Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requests for rollback redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:RFR

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 14 days

This page was nominated for deletion on January 10, 2008. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.

Why names/decisions removed so quickly?

Resolved

I was wondering what the rush is on removing rollback requests from the page so quickly? I understand not having a huge log build up, but there are definitely benefits to the transparency of information. I like to review reasons requesters do or don't get rollback and the brief discussion that sometimes happens. Maybe archive once per every 24 hours? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with them being removed so quickly (reduces the potential for over-dramatification exponentially), but there should be a clearer link to the approved/not approved archive on the page. (right now, as far as I can tell, its only in the section called "administrators"...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't even notice that. That would be fine. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that entirely answers my question, I guess a more prominent linking would help. How does one mark this resolved? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By adding {{resolved}} on top, like I just did :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

Some days ago I found a tool named "Twinkle", like a code inscribed into the monobook file, that can roll back vandal edits or bad edits. It has worked okay for me as of now, so I would ask why this rollback is necessary when tools like Twinkle is available? Chimeric Glider (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle does not work on some browsers, and regular rollback uses less bandwith. Malinaccier (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Twinkle works by loading the entire past page history and saving it back. It takes a toll on the servers. Native rollback doesn't do this, and is much faster. xenocidic (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts with rollback?

Okay, so maybe this post falls into the category of, "Stop asking stupid questions and just be bold," but I figured I'd make sure I wasn't creating a slippery slope of some sort. I'm an administrator, and have two accounts that I use on a regular basis: User:EWS23, which has the sysop bit, and User:Ews23, which I use on public computers to avoid compromising my admin account (something I find highly unlikely, but I fall into the better-safe-than-sorry category). Anyway, would there be any issues with my secondary account having rollback? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but if someone can find a good reason why users with multiple rollback accounts should be discouraged, I can live without it. Eric (EWS23) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rollback on my alternate account, so go ahead and give your account rollback. There is no policy on alternate accounts not having rollback. If you prefer if another admin did it for you, I'll gladly grant the account rollback. Acalamari 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No issues at all with legal sockpuppets accounts having rollback. A lot of admin accounts do have them, and that's never frowned upon. Only when multiple accounts have +sysop abilities will people start complaining! I granted the request but I realised you were an admin here, so you could've done that...Apologies. Happy editing, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift responses, and thanks for the rollback capability. As Acalamari suggested, I would have preferred someone other than myself grant the request anyway. Eric (EWS23) 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome: glad to be of help. Acalamari 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not supposed to happen like this. Where's the fighting? Where's all the bickering? Where's the DRAMA?!?! I thought this was Wikipedia. ;-) --Ali'i 13:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in question was too short and trivial for Godwin's Law to take place, apparently. bibliomaniac 1 5 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even Hitler never granted rollback facilities to his alternative account ;-) — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 17:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Multiple accounts with rollback would be great for segregating huggling edits. –xenocidic (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid archiving

What's the hurry to archive requests that have been answered? I prefer leave requests up for five minutes after I've answered in case other users wish to give their opinion for any reason. Just now, I brought up a concern in a request, and my concerns were responded to, but when I went to give my final response to address everyone, the whole request had been archived! Why the quick archiving? Acalamari 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are greased lightning, and models of efficiency! :-) Actually, valid point. What was the time frame that the bot (when running) would archive after the {{done}} template was added? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(since this posting, a new bot, User:SoxBot X has been commissioned/approved to archive RFR's that are closed. I've asked SoxBot a question regarding this issue here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, and hopefully a decent time-before-archiving can be set as well. :) Acalamari 00:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think RFRbot used to archive every quarter of an hour, on the quarter hours. So if a request was fulfilled at (say) 10:31, it would stay up for a reasonable period, but a request at 10:44 would be archived almost immediately. On the other hand, there was a tag that could be added to the {{done}} or {{not done}} to prevent it being archived. Could Soxbot do the same? — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 05:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

After Rjd0060 discussed this idea with me, I was bold and created a new proposed "request for permissions page" which would handle all admin-granted requests for permission here. It would basically keep it all organised onto one page. The page would handle rollback, IPblockexempt and account creator flags. It would be based on the current RfR page and the permissions could be granted by any admin after a flick through a users contribs/logs. Let me know your thoughts. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea, I was never even sure how users requested acct. creator other than just via a admins talk page. I will be sure to comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. Tiptoety ^talk 01:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, and great idea (if it's yours), RP. I echo Tip's sentiments here, specifically that there needs to be a centralized and governed place to grant extra tabs, be they rollback, ACC, or otherwise... Keeper | 76 | what's in a name?

Actually, I take no credit for this idea - Rjd0060 suggested it to me, we had a discussion and I created it. Guess I'm just bolder with things like this than he is ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well a round of applause for the both of you. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request

{{sudo}}

This might as well just be made into a redirect now. If so, it doesn't really need to remain protected either -- Gurch (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page unprotected. Do with it what you will. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]