Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Archives/2009/April/Notdone
- Razorflame (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)
- I've had time to think about the fact that it was a bad thing to use rollback against TOM, and now, it has started affecting my ability to fight vandalism appropriately on this site. I would therefore like to request rollback rights back. Thanks! Razorflame 22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Razor, it's only been two days since your previous request. Other admins have suggested you wait a week, so perhaps a few more days wouldn't hurt? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it starts hampering my ability to fight vandalism, then, yes, I would mind if it makes a few more days. Razorflame 22:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Not done Edit warring just a few days ago is not grounds for reinstatement yet. It requires a solid demonstration of judgement once again. Please apply after at least a week. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've already demonstrated good judgement. If you've been paying attention, you'll find that I've been using the undo tool only on vandalism in the past two days and I heartily disagree with this closure of my request as not done. Razorflame 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your attitude is a further concern. If you were in my position, seeing an editor edit warring after just two days, you would not grant the request. Or if you did, it would most likely be a poor judgement decision. You need to earn that trust back. That takes more than a few days. Another admin is willing to chime in, but I am not changing my mind before a week is up (at least). PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I must endorse Peter's decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with all above. Wait. Kennedy (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly I thought you were starting to learn patience finally. But again you are unable to control your requests for things. Rollback on a wiki this small isn't all that much more helpfull than undo. Just click on history and find the last good edit and hit edit then save (with summary of course)....takes you one second longer but does the same thing. -Djsasso (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with all above. Wait. Kennedy (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I must endorse Peter's decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your attitude is a further concern. If you were in my position, seeing an editor edit warring after just two days, you would not grant the request. Or if you did, it would most likely be a poor judgement decision. You need to earn that trust back. That takes more than a few days. Another admin is willing to chime in, but I am not changing my mind before a week is up (at least). PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've already demonstrated good judgement. If you've been paying attention, you'll find that I've been using the undo tool only on vandalism in the past two days and I heartily disagree with this closure of my request as not done. Razorflame 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it starts hampering my ability to fight vandalism, then, yes, I would mind if it makes a few more days. Razorflame 22:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Razor, it's only been two days since your previous request. Other admins have suggested you wait a week, so perhaps a few more days wouldn't hurt? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- NotGiven (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)
- I know its only been a few days since I last requested it, but its difficult to revert vandalism using undo, many times today I have been beaten by someone else, when I try to use undo, so I can't do it. Look through my contribs, all my edits are in good faith, I have not vandalised. Thanks NotGiven 10:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like to give rollback untill users are well into the multiple hundreds of edits or they have them elsewhere so I will leave this to another admin to say yay or nay. However, I will note that reverting vandalism is not a race so if someone beats you too it, that is actually a good thing. -Djsasso (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not done for now. I have no doubt that you would use the tools wisely. However, because you've only reverted vandalism once, I have no way to tell if you can determine what is vandalism and what isn't. Please re-apply in a few days once you have some more experience. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, is there a reason the one below is done and this one isn't? I see no difference between the two, except that is editor is new to Wikipedia whereas the one below is established at EN. When can we stop treating editors from en as some deity? They are no different here to any other editor. I would like another opinion on this. Goblin 13:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Papercutbiology has made several hundred edits and numerous vandalism reverts, whereas NotGiven only has a handful of changes. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- People from en are not dieties however, you can look at their edits to see if they know what vandalism is or not...vandalism does not look different on one wiki vs another. People here need to get it out of their head that what happens on en doesn't matter, because it does. For example an editor of 5 years on en is not the same as a two week editor on simple if they showed up the same day as the other editor on simple. The 5 year editor from en still has 5 years of experience that the other person does not have. Just because the language changes does not mean the person changes. -Djsasso (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that they are. What i'm saying is that this is a standalone wiki. Do you go to the French Wikipedia and expect to be given all sorts of priveledges because you're from en? Or the German 'pedia? No. So it should be the same here. And anyway, whatever happened to AGF? If we are going to set edit limits for Rollback, then let's put that in the criteria. This user is clearly here to help the wiki. And anyway, Rollback is no Big Deal - is it really going to kill the wiki? There are enough editors who monitor Recent Changes and IRC to see if there are options, and if there are then it can be removed, by a Steward if necessary. If this isn't a case of biting the newbs I don't know what is. BTW: i'm also going to check the archives for similar cases. I'm not letting this drop. Goblin 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Rollback is a big deal, its an admin tool and as such there needs to be some proof of knowledge/experience before getting it. You don't AGF things like this, just like we don't AGF and make everyone an admin. Notgiven has no vandal revisions to show he knows what he is doing. And yes, going to French or German wikipedia I would expect them to be respected more than a brand new editor. Just like most people here would repect French or German editors here more than a brand new editor because they built up a solid reputation. Go ahead and don't let it drop if you want, but each admin is allowed to have their own set of criteria for handing out rollback so there are bound to be contradictions. -Djsasso (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Goblin, you do realize that en has nothing to do with this, right? –Juliancolton | Talk 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Goblin, you're being ridiculous. Rollback is not a big deal at all, contrary to what Djsasso says. However, we do need to see that the user is able to use it well. If they have used it fine on enwiki, then there is no need to demand they use it here. The criteria even says if the person requesting is a rollbacker/admin then they can be granted automatically. Other wikis do matter. We are not a stand alone wiki. Majorly talk 14:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I mean its a big deal in that we need to see they have experience and its not just given out on good faith. Its not a big deal in terms of power or anything like that. And yes we are not a standalone wiki we are a WMF wiki which is part of a family. -Djsasso (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it's not a big deal then why is one being made? We've now got four editors discussing this - a lot of time could have been saved if one had just pressed "Give rights". It's a five second job. The user has got experience here, and in addition if you look at the other RfRB you will see that they say they have Admin and 'Crat experience elsewhere. Now while that could be questionable as they don't want to reveal their identity, we need to AGF and not go around biting our new users and effectively saying to them "we don't want you here because you haven't participated in another WMF project". If they mess up, you warn them and remove and block if appropriate. Yes, we are part of the WMF family, but we are not led by the events of en wiki and we should not let them rule us. Yes, a user might have trust and experience, but why should we treat them any dfferently? BG7THAT'S NUMBERWANG 14:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point. It's not a matter of how long it takes to grant the flag, it's a matter of whether we can trust a given user with the flag. Rollback is a very powerful tool, and before giving people the flag, we need to be confident that they can use it responsibly and appropriately. AGF doesn't apply to everything; if it did, we might as well give +sysop to every new account... –Juliancolton | Talk 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see the problem with this request. All the contribs are good (-faith, at least). If it were up to me, I'd have +Rollback'd already. Can't we just remove the rights if vandalism or bad faith reverting does occur? Kennedy (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point. It's not a matter of how long it takes to grant the flag, it's a matter of whether we can trust a given user with the flag. Rollback is a very powerful tool, and before giving people the flag, we need to be confident that they can use it responsibly and appropriately. AGF doesn't apply to everything; if it did, we might as well give +sysop to every new account... –Juliancolton | Talk 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it's not a big deal then why is one being made? We've now got four editors discussing this - a lot of time could have been saved if one had just pressed "Give rights". It's a five second job. The user has got experience here, and in addition if you look at the other RfRB you will see that they say they have Admin and 'Crat experience elsewhere. Now while that could be questionable as they don't want to reveal their identity, we need to AGF and not go around biting our new users and effectively saying to them "we don't want you here because you haven't participated in another WMF project". If they mess up, you warn them and remove and block if appropriate. Yes, we are part of the WMF family, but we are not led by the events of en wiki and we should not let them rule us. Yes, a user might have trust and experience, but why should we treat them any dfferently? BG7THAT'S NUMBERWANG 14:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I mean its a big deal in that we need to see they have experience and its not just given out on good faith. Its not a big deal in terms of power or anything like that. And yes we are not a standalone wiki we are a WMF wiki which is part of a family. -Djsasso (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Goblin, you're being ridiculous. Rollback is not a big deal at all, contrary to what Djsasso says. However, we do need to see that the user is able to use it well. If they have used it fine on enwiki, then there is no need to demand they use it here. The criteria even says if the person requesting is a rollbacker/admin then they can be granted automatically. Other wikis do matter. We are not a stand alone wiki. Majorly talk 14:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that they are. What i'm saying is that this is a standalone wiki. Do you go to the French Wikipedia and expect to be given all sorts of priveledges because you're from en? Or the German 'pedia? No. So it should be the same here. And anyway, whatever happened to AGF? If we are going to set edit limits for Rollback, then let's put that in the criteria. This user is clearly here to help the wiki. And anyway, Rollback is no Big Deal - is it really going to kill the wiki? There are enough editors who monitor Recent Changes and IRC to see if there are options, and if there are then it can be removed, by a Steward if necessary. If this isn't a case of biting the newbs I don't know what is. BTW: i'm also going to check the archives for similar cases. I'm not letting this drop. Goblin 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, is there a reason the one below is done and this one isn't? I see no difference between the two, except that is editor is new to Wikipedia whereas the one below is established at EN. When can we stop treating editors from en as some deity? They are no different here to any other editor. I would like another opinion on this. Goblin 13:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like to give rollback untill users are well into the multiple hundreds of edits or they have them elsewhere so I will leave this to another admin to say yay or nay. However, I will note that reverting vandalism is not a race so if someone beats you too it, that is actually a good thing. -Djsasso (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
reset That's exactly what I am saying... *sigh*. Anyway, Chenzw has said he will review it in a couple of days, so let's just leave it at that. NotGiven: Please come back in a couple of days after some more contributions. Sorry about this! BG7THAT'S NUMBERWANG 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
To Kennedy: And this is why rollback granting is subjective. I usually like to see atleast 100 vandalism reverts so that I can see if they undertand what is vandalism and what is a good faith edit that just looks like vandalism because roll back should be used on one and not the other. Good faith editing that isn't vandal revision doesn't show me a user knows that difference. -Djsasso (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Aleksa Lukic (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)
- If I going to be rollback, the Simple English Wikipedia will be more Secure. I at the moment checking recently changes with happiness, if I sees vandalism, usefully will be that fact - I have rollback especially tools AleksA ツ 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not done - I see no vandal fighting work thus far, and furthermore you were only unblocked a day ago. Please wait longer. Goblin 21:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi878 (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)
- I'm new to Simple English-wiki, but I've been on en-wiki for a while, and I thought I might be able to help here. Hi878 (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not done you haven't been around here long and you've never had rollback on the En wiki. give it some time here first Either way (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dungodung (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)
- Because he is a Steward, speaks english very well - , and for last he is not vandal, and he is administrator on sr.wiki! AleksA ツ 10:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Assigned permission, even though the user is not very active here. --Eptalon (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Err wait... stewards have global sysop (includes rollback) on all WMF wikis... Chenzw Talk 11:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Problem solved, rollback removed again (unnecessary, stewards are like admins in that resp.) --Eptalon (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, just for future reference, users should request rollback for themselves, not on the basis of a third party request. This just avoids granting rollback to people who don't want it. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not done Chenzw Talk 01:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, just for future reference, users should request rollback for themselves, not on the basis of a third party request. This just avoids granting rollback to people who don't want it. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Problem solved, rollback removed again (unnecessary, stewards are like admins in that resp.) --Eptalon (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Err wait... stewards have global sysop (includes rollback) on all WMF wikis... Chenzw Talk 11:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Assigned permission, even though the user is not very active here. --Eptalon (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Pixle1234 (talk · contribs · count) (assign permissions)
- I am an editor and vandal fighter. This would greatly help me help Wikipedia. Thank you! Pixle1234 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not done - Whilst you do look like a good editor, you have made just 5 edits so far, of which 3 were undoing vandalism. Please come back when you have a few more edits under your belt :). Regards, Goblin 19:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)