| Revision as of 13:41, 10 January 2008 editPedro (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators22,741 edits →User:Hourick: granted← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:20, 12 January 2022 edit undoEthanGaming7640 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,055 edits Modifying redirect categories using Capricorn ♑ |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} |
|
|
{{/Header}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell| |
|
==Current requests== |
|
|
|
{{R to project namespace}} |
|
{| class="messagebox" style="width: 50%;" align="center" |
|
|
|
{{R to subpage}} |
|
! <big>Place all new requests {{blue|1=<u>]</u>}} of the page |
|
|
|} |
|
}} |
|
===]=== |
|
|
*{{Usercheck-short|Ilkali}} <tt>|</tt> <span class="plainlinks"> |
|
|
:Most of what I do is reversion of bad edits, whether vandalism or POV or something else. I use Twinkle at the moment, and it has the annoying habit of cutting out mid-send and truncating articles (eg: ). ] (]) 08:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I think you are currently overusing TW rollback for content disputes. I'm not very comfortable with this. Any other thoughts? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*I'd agree with that assessment. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*I agree. Rollback should not be used for content removal that is disputed. I am minded not to approve at this time, without prejudice to re-application at a later date. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 09:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
{{notdone}}. Sorry but you need to show a better understanding of what rollback is for before we can grant you the tool. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:To be fair, his Twinkle reverts all have reasonable edit summaries. In most cases, rollback would have been wrong, though. Can't say whether the user would use rollback instead of Twinkle-with-good-edit-summary for non-vandal reverts. ] (]) 09:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Its very early in their wiki-career (600 odd edits) to really know how they would react and the evidence is that they don't quite understand the reasons why rollback use is so restricted so. There is no reason the next application will not succeed if they stop rolling back content with TW. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's the problem. We should have had policy answers to that (and other outstanding issues) prior to launching this process. ] 11:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm not sure of that. This seems a good example of common sense working. Admin S isn't sure, seeks further comments and admins W and P weigh in and confirm doubts. Request not actioned. No doubt we will develop as we go along - in 20 years of working within a system that constantly reinvents itself I have yet to see a single example of something new following exactly along the predicted lines. Perhaps this should be better discussed at talk but I need to go to work and its probably not fair on the user to use this as a case in point to argue through the pros and cons of non-admin Rollback ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Maybe I need to try TWB to see the difference in what they can do... Unless, it is only about rb's formal appearance. ] 11:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm sorry - maybe I'm being stupid but I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are making. Perhaps you can take this to talk as I'm going to work as soon as I save this edit and won't be able to look at this again for several hours. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
*{{Usercheck-short|j.sweeton@wnri.com}} <tt>|</tt> <span class="plainlinks"> |
|
|
:Currently using pop-ups, would like to try this new rollback procedure. ] (]) 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* I'm concerned about your use of pop ups to revert entries that do not appear to be overt vandalism and . <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 12:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Indeed, but, so long as you know rollback's for vandalism reversion only, I don't see any other problems. ]] 12:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agree. No substantial issues here. Would welcome any other input though. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 12:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Since there weren't any other comments, I was going to grant this... BUT... it seems we have a bug. "You do not have permission to edit user rights on other wikis.". I bet it has to do with the @ in the user's name. ]] 12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ohhh! You're right - I can't either. The "other wiki's" thing makes me think that even 'crats may not be able to do it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 12:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So... Where do we go from here? ]] 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::] ]] 13:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
(U)Indeed, Due to technical issues, {{notdone}} ]] 13:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Okay, this request would be granted but for a current technical issue. No real need for the user to change their name, as e-mail address accounts are permitted under a grandfathered policy, and it seems silly to force a name change because of a bug. Off to the devs with this I think. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 13:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Reported at the village pump <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 13:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
*{{Usercheck-short|Foolestroupe}} <tt>|</tt> <span class="plainlinks"> |
|
|
:see below - malformed request<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 12:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Would like to try rollback please ] (]) 12:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{notdone}} You have less than 150 edits and I can't see any real need at present. Please feel free to re-apply a later date. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 12:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok Thanks anyway ] (]) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
*{{Usercheck-short|Slysplace}} <tt>|</tt> <span class="plainlinks"> |
|
|
:Popups has become an inefficient reverting tool as more users use it although the Bot's in use are even quicker I request rollback usage as an additional tool for the obvious vandalism situations that do not require extensive research of the situation and a more productive solution to time spent on reverting vandalism ] | ] 13:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{done}} <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
*{{Usercheck-short|Hourick}} <tt>|</tt> <span class="plainlinks"> |
|
|
:I patrol quite a bit for vandalism while I'm looking for other articles and I think this would make the task a bit easier. I don't consider myself a prolific editor, but I do keep and eye out on the articles that I make part of my watchlist. ] (]) 13:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{done}} <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 13:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
*{{Usercheck-short|Yngvarr}} <tt>|</tt> <span class="plainlinks"> |
|
|
:My wikiworld is rather small. I don't play much with RC patrol, but I mostly wander around cartoon related sections, which does see it's own type of vandalism <font color="green">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 13:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
*{{Usercheck-short|llamadog903}} <tt>|</tt> <span class="plainlinks"> |
|
|
:I mostly find and destroy vandalism, so I think this would be helpfull. ] (]) 13:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|