Misplaced Pages

:Requests for rollback - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pedro (talk | contribs) at 13:29, 10 January 2008 (→User:j.sweeton@wnri.com: taken it to the village pump). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:29, 10 January 2008 by Pedro (talk | contribs) (→User:j.sweeton@wnri.com: taken it to the village pump)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Before using Rollback

Editors requesting Rollback should read Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature before using the tool. Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed.

Administrators: Please archive approved requests here, and denied requests here.

Shortcuts

The rollback feature allows intentionally nonconstructive contributions (vandalism) to be reverted more quickly and more efficiently than with other methods. User scripts have been written that mimic the functionality of rollback, but they merely automate the multi-step process, and are much less efficient, both in terms of bandwidth and time. Rollback links are displayed on page histories, user contributions pages, and diff pages.

Clicking on the link reverts to the previous edit not authored by the last editor. An automatic edit summary is provided and the edit is marked as minor. (An error message is returned if there is no last editor to which to revert).

The rollback option will not be displayed for revisions on pages that you do not have permissions to edit. e.g. Only administrators can rollback edits to fully protected pages.

Rollback is currently available to administrators and any user may request that an administrator add the right to their account. Rollback should not be used in content disputes. Rollback is not an honor or a sign of community trust; it is merely a technical feature and getting it is no more momentous than installing Twinkle, which is capable of providing similar functionality.

Process

Any administrator is able and permitted to grant rollback to a user in good standing. Administrators in Category:Misplaced Pages administrators willing to grant rollback requests have indicated a specific openness to being approached directly for rollback, without using this page. You may particularly wish to consider approaching them if a request here has not received any attention at all for a while.

Any editor in good standing may request the rollback feature on this page. To request rollback here, type {{subst:rfr|Your Username|Short reason for wanting rollback}} ~~~~ under "Current requests", below. Please do not copy and paste from existing requests.

Any editor may comment on the requests.

Learn about how to use the rollback feature at Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback. Read up on it at Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature.

Requesting removal of rollback

If an editor is using the rollback tool for edit warring, it is generally more productive to deal with the fact that he is edit warring, rather than with the precise fashion in which he is doing that. We have several dispute resolution mechanisms that deal with edit warring (e.g. WP:3RR, WP:RFC), and people who edit war with the rollback tool may have that tool revoked in addition to whatever other sanctions may be imposed (such as 3RR blocks).

If you wish the rollback tool to be removed from your own account, just ask any administrator.

Administrators

Administrators should not grant rollback to editors with a history of abusing the revert process. To grant rollback, go to Special:Userrights and add the rollback permission to the user's account. If there is misuse of the tool, it may be revoked by the same method. Consider leaving a note on the user's talk page regarding proper usage of rollback, you may use {{subst:rfr/granted}} for this.

Once an administrator has granted rollback or decided to reject a request, they should add {{done}} or {{not done}} respectively. The request should then be archived: approved requests for this month to here, and for previous months to here; similarly, declined request for this month are sent to here, and for previous months, to here.

Current requests

Place all new requests at the bottom of the page

User:Ilkali

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: ). Ilkali (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry but you need to show a better understanding of what rollback is for before we can grant you the tool. Spartaz 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. Kusma (talk) 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. Spartaz 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. El_C 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 Spartaz 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. El_C 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. Spartaz 11:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:j.sweeton@wnri.com

Currently using pop-ups, would like to try this new rollback procedure. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. No substantial issues here. Would welcome any other input though. Pedro :  Chat  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. SQL 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. Pedro :  Chat  12:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So... Where do we go from here? SQL 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Changing username Gnangarra 13:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(U)Indeed, Due to technical issues,  Not done SQL 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. Pedro :  Chat  13:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Reported at the village pump Pedro :  Chat  13:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Foolestroupe

see below - malformed requestPedro :  Chat  12:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Would like to try rollback please FoolesTroupe (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 Not done 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. Pedro :  Chat  12:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok Thanks anyway FoolesTroupe (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Heliac

I'm an avid vandalism patroller, who has been forced into early retirement by recent developments in popups that make them broken in internet explorer 6, my browser of choice. This new privillage would allow me return to wikipedia. I promise never to use it abusuively. thank you--Heliac (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Whilst I take your comments on board about your browser, I am nervous that you have made no edits at all in around seven months. Reversion is not the only thing to do. I am concerned that you will have sufficent policy/process knowledge due to your apparent extended break. This is not an out and out decline however, and I would appreciate other admin input. Pedro :  Chat  12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 Not done extended break only just returned. Gnangarra 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that's a valid reason to decline? all you're doing by setting this precident is encouraging anon vandalism, by showing them what rediculous hoops you have to jump through to get an effective, internet explorer 6 compatible revision tool.--Heliac (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Alas, there isn't really a lot of hard and fast policy associated with this process at the moment. The best I can advise is to take this thread to WP:ANI for a further review. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:John254

I have participated extensively in RC patrol. Access to server-implemented rollback would permit me to reverse vandalism far more quickly. John254 12:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:RollbackWaitPlease give sufficent time to review, due to historical block for misuse of a javascript roll back tool. Pedro :  Chat  13:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The block was a year ago. John254 13:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I originally gave rollbacker, but have removed pending decision. Apologies for my haste. ---- Anonymous Dissident 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
On review, I am minded to grant rollback in this instance, as the block is historical and recent reversions seem fine. Pedro :  Chat  13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There were concerns in November, but I think I'm still in favor of granting rollback. Kusma (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so I think we can give then. -- Anonymous Dissident 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done Pedro :  Chat  13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Got there first Pedro ;) -- Anonymous Dissident 13:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
oops Hope it took that okay - looks like we did it at exactly the sametime.... Pedro :  Chat  13:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Slysplace

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 Slysplace | 13:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Hourick

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. Hourick (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Yngvarr

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 Yngvarr 13:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)