User talk:Spolglans

About WP:GAME

regarding the recent request at WP:PERM/R, at the risk of creating bad ideas, I'd like to note that Twinkle is the usual tool of choice for doing so, and can be enabled in your preferences. There is probably no better tool for practising the proper application of warning templates (see WP:WARN for a list of what Twinkle gives easy access to, on user talk pages). Properly warning reverted users is one of the main things we look for when granting, or not granting, rollback.

As you have been explicitly granted an exception for using STiki by its developer, that may be fine as well, but I'd personally recommend not to do it either. Access to STiki for your account (<1000 edits) is normally tied to the rollback permission, which you have now been explicitly denied. If I may personally ask for this, please don't use STiki while proving your suitability for the permission.

Using any other tool like Huggle after an explicit denial of the required permission will likely be seen as gaming the system and result in a block from editing rather than the desired permission. Evading restrictions, as policy sections like WP:BE and WP:REVERTBAN show, is usually something the community strongly objects to, and does not evoke sympathies.

Rollback is a trust-based permission used by experienced editors to enforce community policies; rollbackers are expected to be accountable for their actions, warn users for problematic behavior and adhere to WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Ignoring community restrictions is usually not a helpful way to gain the community's trust, which is why I personally recommend to stick to Twinkle or similar free-to-use tools for now.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well hello, ToBeFree!

As I mentioned in the request itself - STiki is unfortunately dead (and it appears that it might be permanently so), so I don't expect that I'll be using that any more. I would, however, point out that STiki did not give me any additional powers to do anything with my account that I could not normally do - it just provided an (IMO) better interface with which to do those things.

Looking at WP:GAME, all potential violations appear to be predicated on abusive, disruptive behaviour - something that I'd like to think that I've not partaken in. From what I understand, the restrictions that individual developers choose to impose (or not) on who uses their tooling is not a matter of Wikipedia policy, but the discretion of the developer. Working from that principle, it would seem that the exception he made would be equally as valid as the initial restrictions he placed on it.

Out of curiosity, what's the thinking behind you requesting that I not use STiki on a personal note? It seems to me to be the case that the use of STiki to revert vandalism is no more an abuse of the system than Twinkle giving users without the actual Rollback permission a "Rollback" feature. What do you think? Is there a specific pattern to my edit history that you find objectionable, or is it more that you get 'bad vibes' from someone bypassing any form of restrictions? Feedback is always welcome!

Everything said above notwithstanding, I understand that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a community (and one that I would like to be more involved in, at that). As stated in my original request - the reason that I requested rollback permissions is that I want to do things in a more above-board manner and participate as a member of the community, so I appreciate you taking the the time to send me such a considered message :) My plan, going forward, is to use Huggle in read-only mode to get a nice feed of potential vandalism, and then make the actual edits with Twinkle for a month, then re-request rollback rights. Does that seem reasonable?

All the best,

Spolglans (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah 🙂 I hadn't noticed the "it is sadly now broken" part of the request, sorry. Regarding the reason for the request, yeah, it's pretty much a "bad vibes" concern and not criticism of any of your reverts, which, though, I didn't thoroughly investigate. It's not meant to be criticism of any decision made using STiki.

Regarding WP:GAME, I agree that the guideline is about bad-faith editing and that there has never been any bad faith on your part. The restrictions on tool usage are not always the tool developer's personal decision; WP:HG/C is built by the community, for example. I agree that if a restriction was purely the developer's personal decision, an exception granted by that developer is probably perfectly valid. With STiki, this seems to be the case. Hence, the request not to use the exception is purely a personal "bad vibes" concern from me.

Huggle can be configured to use a "software rollback" emulation like Twinkle, eliminating the technical need for the rollback permission. However, the design of Huggle, contrary to many other tools, makes it trivial to cause widespread damage that takes hours to notice and hours to undo. My personal estimation would be 5000 bad reverts before a block happens. The amount of disruption that can be caused by improper use of that specific tool is so extreme that the community has decided to limit its usage to manually approved users via the rollback permission. Huggle, I guess, is pretty much the reason why administrators are sometimes hesitant to grant the rollback flag. Using that tool for reverts without permission would be a disaster for one's reputation, and I had a feeling it could happen if I don't say anything. I'm relieved to hear that your plan is much more reasonable; using it in read-only mode to receive a list of changes is perfectly fine and works by default. It is, furthermore, a good way to practise using Huggle without risk.

If you ask again in a month, I'll happily be the person who adds the rollback flag. Feel free to ping me in your request. This short discussion has built valuable confidence.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi Spolglans,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

You may benefit from using RedWarn

Hello, Spolglans! I'm Ed6767, a developer for RedWarn. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to try RedWarn, a new modern and user friendly tool specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over two hundred other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on RedWarn's talk page at WT:RW. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed talk! 20:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Spolglans. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'll use the power with great responsibility :) Spolglans (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Spolglans,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]