Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/December 2008

December 02

User:Shploom

• Shploom (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

I revert any vandalism I see, although I would like a way of being able to actually seek it out, rather than just randomly stumbling upon it. I rely on Wikipedia for many things and wish to give something back to the Wikipedia community for their hard work. Thanks. Shploom (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry, but you need more experience, both overall and in vandal fighting. Come back in a few months with some more contributions and experience. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)====User:Gowilhi====

• Gowilhi (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

I am tired of people being afraid to look things up on Wikipedia because they know anyone can vandalise it. Its great that now there is something to get rid of vandalism quicker than ever! Soon I hope everyone will be able to trust Wikipedia for all information needed.(~JDM~) (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but with under 150 edits it's hard to grant. Please use WP:UNDO and reapply in a couple of weeks. Pedro :  Chat  23:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)====User:Stevencho====

• Stevencho (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

This is an ingenius feature! I have spent months going to recent changes, then finding vandalism, going to the older page, reverting the vandalism, then saving. But if I were allowed permission to use this rollback feature this would equip me with access to furthur and faster fight vandalism. I thank deeply whoever invented this program. Stevencho (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done I appreciate your tenure on WP but rollback is a powerful tool and I'd prefer to see a lot more recent activity specificaly using WP:UNDO as a tool Pedro :  Chat  23:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)====User:Kirachinmoku====

• Kirachinmoku (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

I would like to use huggle to undo vandalism. I was told to come back in a months time, and its been roughly a month, so here we go again! Kira Chinmoku (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Though ive just looked at the history, apparently its only been a week or so. Gosh, it sure feels like a month! Kira Chinmoku (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Please see here where User:Ioeth told him/her to stop requesting as it was classified as Forum Shopping and to come back in a month, not a week. From,
Limideen 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Forum shopping. Continued requests will likely result in the a very long wait to ever get them. -Djsasso (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)====User:Paulkappelle====

• Paulkappelle (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

i would like rollback rights, i've been very active in fighting vandalism. i know im only around with an account for a short while but i have understood the policies for rollback. thanks, Paulkappelle (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done I'm sorry, and please don't think your hard work so far is not valued but, you only have a day and a bit and less than 100 edits. A bi more time (a week or so) to demonstrate your accuracy in using WP:UNDO would be a good idea. It would also be helpful to WP:WARN editors when you revert vandalism. Pedro :  Chat  15:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)\\

User:Emarsee

• Emarsee (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

I am currently using Twinkle to revert vandalism edits, but Twinkle is currently too slow to revert vandalism edits. I wish to use the Rollback feature to increase the speed of reverting vandalism. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done I regret to disappoint you, but this warning from an admin is too recent. Edit-warring is not compatible with rollback permission. Please, apply a month or two later. Ruslik (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:MHLU

• MHLU (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

Revert nonproductive language. It's faster than the undo feature. MHLU^talk 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this should not be approved until a good explanation for this is given. I'm not prepared to grant a potentially disruptive tool to someone caught sockpuppeting. Another admin may wish to review this however and see if my WP:AGF has gone AWOL. Pedro :  Chat 

[1] --MHLU^talk 22:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you solicit input from someone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests. I'd also note you should reference this page when asking. I'm also puzzled that you indicate on your user page you are semi-retired but still need this tool. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This was caused by opened computer + distrust of the Wikipedia community. I will never trust the Wikipedia with this obscene manner again. MHLU^talk 14:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Don't you think sockpuppeting is jocular. MHLU^talk 19:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done -Djsasso (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

December 03

User:T*85

• T*85 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

Have been using twinkle and think I could do a better/faster job with rollback T*85 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Not done. You have less than 500 contributions. You need more experience. Please, apply a month or two later. Ruslik (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Singularity42

• Singularity42 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

I've been contributing for a while now, mostly on pages related to Canadian law, etc., and some of those pages are prone to vandalism. While it's straightforward enough to revert the occasional piece of vandalism, sometimes a number of vandalising edits take place before I can revert them, making it easier to just rely on an editor who already has the rollback feature. With the rollback feature I will be able to more proactive in protecting articles from vandalism. Singularity42 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done I'm sorry, but even including your acknowledged IP contributions you have barely 100 edits. Your use of WP:UNDO seems okay, but I'd like to see a bit more before granting a relatively powerful tool. Please don't think you work is not valued - it is - and I urge you to carry on and pop back here or ask me directly in a couple of weeks. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

December 04

User:45Factoid44

• 45Factoid44 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

I now a have some background in Vandalism reverting and would like to use Huggle(a more efficient and functional took than Twinkle in my opinion from what I've read) which requires this privilege as a pre-requisite to use. --User:45Factoid44

 Not done I have concerns (primarily) because of recent concerns with your identification of vandalism and (secondarily) because you have been blocked w/i the last month. Please apply again in a week or two to allow you to demonstrate more clearly that you can identify (and revert) vandalism. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For the third or fourth time in a row...Thank you. Considering that you say this every time no matter what my situation has happened to be, I will not be applying again. Huggle isn't worth is the bureaucratic nightmare neccessary for the added conveinance. And for the record if page blanks and blatant gibberish and swearing(what I've reverted most recently with Twinkle) aren't vandalism, then I don't know what is. Good Day.96.5.66.240 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the previous denial by User:Pedro was on October 9, before either the block or the concerns I'm referring to (see here). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My reverts since the block can be defined exactly as stated above with one exception which was rescinded immediately. I also have per my talk page and discussion linked to via talkbacks administrator support in turning over a new leaf since the block. There is no reason with a resume of numerous and increasingly more efficient reverts why this should be such an issue. It's plain as day what I do and do not define as vandalism by that resume and if there were doubt I spelled it out above. 45Factoid44 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I want a second opinion based on the above and if I am again denied I'd like to request the details of what a path to future approval would look like on my talk page so there would be no questions. Thanks. 45Factoid44 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

December 05

User:Ja_1207

• Ja_1207 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

i want to revert the vandalisms in the Survivor Philippines article when the main editor in there is not present, i do not vandalize, nor make major edits, i just check grammar and spellings in different articles... Ja 1207 (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done While you have been making good contributions, you only have 84 total edits to Wikipedia, and from your contribs, I can see that only 3 of those were using the undo function. I can't, in good conscience, grant such a powerful tool to an editor with so little experience. Please reapply later when you have more. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

well, ok, thanks anyway...i've came up of a similarly faster way of undoing vandalism...though it doesn't say that i "undid" such edit...--Ja 1207 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

December 06

User:Jake Wartenberg

• Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

I would love to be able to use Huggle! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Unfortunately, you have less than 250 edits, which is far too low. Your contributions have been fine so far. Keep participating in vandalism fighting and apply again after a week or two. Ruslik (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

December 07

User:Fastily

• Fastily (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

I mostly tag images which are in violation of Wikipedia's image policies but I also look at the pages delinquent images are linked to and remove any vandalism I see. The rollback feature would be very helpful to me in performing this task. Fastily (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done As far as I can see you do have nearly no experience in reverting vandalism. I may recommend using tools like Twinkle or undo in order to gain some experience in this area before reapplying. —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

{{tl:Done}} Ruslik (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We reviewed this user's request simultaneously and I had already assigned rollback to them, when I discovered that you had already denied the same request. I think we can live with the fact that wikipedia will have one more rollbacker? Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you reviewed this user's last 500 edits back to March 2008, as I did, before you decided on this request? When I did this I found barely a revert of vandalism. Granting rollback to users with little experience is just okay, but granting it to users, which have nearly no experience is not okay. Especially not if the request was declined already. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed. I checked several reverts that I found and detected no problems. I guess we have different standards. I want to apologies again, but I did not know that you already declined this request. If I had known I would never have given the rollback. However, in my opinion, it would be unfair to remove rollback several minutes after it was granted. Ruslik (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, it might be helpful to point to the reverts. I can't say I found any in the last 500 contribs. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Ruslik (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@PeterSymonds: I reviewed the last 500 edits very carefully and there exactly two reverts of vandalism (on the same article): 05:11, 8 April 2008 and 05:11, 8 April 2008.

@Ruslik0: While there are different standards, there are sill some guidelines/principles. I may cite Wikipedia:Requests for permissions: “Users who do not demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting, either because they have no or little history of doing so, or show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right.” The two reverts I named above do clearly not constitute such a history. Therefore, if you don't remove rollback yourself, I regret that I will have to bring this to the noticeboard. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Just to correct what you wrote above: Two of the four reverts you name above are evidently not reverts of vandalism ([6], [7]). —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PeterSymonds asked for examples of reverts in general. As to vandalism you missed this [8]. I will remove rollback if you continue to insist (it was my error after all). However I think this user is able to distinguish vandalism from good-faith edits. So I ask you to reconsider. Ruslik (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seriously, do you want to argue about whether the user has 2 or 3 reverts of vandalism? I don't want to. Regardless of whether User:Fastily has 2 or 3 reverts of vandalism, both can't constitute sufficient experience to get rollback. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I removed rollback. However I strongly disagree with your interpretation of necessary prerequisites for rollaback. Ruslik (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think this is my interpretation. As long as I have been an admin I always helped out here (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback) and therefore I think I can say from my experience that it's a rule that users with such a little experience in reverting vandalism are not granted rollback. However, if you don't believe me it would be completely okay with me if you ask for a review at the noticeboard. Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

December 08

User:hintss

• Hintss (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

to use huggle for vandalism reverting ^H_iⁿ_t^s_s ^talk 06:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but you recently got blocked for overly enthusiastic use of hot-cat and I can see something similar with Huggle happening. I can't see any evidence of WP:UNDO use - you should use that to demonstrate active vandal fighting for the time being then reapply. Pedro :  Chat  13:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

December 09

User:Mythdon

• Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)

To fight vandalism more efficently —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done - I would like to see a more consensus-based approach to your interactions with other users before granting rollback. You selectively edited out a 3RR warning from your talk page just this week, and I see a tendency to "shoot first, ask questions later" which might not be so helpful to the project if you had rollback at this time. I also don't see a whole lot of vandalism fighting in your history to judge by.  Frank  |  talk  20:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)