| Revision as of 22:58, 10 January 2008 editLiving Concrete (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,852 editsm →User:Your Username: Oops...← 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 ] |
|
<noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- __NEWSECTIONLINK__ causes a + button to appear on the edit page. This is a useful feature, as it allows editors to add requests without edit conflicts; edit conflicts are very common on this page --> |
|
|
<div class="messagebox metadata plainlinks"> |
|
|
{| style="width:100%; background:none; " |
|
|
| style="width:30px;vertical-align:middle;" | ] |
|
|
| '''{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{section|}}}}}|yes|The following section's wording or inclusion in this|This page's designation as an}} agreed process is ].''' Please see the relevant discussion on the ] for further information. The use of this tag is itself controversial. {{{msg|}}} |
|
|
| {{#if:{{{1|}}} | {{shortcut|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}|{{{5|}}} }} }} |
|
|
|}</div> |
|
|
{{/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|Maniwar}} <tt>|</tt> <span class="plainlinks">{{checkr|user=Maniwar}}</span> <tt>|</tt> ] |
|
|
:Currently I use Twinkle which is buggy and inconsistent. I will admit I have edit warred in the past, but I've learned from it and I want to keep Misplaced Pages vandal free. --] (]) 22:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{done}} ] 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I'd like that to be reconsidered. This user seems to be directly involved with the dispute with ], using rollback to revert his edits. I'd like to remove his edits, but what does everyone think? ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
*{{Usercheck-short|ponyo}} <tt>|</tt> <span class="plainlinks">{{checkr|user=ponyo}}</span> <tt>|</tt> ] |
|
|
:This tool will allow for much quicker reverts when there has been multiple vandalism by the same user ] (]) 22:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{done}} ] 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===]=== |
|
|
*{{Usercheck-short|Ember of Light}} <tt>|</tt> <span class="plainlinks">{{checkr|user=Ember of Light}}</span> <tt>|</tt> ] |
|
|
:I am an established user who usually reverts vandalism using scripted rollbacks. I haven't had a conflict in a while (the last one was when I accidentally rolled back a good edit that I mistook for bad) and I believe that I can do a lot of vandal fighting with this tool. |
|