Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback

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

text: 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)
replies: text: By adding  on top, like I just did :-)  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why names/decisions removed so quickly? 

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

text: (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)
thread_title:  Twinkle 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're welcome: glad to be of help. Acalamari 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The discussion in question was too short and trivial for Godwin's Law to take place, apparently. bibliomaniac15 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Hitler never granted rollback facilities to his alternative account ;-)  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple accounts with rollback? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  template was added?  Keeper  |  76  |  Disclaimer 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: Excellent, and hopefully a decent time-before-archiving can be set as well. :) Acalamari 00:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  or  to prevent it being archived. Could Soxbot do the same? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid archiving 

message: 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)
replies: text: Page unprotected. Do with it what you will. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request