Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for permissions: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:19, 26 January 2015 view sourceKudpung (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors109,156 edits →Let's get real about rollback: cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 21:20, 26 January 2015 view source MusikAnimal (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Administrators120,542 edits →Let's get real about rollback: my 2cNext edit →
Line 145: Line 145:
*:* I assume that if rollback were eliminated, one would gain access either through gaining access to the group it was added to (perhaps reviewer, or if it passes the proposed 'vandal figther/senty') or a CheckPage like AWB does. This would still be less work because it would only be requests for people that want to use those tools specifically and not everyone that 'just wants the hat' or misunderstands what the group does/is for. I think elimination of the hat is a net gain. You are welcome to disagree, and I encourage productive discussion if that is the case or an agreeance to disagree. :) Happy editing! — <code class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></code> 14:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC) *:* I assume that if rollback were eliminated, one would gain access either through gaining access to the group it was added to (perhaps reviewer, or if it passes the proposed 'vandal figther/senty') or a CheckPage like AWB does. This would still be less work because it would only be requests for people that want to use those tools specifically and not everyone that 'just wants the hat' or misunderstands what the group does/is for. I think elimination of the hat is a net gain. You are welcome to disagree, and I encourage productive discussion if that is the case or an agreeance to disagree. :) Happy editing! — <code class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></code> 14:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::I forgot about the need of the Rollback right to access Huggle. My bad. Perhapd deprecate the Twinkle version of Rollback? (although I'm not saying I come across a lot of misuse of either tool. I've probably never stripped more than three or four users of their Rollback flag). --] (]) 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC) ::I forgot about the need of the Rollback right to access Huggle. My bad. Perhapd deprecate the Twinkle version of Rollback? (although I'm not saying I come across a lot of misuse of either tool. I've probably never stripped more than three or four users of their Rollback flag). --] (]) 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
*Since counter-vandalism is what rollback is (primarily) intended for, it makes sense that it's the borderline prerequisite for the semi-automated tools. So long as rollback is the key to powerful software like Huggle and STiki, I think we need to be careful who we grant the right to. There's plenty of wiggle room, however. For example, if the user has 100 mainspace edits, but from those it is clear they know how to tell the difference between good-faith edits and vandalism, and are they are willing to help out, I think we can take the leap of faith and ignore the 200 mainspace edit rule. Similarly, unless they have themselves been disruptive in the past, I don't think it's necessary to look beyond contributions relevant to counter-vandalism. It's okay if the only thing they're interested in is reverting vandals all day with Huggle. It is fun, constructive, and we could always use another helping hand. All this being said, I'd consider pending-changes reviewer the lowest bar for user rights, as it merely re-enables a tacit ability autoconfirmed users possessed prior to the implementation of pending changes—the ability to approve anonymous edits (this explanation borrowed from the ]). For this reason I think pending-changes reviewer is less focused on ''fighting'' vandalism but more so just understanding basic policy and with that being able to infer if any given edit is appropriate for the encyclopedia. Finally, barring blatant misjudgement, I respect any admin's decision and do not question their decisions in granting the rights or declining requests. I also like the system of pinging admins who have recently declined requests from a new requester. They may be able to offer insight into how the user's competence has improved. It would be nice if we had a bot that automatically did this, though! &mdash; '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 21:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:20, 26 January 2015

Shortcuts
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requests for permissions page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Temporary grant to Stuartyeates and Giantflightlessbirds for GLAM workshop

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

These should be OK, reviewing your accounts now. Stuartyeates please verify if from 2014-11-21 through 2014-11-28 is sufficient for these needs? Also, the interface is available all the time at Special:CreateAccount; having account creator allows you to bypass certain safeguards and throttles, notably the 6 accounts-per-day limit. — xaosflux 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Those dates look great to me, thank you. I had no idea it was going to be as easy as Special:CreateAccount; perhaps my experience of mw:Extension:Education Program led me to expect a huge cumbersome thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Account Creator technical change

RFC Passed

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

Notice: a proposal to change the technical implementation of this group's permissions is being held at WP:VPR.
— Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 01 Dec 2014 The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should WP:PERM take advantage of User:ClueBot III or User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver?

I've noticed that on a few occasions the {{Admin dashboard}} has had page size transclusion issues, and I think that these could be greatly reduced by taking advantage of ClueBot III's ability to archive discussions that are already closed (I'll not that it is used on this very talk page). Another benefit of this is that it would allow User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver (or more specifically, the new and improved version waiting to be incorporated into the main version (User:Technical 13/SandBox/OneClickArchiver.js)) to be used for on the fly archiving when the dashboards are hitting page size limits for a quick fix. Thanks for any consideration on this. — {{U|Technical 13}} 05:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The transcluded PERM subpages are already being archived by User:KingpinBot; does it just need some tweaking? — xaosflux 18:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There are some sections (ie: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Pending_changes_reviewer#User:Possum) that have been marked as done for almost 4 weeks now, and there are many that where marked as done over a week ago. I see no reason that the sections marked as "done" explicitly should be kept on the page for more than 24 hours (or 3 days max) as the user that received the additional group to their rights would have gotten a notification through the system. Anyone that would know to look at the PERM page to object to a user being granted certain rights should be experienced enough to know to look at the archives if it has been longer than that in most cases I would think. — {{U|Technical 13}} 18:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It might have something to do with:
Run successful - last run time 24/08/2015 13:00 Bot disabled - last attempted run time 24/08/2015 13:00:09
:/ — {{U|Technical 13}} 19:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
We certainly could use a different system, but need to get the old one to stop first so they don't collide, @Kingpin13: - any thoughts? — xaosflux 14:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently Equazcion has retired, and as such, he's "redirected" his script to mine and I've taken over maintenance. Xaosflux, I can't think of anything it would hurt by having the archiving systems overlap. Is there something you have in mind that could be a problem I'm not thinking of? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} 15:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as one-click types go, nope; I'm just referring to bot managed. — xaosflux 16:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, Xaosflux, I now understand what you are saying. KingpinBot archives them based on status (approved or not approved) and cluebot wouldn't do that, at least not without some help from Cobi (the maintainer) to tweak stuffs... It's going to require me to to some tweaking to make it so that OCA is usable as well for the same reason unless it is decided to do away with the whole separate categorized archives method... Should this be posted on {{CENT}} to get some more input or a note put on WP:AN maybe? Thanks for your help. — {{U|Technical 13}} 18:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't really need a formal RFC type discussion on this, it is a completely non-controversial task in that noone opposes having an archive; if one set of archiving tools is more reliable than another for this set of pages, discussion on this page is all that is needed to swap / augment. This page, or at least one of its subpages, would make a good test for one-click archive options as well. — xaosflux 19:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasn't suggesting a formal "30 days and closed by uninvolved" RfC, just wondering if there should be a short note on AN to see if anyone else has any feedback on whether or not it should be continued to be archived by KpBot in the current format splitting the approved from declined (which I think is a bad idea as it means that "other" parties that may have been following a certain request have to look in two places instead of one to find the result if it wasn't the result they expected) or if we should configure CBot to archive it all on one archive page. I'll need to know this before I make a special module for OCA to archive these discussions (if it is the first option, it may require two clicks to archive correctly each time). — {{U|Technical 13}} 20:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh sure, an in-link from AN to this thread would be good to get some more eyes on this-I would like to hear from Kingpin too (already pinged) — xaosflux 20:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done — {{U|Technical 13}} 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Let's not make a big fuss about this proposal because all that will be achieved by inviting a broader community will be no consensus at all. The issue only really concerns the admins who patrol the PERM requests and who accord or decline them, and any bots that do the archiving. There is quite a small group of admins who work here and they do so fairly regularly. Whatever solutions the bot handlers reach, what we need to bear in mind are :
  1. Are we 100% certain that users who receive the additional group to their rights are given a notification through the system. AFAIK, the recommendation is that they check back at PERM (or check their rights log).
  2. Are we 100% certain that users who do not receive the additional group to their rights are given a notification through the system. AFAIK, the recommendation is that they check back at PERM (admins are not obliged to inform them).
  3. I think it appropriate to archive all admin decisions after seven (7) days in order to give 'weekend Wikipedians' a chance to log in.
  4. IMO, requests not yet handled by an admin should ideally be left permanently open until adressed. Exception: if NACd as 'not done' by a truly competent user such as Armbrust who has been doing it for years. Note: we do not want to invite a plethora of other NAO/NAC to these pages from admin wannabes - the unnecessary 'clerking' is bad enough already.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

KingpinBot was on Christmas holiday, sorry. Running again now. As far as problems with if the bot does die for good, I can always be contacted via email and make the source code available to someone else to run it (clearly I'm not particularly active myself these days). @Technical 13: As far as the problem of having to look in multiple places for an archived discussion if you don't know the result, I made a search box at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Archive a while ago specifically to deal with this problem. - Kingpin (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kingpin13:, @Technical 13:, @Armbrust:: I think we need to take a look at my questions above which no one has taken the trouble to address. Also, the archiving is still too fast, we have users reposting their declined requests within two days. All declined requests should preferably only be archived after 7 days. And thank you , Armbrust, for stepping into the breach and doing what you have been doing for years so much better than a bot. We ae getting to the stage on Misplaced Pages where in many cases we are placing too much reliance on bots. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    The control for how long the bot waits before archiving is at User:KingpinBot/wait.css. Feel free to up the number. As far as the reliance on bots goes, it's not a problem with the bot or bots in general so much as this operator in this case. This kind of task is a complete waste of time to do manually. - Kingpin (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please bear in mind that this is coming from someone with no clue about bot programming, but perhaps it would make sense to leave declined requests a bit longer than accepted ones in order to insure the user has seen them? When granting permissions, I certainly hope all of us are leaving the standard talk page messages for the user whose requests are granted, making the  Done notation here is just a formality so others know not to review the request and the bot knows to archive it. There is not, and should not be any such protocol for declined requests. If we leave everything up for a week the page could get quite crowded at times, if the bot could remove accepted requests that would cut it way down. So, is that possible and if so should we do it? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem I have with leaving these requests around longer is that they are already left around too long as it is which has constantly caused page size transclusion errors with {{Admin dashboard}}. I'd rather see them archived immediately when resolved and then have the archiver post a message on the requester's talk page giving them the result and a link to the archived result. — {{U|Technical 13}} 22:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I kind of like that idea, but not the immediate part. Just today I ran across what I feel to be a poorly reasoned decline of a request, and have asked the declining admin to reconsider and/or provide more solid reasoning for their decline. If the request has been bot-archived the as soon as it was declined I would never have known. There is also a minor issue of at the request for confirmation. As we all know, most request there are declined. However, we are dealing almost exclusively with brand new users there. I for one feel it is important in almost all cases to welcome those users, even (especially actually) if they deeply misunderstand what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. Unfortunately not everyone sees it that way and there are some who just decline requests without following it up with a welcome on their talk page, so I end up following up for them and welcoming all the people they decline. As this is an editor retention/WP:BITE issue I feel it is pretty important.
Somewhere in between "a week" and "immediately" lies a middle ground that will keep the page from being cluttered but alow some time for review. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What if it was immediate with a 7 day rolling archive like RFPP has? Then admins that want to follow the feed can but it won't break the dashboard for others. As for the concerns of biteyness with new user's requesting confirmed, part of the process of archiving those requests could be to automatically welcome those users with a template designed specifically for them. Kind of like what I do with User:Technical 13/Scripts/ACC WikiLove for Account Creation (since the bot that is suppose to do the welcoming for that project has been down longer than I've been a member). Thoughts? — {{U|Technical 13}} 23:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy at 400 mainspace edits?

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

I see administrators usually declining users under 400 mainspace edits by suggesting to enroll in CVUA after the user has reached 400 mainspace edits ("when you have made 400 or so edits to articles you may wish to enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more"). However, on the CVUA page, under Goals, it says 200 mainspace edits minimum instead of 400 to enroll in the program. Shouldn't it be suggested at 200 mainspace edits instead of 400? HelloThereMinions 04:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:NE Ent removal request

 Done — xaosflux 15:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Please remove autopatrolled from my account NE Ent 22:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done — xaosflux 22:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

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

This edit request to Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/File mover has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

So I can submit my request. ťəäçħӛṿəř 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: It's unclear what you are asking for. This is the page for requesting permissions, but you need to state exactly what permissions you are requesting and why you are requesting them. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} 21:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ajaxfiore

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

(From Special:Diff/642403645)

I would like to renounce my Rollback privileges. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done — xaosflux 05:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pending Changes Reviewer

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

I would also like to renounce my Reviewer privileges. Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done — MusikAnimal 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

This edit request to Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Account creator has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to change the photograph currently showing on wikipedia on my page information for Diana Binks. Please confirm how i can do this by email to binksdb@outlook.com Many thanks . Diana Binks


StrictlyDB (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. E C K S A E S  17:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Oversight and Checkuser should also include identification. Yes it's on the pages focusing on them but it wouldn't hurt to mention it here.
 Comment: Not sure that's needed here, a link is provided to more information, that should suffice. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's get real about rollback

I think some of us may be taking request for rollback a bit too seriously. I think we should be aware of the reality of the situation when reviewing these request, to wit:

  • Rollback is really no more "powerful" than the undo function, it's just ever-so-slightly easier
  • If someone misuses it it is a matter of just a few keystrokes to remove it again
  • WP:TWINKLE has a much better rollback function and all you have to do to access it is turn it on in your preferences literally the second you register an account

Personally I never had rollback until I became an admin and I never missed it because I use twinkle. Actually, I would rather not have it as it just gets in my way but apparently if you are an admin you have it whether you want it or not. The point is, this is an extremely low-level user right, there is literally nothing a user with rollback can damage that a user without it couldn't, and we implicitly grant it to every single registered account by having twinkle available to them from day one.

I don't know that any formal policy changes are needed here or anything, but I'd like to discuss the matter with PERM regulars and anyone else with an interest in rollback requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Beeblebrox, I agree with most of what you said. Twinkle isn't available from day one, it's available from whenever autoconfirmed is obtained (day 4 if they have 10 edits). Also, the only real reasons to have rollback is to be able to use a few userscripts and tools like Stiki and Huggle. I'm actually wondering if the hat shouldn't just be done away with or rolled into reviewer or something. Scripts and tools that rely on it could certainly be updated. Is there any valid reason for keeping it around and not doing this? — {{U|Technical 13}} 23:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    It's actually possible to use Twinkle without being registered, but I won't get into details. If "real" rollback is ever changed to not bypass things like the spamblacklist, I'd support removing the rollbacker group and giving the right to autoconfirmed (or maybe even user). Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
After considering a request many times, I find the TW more easy since pressing UNDO usually fails from an edit conflict. The difference of course is the twinkle and the permission allows it on one click. You just have to be more careful. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ...Or instead of having the rollback, why don't we just do a dummy edit on a previous version of the page we want to restore, save, and magically, a non-rollback ... rollback! Seriously, I always found this user right to be a bit redundant, given that the function can be accomplished via other means. Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think getting rid of it as a separate user right probably makes a lot of sense. It could instead be an optional gadget like twinkle. I know it is a prerequisite for some anti-vandal tools, but frankly I don't really think it should be the job of admins at PERM to act as the gatekeepers for those tools, unless they want it done directly as is done with AWB. However, to make that change will require a big RFC, and I'm in the middle of putting together one of those on an entirely separate issue right now and it will probably need me to babysit it for a while after it goes live. Anyone up for it? I can at least offer advice on setting it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Possibly not worth worrying about, but rollback links--unlike Twinkle links--show up on the history and recent changes, which makes it easier to revert edits that are obviously revert worthy without checking the diff (e.g. if it's an obvious malicious blanking as per the size change and summary, or when edit warring with a vandal or reverting oneself), and also makes it possible to see which edits in recent changes are current revisions. Twinkle also opens popup windows, which may not be desirable, is allegedly slower, and may stop working when we upgrade to MW 1.26. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather have rollback than resort to using Twinkle's "vandalism" links (I haven't got round to asking, though). ekips39 01:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Twinkle links show up on History and I never use RC because that feed is useless here so can't say for sure there. Twinkle is compliant with the upcoming changes, and as long as you're not using any of the other Category:JavaScripts using deprecated elements ( 0 ) scripts (you can comment them out until fixed) you should be fine. — {{U|Technical 13}} 01:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
      Oh, and the default popup behaviour can be overridden in preferences. — {{U|Technical 13}} 01:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
      After discussing this on IRC we've concluded that, no, there are no links on the page created by appending the query string ?action=history (which is what I meant by "the history", as opposed to the diff view). Yes, Twinkle links could be added to the history, and to RC as well I'm sure, which I disagree is useless. I see that my concerns are not strictly valid: there is no pressing need for rollback to exist, as Twinkle performs the same function. But is it really worth it to get rid of rollback? I don't see what we'd gain by doing so; we'd have less examination of those wanting the right, thus increasing the risk that it would be misused (indeed Twinkle can be abused, but having at least some people go through the scrutiny of rollback requests cuts down on that kind of thing), and modifying the Twinkle script and its preferences seems a great deal of fiddling for little benefit. ekips39 06:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want to sound negative, but do we really need to be discussing any of this? Is it a high priority for our volunteer programmers who have badly functioning tools on Labs to fix? Frankly I never really understood the difference between Twinkle's rollback and the user right Rollback - which leads me once more to think thst it's only of interest to the hat collectors and greasy pole climbers. Was there ever anything essentially wrong with the archiving? Except perhaps that the declined request were archived too soon. Do we even need a bot at all to do the archiving? We had a human bot for years who actualy did a good job of it as de facto PERM clerk. He also fixed a lot of other stuff on the fly too, such as malformed requests, vandalism, and other junk. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    Rollback is (was?) necessary to use some other tools like Huggle, which is the only reason why I ever got it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    I assume that if rollback were eliminated, one would gain access to those tools via a request on wherever you make special requests now. This would create more work, potentially balancing out the reduction in work created by eliminating the rollback request page, though there would be some overlap between current requests for rollback and future requests for access to those tools. ekips39 06:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I assume that if rollback were eliminated, one would gain access either through gaining access to the group it was added to (perhaps reviewer, or if it passes the proposed 'vandal figther/senty') or a CheckPage like AWB does. This would still be less work because it would only be requests for people that want to use those tools specifically and not everyone that 'just wants the hat' or misunderstands what the group does/is for. I think elimination of the hat is a net gain. You are welcome to disagree, and I encourage productive discussion if that is the case or an agreeance to disagree. :) Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} 14:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I forgot about the need of the Rollback right to access Huggle. My bad. Perhapd deprecate the Twinkle version of Rollback? (although I'm not saying I come across a lot of misuse of either tool. I've probably never stripped more than three or four users of their Rollback flag). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Since counter-vandalism is what rollback is (primarily) intended for, it makes sense that it's the borderline prerequisite for the semi-automated tools. So long as rollback is the key to powerful software like Huggle and STiki, I think we need to be careful who we grant the right to. There's plenty of wiggle room, however. For example, if the user has 100 mainspace edits, but from those it is clear they know how to tell the difference between good-faith edits and vandalism, and are they are willing to help out, I think we can take the leap of faith and ignore the 200 mainspace edit rule. Similarly, unless they have themselves been disruptive in the past, I don't think it's necessary to look beyond contributions relevant to counter-vandalism. It's okay if the only thing they're interested in is reverting vandals all day with Huggle. It is fun, constructive, and we could always use another helping hand. All this being said, I'd consider pending-changes reviewer the lowest bar for user rights, as it merely re-enables a tacit ability autoconfirmed users possessed prior to the implementation of pending changes—the ability to approve anonymous edits (this explanation borrowed from the page notice). For this reason I think pending-changes reviewer is less focused on fighting vandalism but more so just understanding basic policy and with that being able to infer if any given edit is appropriate for the encyclopedia. Finally, barring blatant misjudgement, I respect any admin's decision and do not question their decisions in granting the rights or declining requests. I also like the system of pinging admins who have recently declined requests from a new requester. They may be able to offer insight into how the user's competence has improved. It would be nice if we had a bot that automatically did this, though! — MusikAnimal 21:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Categories: