Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:16, 10 January 2008

This page was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by Nominator.

Archives

• Archive 2006-01-06
• Archive 2006-08-08

• See also: June 2005 and January 2008 on the wikien-l mailing list

Where do we stand?

Where are we at with this one? What objections are left to address? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bots

I have made a proposal to let some bots be granted this feature at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Rollback to the bots!. Crossposting as this proposal is relevant to this proposal. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Is there a bot that will be able to archive requests? I'm sure we're going to be getting a slew of requests over the next few days. -- tariqabjotu 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ST47 was going to work on one, I'll get him onto it. Meanwhile, I created Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback/Archive 1 - feel free to manually archive at will. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had to block a User:RFRBot because it was not approved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a clone of another of ST47's bots so it's ok, I think it got unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RFR

Does {{rfr}} need protection? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, likewise the header for the main page. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fully-protected the template and move-protected RfR itself to match other pages like ANI and RFPP. Acalamari 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User rights conflicts

Why does the "give rollback" page not warn you if there's a conflict, or has this not been implemented yet? I'm asking because this just happened. Acalamari 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the end of the world, it happens with protection - I'll have a word with the devs though. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know it happens with protections (happened to me earlier). :) It's just that it would be handy for a conflict alert, like with blocks. Acalamari 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed this in rev:29526, in a slightly different way. If you're changing someone's userrights to the same thing, it will just silently fail to log it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request requirements

Is it required that all requests be made here? If, for example, a user were to request rollback on an admin's talk page, should that admin send them here or are we free to simply review the request and give/deny it as the situation warrants? I'm assuming this is an RfA type situation, and the requests must be made here. - auburnpilot talk 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, and something I'd be willing to look at. It would be a good idea to require requests to come through here. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing.   jj137 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have an answer here? I am very curious to know.   jj137 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all up for discussion on the matter - I say yes. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we should require them to come through here, its not a big thing, so having it able to be handed out whenever should not be a big problem. Viridae 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't really think they should have to either. I mean, it isn't as big a deal as something like RfA; the advantage to coming here though is it will probably be fulfilled much quicker.   jj137 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for discussion as well, by the way.   jj137 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I anticipate this page running smoothest if it functions like WP:RFPP. I.e. You'll get the fastest response here, but there's no problem with asking a specific admin directly as long as you're not forum shopping. It works well. – Steel 02:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Viridae 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please, if the right is granted outside of a formal request, please ensure the granting summary is adequate and informative. I've been reviewing some of the log summaries and some are, well, poor, and some are good. Some examples: "vandalism fighter"; "Dude, this is *Jimbo*!"; "active vandal fighter in an ignored area"; "as there are no policy yet..." (this was granting User:Willy on wheels rollback rights - self-reverted a few minutes later); "requested for RC patrolling"; "Frequent vandal fighter/rc patroller"; "promotions"; "look ma, i'm changing jimbo's permissions!" (sigh or :-) depending on mood); "'zilla use with great care"; "liek zomg vandalbot!"; "asked me for it via IRC"; and "trollback" - those last two worry me... Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Trollback was me - it was a typo :( Viridae 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Steel359 has the right idea, this is a place to get admin attention for this issue, but not the only way. 1 != 2 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes; if someone requests it on your talk page, there's no point in having them bring it here if you are going to grant it anyway.   jj137 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the final choice here should be left up to the deciding admin.   jj137 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally confused...

Who decided there was consensus to implement this? I looked over Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator rollback and the mailing list and I haven't figure out what group decided the vote was a consensus to implement the policy. I'm assuming it was the dev's, but can anyone point me to where the justification for considering the vote a consensus to implement? Apparently I'm blind as I can't find it :P. Justin 00:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're blind, so am I, because I don't see where the implementation was decided either. As far as I can tell, the discussion regarding how this should be implemented has barely started on Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator rollback. - auburnpilot talk 00:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The devs looked over discussion for the poll and decided there was consensus - they didn't justidy themselves, they just make decisions and implement or don't. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"The devs looked over discussion for the poll and decided there was consensus." That's the generous way of looking at it. --kingboyk (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well ultimately the decision on adding features lies with the developers. Presumably on review of the relevant discussions, the developer in question decided the feature should be added to the English Misplaced Pages. I think its taken everyone a little by surprise (the user rights log is a mess already) but I think everyone's doing a good job of creating a decent infrastructure for granting this right so far. WjBscribe 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The last time this policy was discussed the vote was 216/108 (66.66% approved) and failed. This one is 304/151 (66.81% approved) and passed. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't WP:RFA's typically require 70-75% for approval? This consensus stuff is far too complicated for my brain. Justin 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of note is also I guess that last time it was not really technically possible yet to grant rollback per user, because the developers had not implemented it yet. Therefore last time the developers had nothing "to grant" to the wikipedia users and now that they can, they might have decided that the arguments of the oppose-voters are not strong enough to negate the obvious positive effects this may have on the overall project. I'm taking a wild guess, but I'm pretty sure the reasoning would have been something like that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to know I am not the only one who missed something ;) Alexfusco 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh, many people forget that Misplaced Pages is, above all, a technocracy; the development gods play a pivotal role in all technical decisions. Just hope they don't have Special:Makepillarofsalt implemented yet. :) krimpet✽ 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The devs just turned the tool on. It is up to the community to draft policy as to how it is used. 1 != 2 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the disputed tag. I disagree with this being added, I disagree with how its been added, and I disagree there was consensus. -Halo (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's more comments on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_rollback -Halo (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was not gained for this policy

See discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-administrator rollback. Doc glasgow commented elsewhere:

Certainly people were determined to force this through no matter what. Six day polls called at Christmas holidays. The poll is closed without warning. We are told that the oppose arguments made no sense. And 65% reached in a hurry is declared a consensus. This is madness and the whole notion of community, discussion and consensus has been thrown out the window. And why should the judgement of a dev which is flawed be a "done deal"?

In no way can this be considered "policy". -- Earle Martin 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. At the very least we shouldn't be putting a watchlist notice about this up, and this page should reflect that rollblack status may be taken away, once this is corrected. -- Ned Scott 01:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Would this page benefit from semiprotection? As a non-autoconfirmed user would be unlikely to get rollback... --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already sprotected it. It is also fully protected from moves. Nakon 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Process for review

So no process for review? Just "decline" and that's it, ever? Nakon said "maybe" on my request and when I answered his concerns, someone else came along and had declined it and I get a bot note on my talk page saying, "sorry!".. so not even a review of my explanation to Nakon's "maybe" ? Geesh. It wasn't even there long enough to be read before the bot removed it. -- ALLSTARecho 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No does not equal never on Misplaced Pages, just come back in a month, explain you've been previously turned down and we'll look at the situation again. Nick (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I just think it's not a good process when a deciding admin leaves a "maybe" with concerns and I'm not allowed to address those concerns.. for a month apparently. -- ALLSTARecho 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You could try politely asking the administrator that turned you down for specific concerns and present your side of the story to the administrator who may decide to grant you the rollback tool. There are other rollback tools out there, this is just a slightly faster and less server intensive tool, it's in no way a reward or status symbol, so there's no reason to be annoyed at having to wait for a month. Nick (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked a little over a month ago for edit warring... Viridae 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

2 months. November 2007, and it was the only edit warring block I've ever had in all of my history on WP, where I had been trying to keep inaccurate info out of the Houston Nutt article because he had not been officially named the new football coach at University of Mississippi and people kept putting in the article that he was the coach. -- ALLSTARecho 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a little over 1 - november 30th. (ie 1 day of december) Viridae 01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, I'm not looking at this as a reward or status symbol. I do use Twinkle and quite efficiently. I just think there should be some sort of review process. We have Deletion Review, RfC, etc. and there should be one for this as well. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback review. Daniel (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see that anywhere on the main page. -- ALLSTARecho 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Any formal setup (template) for the Review, or do we just post a comment requesting review? _{El Greco} 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I didn't create it or have anything to do with it... Daniel (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To avoid too many pages, perhaps we should just create a single Rollback Noticeboard to replace both Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback review and Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback removal and to handle most other discussion on the issue. NoSeptember 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We could add those to the bottom of the current Requests for rollback page? ie

Rollback +

Rollback -

Rollback review

Viridae 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I address my request for review on the review page, or wait until this stuff gets sorted out? _{El Greco} 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in your case El Greco, you should just submit another request because all it's showing on Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback/Denied is:

<example snipped for formatting>

It's got yours lumped in with User:Welshleprechaun's request, with no reasons why you were denied or anything. Maybe you didn't request it with the right template, I don't know.. -- ALLSTARecho 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. It was due to the bot changeoverDaniel (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel beat me to it. The bot was a little fast. _{El Greco} 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, so you were denied. For a 3RR block 5 months ago?? Where is the policy that says users can't get rollback if they have "insert whatever here"? I'd be curious to see that policy. -- ALLSTARecho 02:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently the guidelines are "administrative discretion", hence why there's a process for review if you feel that this discretion is applied incorrectly. Daniel (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I posted my request for review at the link Daniel post above. _{El Greco} 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback review as this is far too new to be considering reviewing everything. Review boards to fix problematic review boards are well known not to work well - couple that with these reviews being of the *user*, and it will be a drama magnet. I suggest that people trust the outcomes initially, try to improve the request/removal review processes, and report any major problems to ANI. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So no process for reviewing grievances or answering admins concerns in relation to this circus other than adding to an already backlogged ANI? -- ALLSTARecho 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'll have a word with the devs though"

Ryan, I have a list of things that could do with developer attention. You said up above: "I'll have a word with the devs though". Would you be able to have a word with them about other things as well? (In case my point isn't clear, it is extremely annoying when developers, even though they are, like us, volunteers, are more likely to go ahead with things that are possible, instead of developing things that aren't yet possible - in other words, it is not really a matter of what the community wants, but what developers have found the time to work on). Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Basic issues

So what happens when two administrators disagree? --bainer (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One asks the other to reconsider? Viridae 01:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The universe explodes. Just kidding. In reality, they work it out without any namecalling or stress. Let's hope that can be done here... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If they can't work it out, or the user wishes to appeal, WP:ANI would seem to be the place to get admin consensus to grant or deny the rights just as it is for disputes over blocks and other admin actions. NoSeptember 01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Secret for your answer. Viridae 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Same thing that happens when admins disagree about other admin tools, we seek a higher consensus or if we revert war each other we get desysoped. 1 != 2 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User rights log

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the user rights log on en-wikipedia mostly consisted of granting of sysop rights before this process was implemented. What we now have is lots of "rollbacker" rights granting swamping the sysop ones. I can see an advantage in being able to get a simple log of the rollback rights granting activity (who is granting the tools and who is being granted the tools). Is it possible to filter the user rights log by "rollback"? I'm aware that you can get a list of rollbackers from Special:Listusers, but that is different to what I'm asking for, which is sort of Special:Log (type=rights) (ie. this), but limiting the results according to what right was granted (ie. right=rollback). Would this be feasible? Could someone "have a word with the devs"? Maybe we could have a vote on whether this sort of software change needs doing or not? Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. You --> Bugzilla and/or IRC, please. – Mike.lifeguard |  02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

With only about 30 sysop promotions a month, most will be rollback rights changes. A word search on "sysop" should let you jump to admin promotions. NoSeptember 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if you are looking at the entire log. Could we note down somewhere the exact date of the first rollback request, just so people can divide the log at that point (or their copies of that log). Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bugzilla and IRC are black boxes for me. Can the devs whistle up something so I can request things like this without using those processes? Like, oh, I don't know, the way requests for rollback allows people to avoid the black boxes of scripts and TWINKLE and AWB? My point is that those who know the right devs to talk to find it much easier to get their ideas even looked at! There should be a "request for bugzilla" noticeboard for those who would like to communicate their ideas to the developers, but don't want to register yet another account, or hang out at bugzilla. The developers I have the most respect for are those who (openly) come over to Misplaced Pages and take part in discussions and provide useful information, as opposed to those who (sometimes unintentionally) build up barriers between themselves and the community they are writing the software for (at least I think that's what they are doing, as opposed to writing the software because they like writing software). Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've chatted a bit with Simetrical: very hard to do, but a client-side script could do it (according to Splarka). I've added bugzilla:12571, but I have no high hopes. I image someone will do a script to get a similar effect. – Mike.lifeguard |  03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for this → Special:Listusers/rollbacker, or something different? -- Ned Scott 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, that's not a log.. never mind. -- Ned Scott 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a script for everything :)   jj137 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request time

I really want to have like a 10-15 min time-limit set for everyone in this page, so we could closely look at their edits, to check if there are fit for a powerful tool like rollback. Any thoughts Secret 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully. Daniel (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But what about the requests being granted outside this process? Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't really be being granted outside this to be honest. But I favour a 10 minues waiting time. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If an admin trusts the user to not abuse the tool, I don't see why there should be a "formal" request here. It's already in the logs and it can be easily removed by any other admin. This shouldn't be such a big deal. Nakon 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the way people are playing with Jimbo's permissions. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"It can be easily removed" - what, after a five day discussion to prevent it being called "wheel warring"? Daniel (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Or the admin could just talk it over with the other admin on their talk page. Nakon 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the 10 minutes to the main page, I doubt anyone would reject. Secret 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I object. I understand you want people to take their time, but there's no reason to take five minutes checking the person's history and then another five twiddling my thumbs. If it's a foregone conclusion, it's a foregone conclusion. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a notice that says there will be some delay. Some people I know are trustworthy while others I need to do more research on them. Acalamari 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"A powerful tool like rollback." Yeah... okay... if you say so. It really doesn't take that long to take a reasonably close look at someone's block log, contribution history, and AN/ANI posts. But, I would concede that for some of the requests, I'm not sure how the admin had time to even do that. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It takes me longer to load the edit count page than the time its' taking to approve most requests here. Daniel (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I can make a reasonable judgment in a few moments. Block log? Check. Sufficient # of contribs? Check. Contribs that suggest efforts to revert vandalism? Check. Those are my criteria. --Merovingian (T, C) 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But check the vandalism, if it's obviously edits in good faith, and it was tagged as rvv, then it becomes an major issue. Secret 02:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, but I highly doubt we get vandals that sneaky often enough. Also, there should be plenty of other edits to check in order to confirm overall good-faith editing. --Merovingian (T, C) 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If an admin makes a foolish decision call them on it, but insisting they take X amount of time when they may very well already know the person seems like rule cruft to me. 1 != 2 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) That's about the same criteria I use. I agree with 1! = 2; there is no point in waiting. There are a couple tools I use (this one, specifically) to quickly gather an edit count, by the way.   jj137 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I think two users should accept the request, rather than one, already, me and a couple of others complained about one editor, who's rollback was given a min after request. User:LaraLove removed his rollback. Thanks Secret 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not-mean-spirited sarcasm: I like the blinking note on Special:Userrights now. Nice touch, seriously. --Merovingian (T, C) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems it takes me about three minutes to check user and user talk pages, most recent contributions, the noticeboard search feature, the block log and the edit count. Of course, if something was amiss it'd take me longer, but three seems to be the going rate. Daniel (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree that there should be some sort of note, just poking fun at good ol' <blink>. --Merovingian (T, C) 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

At the rate we're going, any editor who puts his name on this list will get the rollback button. A total of 8 requests have been denied out of 84. 90% approval is going to make this new access level as abundant as Twinkle itself. Ripe for abuse, if you ask me. Someone jumped the gun here; We need to either 1) shut down this process immediately until we define some sort of stable criteria or 2) slow down the promotions. There's no deadline to get this all sorted out, so we can take our time. Sean William @ 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Slow down the promotions, I would even suggest having a minimum of a few hours until a request is granted. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with slowing down the promotions — even waiting one hour is plenty for any concerns to be aired and discussed, and if it needs further discussion we can postpone making a decision for as long as needed. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A minimum of one hour I'd suggest, probably worth noting that in bold in the header. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but the rate of new requests is slowing. --Merovingian (T, C) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, while we're on the point of slowing down promotions, can we also slow down the archiving so that admins can double-check and review whether the grants/denials of the tools is proper? —Kurykh 03:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree: I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the archiving was too fast. Acalamari 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a real difference as long as there's a "paper" trail? --Merovingian (T, C) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Discussion is faster on the main page. Posting probable objections on an archive page isn't a place where you might get a response. —Kurykh 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well of course you wouldn't open up discussion on an archive page. You'd take it to ANI, no? --Merovingian (T, C) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you just slow down the archiving, you won't have to further bloat ANI with such matters, right? —Kurykh 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's true, ANI has enough to deal with. --Merovingian (T, C) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to rush things. Look at RFPP, which is something more important than this, and more pertinent to the encyclopedia. You don't see a rush to archive. —Kurykh 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added it into the header that we should leave requests for one hour. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An hour really seems unnecessarily long. I agree there should be some kind of delay, but an hour will simply cause a large backlog with little benefit. - auburnpilot's sock 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, an hour is too long, backlogs are a concern, also I want it that we could reject users without waiting an hour. Secret 03:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that you're basically writing policy as your going along is a sign that this policy wasn't well thought out? Why 1 hour? Why hasn't the community decided instead of you arbitrarily changing it? -Halo (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be changed, very easily - let's come to a consensus for a time frame, I'm really not fussed. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly changed it to fifteen minutes, with it clearly worded to allow for longer if concerns are raised (to ensure the applicant time to respond and have a discussion). Comments appreciated. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is fair. Acalamari 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the promotions, with the exception of a couple I don't have an issue with Secret 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I’m not quite sure about something. If I was to be denied rollback because I didn’t give an edit summary on a few reversions, how much “proof” should I give to let you know that I won’t make that mistake again in order to have said rollback functions? The pages are vandalized quite a bit, and I apologize for the edit summary issue, and I promise I won’t do it again, but if I don’t have it, it would take me longer. Isn’t there a way for admins to remove the function if I didn’t keep up to my word? When can I re-apply (for a lack of better words) for the rollback function?BlackPearl14 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You can "reapply" as soon or as late as you like, although administrators may not take too favourably to sooner as it may be considered admin shopping. I'm sure a fortnight of solid work followed by a reapplication citing your efforts to address the concerns would be ample. Daniel (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll say a couple of weeks Secret 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for taking the time to help me out with this one! I didn’t think that doing it right away made sense, but you’ve really helped me out a ton! Again, thanks! I will be sure to cite my work :) BlackPearl14 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be nice to have this issue to be fleshed out on more than a case-by-case basis. --Merovingian (T, C) 04:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

List of requirements

Maybe a list of requirements would be a good idea? It was frowned upon, but in retrorespect would probably be a good idea. I propose;

• 500 edits
• A clean block log in the past 6 months
• No sign of edit warring in the past 3 months
• Then, admin discretion if the meet these

Thoughts? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection?

Wouldn't it be wiser to fully protect the page until all people present here agree about the process at least. -- FayssalF - 04:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What problems are there about the current process? —Kurykh 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That thought crossed my mind, but I figured I'd be too rogue to do so. Sean William @ 04:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurykh, the process reeks of complete and total chaos. Sean William @ 04:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)