it accurate to say the majority of admins want 500 or more edits to articles? It may be; I am not sure. And do you consider Twinkle's rollback function a 'manual' revert? I think many admins are fine with Twinkle-only vandalism work. NTox · talk 16:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also doubt that.NottNott's request is accepted when this user has around 310 article space edits,of which 110 are reverts.L smll 05:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm known to be stingy with my according of rights, just as I am with supporting RfAs (although I have been accused more than once by at least one editor of being over eager to support). That said, my own experience at PERM tells me it's best to er on the side of caution. If anyone really wants to know, they will have to review all the Rollback closures over the past 12 months or so. It would probably be better than citing just one or two and assuming they are the majority. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingpin bot

Is the bot working? it hasn't archived anything in the past week or so. Any reasons to this issue? Thanks in advance Prabash.Akmeemana 13:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was on holiday. The bot is running again now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual point of a 'confirmed' permission

I'm sorry, but what is the actual point of a confirmed permission, when every time I see the page there is a flood of submissions marked as 'Not done' or 'You are already autoconfirmed?' Insulam Simia (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It allows you to do everything an auto-confirmed account can, such as edit semi-protected pages, make page moves, and upload files. The reason it is so rarely granted is that administrators are reluctant to take responsibility for the potential misuse of the right, and it is pretty hard to establish a track record sufficient to justify granting the right without hitting auto-confirmed. There are also processes that allow a non-autoconfirmed editor request all those things be done on a case by case basis. Its really there for the exceptional case where the autoconfirmed restrictions are causing significant problem. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Insulam Simia: the Confirmed user right is most often used when running an WP:Edit-a-thon or in conjunction with some of the WP:Education programs. This is mainly so that users don't have to enter CAPTCHAs when they enter URLs while they are referencing articles as part of the training they are receiving. 64.40.54.44 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change in request instructions

Moved from Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Wouldn't changing *{{AWBUser|your username}} ~~~~~ to * {{AWBUser|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ~~~~~ eliminate any issues with Enter your user name exactly as the software displays it, for example in the 'Basic information' section of your preferences. Do not use underscores instead of spaces or change the case of the first letter. Note that all usernames begin with an uppercase letter or a symbol.? Technical 13 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If an editor isn't capable of following this easy instruction, than xe isn't ready to use AWB. Also as I see most editors' requests are properly filled, so this is slightly a solution in search of a problem. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on removal of Account Creator user right

I've started an RFC on the standards for removal of the Account Creator user right at WP:VPP#Removal of Account Creator user right that may be of interest to the regulars here. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]