Wikipedia:What autoreviewer and rollbacker rights are not
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.|
- These rights are not prizes, titles or honours. They are simply tools to help you edit.
- These rights are not quality guarantees. Rollbackers can be, and have been, blocked.
- These rights are not promotions. They are only extra tools. Just because you are a rollbacker does not mean you will never make mistakes while reverting vandalism; just because you are an autoreviewer does not mean you will always maintain an NPOV in articles.
- Autoreviewer rights are not a way to vandalise unseen. There are many ways to spot vandalism, such as using Lupin's tools. Even though new page patrollers might not spot your vandalism, recent changes patrollers might. And don't forget the random page patrollers who just might come across your article.
- Autoreviewer rights do not indicate that the quality of your pages can be guaranteed. Just because you are trusted not to vandalise does not mean that your articles are good.
- Autoreviewer rights are not necessary. You don't really need them if you're simply trying to write an article or two.
- Autoreviewer rights are not for your convenience. Rather, they make life easier for new page patrollers.
- Rollbacker rights are not a means to edit war. Doing so may cause your right to be removed by an administrator.
- Rollbacker rights are not something to brag about. It's like having a screwdriver that only 1 out of 1000 people have. After all, probably 998 of the people have other kinds of screwdrivers. In this case, everyone else can revert and undo. Rollback is just another kind of tool.
- Rollbacker rights are not necessary. If you only patrol recent changes, say, once a month, why would you need to rollback?